Jump to content

Talk:2024 Australian Jewish doxxing incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename article

[edit]

@Noteduck. I think the current name is a bit long. Here's a few other options I can think of at the moment:

  • Jewish Australian doxxing incident
  • 2024 doxxing incident
  • 2024 Australian doxxing incident
  • 2024 Australian Jewish doxxing incident (alt: 2024 Jewish Australian doxxing incident)
  • 2024 Jewish Australian creatives and academics doxxing incident (similar to current title)

My preference is: 2024 Australian doxxing incident or 2024 Australian Jewish doxxing incident. I am open to other ideas. דברי.הימים (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"2024 Jewish Australian doxxing incident" works pretty well if you agree? Noteduck (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources to add

[edit]

דברי.הימים (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

[edit]

Hi Noteduck. I don't like conflict with editors, so I thought I'd start a conversation to try and resolve a couple issues I see more amicably.

  • The phrases "individuals describing themselves as pro-Palestine activists" and "a group describing themselves as pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist activists" seem biased, considering that you don't describe the WhatsApp group as "a group describing themselves as 'J.E.W.I.S.H creatives and academics'. Why do only pro-Palestinians and anti-Zionists get doubt cast on them? Can we not just call them pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionists?
  • The use of the block quote strikes me as a case of WP:UNDUE, but only because it's a block quote. It's fair to mention someone said that, but selective use of block quotes have a reputation on Wikipedia for POV pushing. I don't think there's any chance the choice of formatting that as a blockquote would survive any form of independent review. I think this should just be formatted as regular prose. There is nothing stopping me from adding my own blockquote. For example:
'One of the members of the WhatsApp group stated:

"Give me a rundown on whether the group has tackled Clementine and Lauren Dubois in particular, and where those efforts are at? I’d love to coordinate some kind of collective effort ..."

However, I don't want to do that. So can we just avoid using blockquotes entirely?

Also for transparency, considering that the article uses many, many sources from pro-Israeli writers, who aren't described as pro-Israeli in the prose, I intend to lodge a requests for comment if Copland gets labelled as "pro-Palestinian" again, like he was when I first came to this article [1]. Just to clarify, the issue is not the accuracy of whether Copland is pro-Palestinian, the issue is that he was labelled that way when pro-Israelis were not. Either label all of them or none of them. I note that label wasn't added by you, I just thought I'd mention that now so it's not a surprise if that gets added back.

Incidentally, I understand you may not care about my personal opinions (which is fine), but just in case you're curious I don't support the mass doxxing at all. I share the opinion of Bernard Keane from Crikey. I feel a lot of sympathy for the majority of people who weren't involved in the targeted campaigns against Palestinian activists who had their names shared and then received threats. I hope everyone who made a threat of violence against them gets arrested and convicted.

In over 16 years of editing Wikipedia I've avoided anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict until now. The reason I came here is in my edit summary here [2]. As per that summary, I was planning on permanently leaving this article if the few changes I made (such as pointing out that there is more than one source that gives a different opinion) were left intact. However, because the entire paragraph I added regarding that was deleted [3], I believe I now have to watch the page in order to make sure that doesn't happen again. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that now that I'm going to be involved in the article long-term I thought it would be more civil to actually talk to you. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Damien Linnane, thanks for this.

A few things that are significant in my view:

  • I thought that given that the majority of sources do describe the leakers as motivated by antisemitism rather than activism I thought “ describing themselves as…” worked to avoid conflating pro-Palestine and anti-Zionist sentiment with antisemitism, but feel free to change it
  • This incident attracted a LOT of press coverage here and abroad which attests to its gravity and significance. Coverage by the Oz, The Age, WSJ, NYT, and many Jewish publications in Australia and internationally attest to this. There are also many statements from the affected Jewish community that say the leak was unprecedented, shocking, reminiscent of past very serious antisemitic incidents.
  • What is clear is that the vast majority of sources state that the leak was motivated by antisemitism - Keane and Copland seem very much in the minority in questioning this assessment. The Conversation is a good source and Crikey is fine as any Australian media and I think that including Copland and Keane is necessary they shouldn't have undue weight.
  • You were right to remove the descriptor “pro-Palestinian” from Copland, which is immaterial unless other sources have described this as significant. If I see it re-added I’ll delete it
  • I thought the block quote kind of succinctly aggregated a lot of points. Given the stated aim of exposing Australian Zionists, I did think it was noteworthy that so many sources said that individual stances on Israel-Palestine were immaterial in whose details actually got leaked. I take your point though - I can appreciate the risk of a page on a contentious topic like this degenerating into rival multiple “rival” block quotes. I think it’s consistent with WP:MOS to reformat it into the paragraph, and I’ve done so
  • You were correct in restoring your original disaggregation of the Copland and Breakey sources, thank you
  • something I’d point out: not many sources give an actual synoptic rundown of the group’s content, which was of course 900 pages long so difficult to summarise. I thought this assessment from the White Rose Society was an illuminating analysis [[4]] but that a Twitter thread wasn't a sufficiently good source to warrant inclusion. This also gives quite a lot of detail and I think should be mentioned on the page[[5]]
  • It might be good to add an additional quote about the defenses given by the leakers’
  • I do have an interest in Jewish history, along with lots of things, and lately I've been editing pages related to antisemitic incidents in the Ottoman Empire, but I've edited a few pages related to the modern Israel/Palestine conflict as well

Thanks for your input! Noteduck (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it, and your comments, and your recent edits addressing the sourcing issues. From your userpage, it's clear that even if you do feel strongly about this issue (which in itself is fine), you edit about a number of unrelated topics and that you're Here to build an encyclopedia. If everybody who edits this article also fit that description, I don't think we'd have much of a problem here.
This is a difficult subject to cover objectively, for numerous reasons. For example, I don't doubt the majority of the sources state motivation was antisemitism, but I also don't think the majority of sources that choose to focus on this issue are likely to cover it in an objective manner. I actually don't dislike The Australian as a newspaper overall; I'm friends with a couple of their staff members. But there's no denying they have an editorial bias towards Israel in anything that covers this issue. For example, here's a WP:RS source which does an analysis the language used by The Australian and other publications, and concludes they have an anti-Palestinian bias:[6]. Three seperate articles from The Australian are currently used in the article to confirm Ford participated in the doxxing. The two that aren't behind a paywall and that I can read make no mention of the fact some members of the group specifically targeted her, and that that was her motivation for the leak. Which is not to say her actions were justified, but it does show The Australian isn't objective. An objective publication would at least mention what her stated motivation was, instead of framing her entirely as someone who shared a list just because the people in it were Jewish, without even considering the possibility that she had any other reason for her actions. The Australian is cited ten times. A majority of the other sources, like Tablet (magazine), are also very obviously likely to have a bias here. The Tablet source, not surprisingly, also makes no mention of targets against pro-Palestinians from within the group. Incidentally I completely agree with you that very few sources go into the actual details in the group chat, which is a shame. I don't have a lot of experience editing contentious topics, so I'm not sure what the precedent is here. I.e. if the majority of sources that choose to cover an issue are likely to not be objective, should they be still be used to constitute the majority of the article? I honestly don't know. I'd be curious to know what a dispute resolution process would conclude, but at this stage I don't have the inclination to invest the time into starting one. Others are welcome to of course though.
Thanks for your suggested to add a statement from the leakers; I've done that, and I've moved a lot of things around so that they're in a better chronological order. Let me know if you have any issues with these edits. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally while I was searching for a couple new sources I realised something. There's no denying that more sources describe this as antisemitism than whistleblowing, but many sources also don't describe it as antisemitic, and just report what happened. The article might be currently giving the impression that all reporters/writers only felt one way or the other. Of course, there are difficulties saying on Wikipedia that a source didn't say something (I think that might constitute WP:OR), so I'm not sure if or how that could be mentioned in the article, but I just thought it was worth pointing out. Anyway, I think I've finished putting the article in a more chronological order, which I believe flows better for the reader. Let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism and targeting Jews vs. whistleblowing

[edit]

Hi all

I've added more sources which attribute the primary motivation of the leak to antisemitism and a desire to target Australian Jews. These constitute the vast majority of sources, and per Wikipedia:WEIGHT should be reported accordingly. I have attached quotes to the sources I have added to the introduction, and there are many more that could potentially be added.

Copland appears to be the *only* source who offers an unambiguous defence of the leak as a form of whistleblowing. Keane does not say that the leak was justified as such but see a double standard in how it has been reported compared to others. Many sources also note that members of the group were targeted en masse regardless of political views or attitude towards Zionism.

I think that it's UNDUE to overemphasise the few sources that have defended or excused the leak. I think the balance of Wikipedia:RS strongly indicate that almost all sources attribute the leak as an attack on Australian Jews. Noteduck (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noteduck. Firstly, I just wanted to say these edits of yours were not only completely fair but also important to point out: [7][8].
Bearian said at the deletion nomination that "probably about 1/4 of the sources [in the article] are unreliable". At the time, I believe the only sources I had added were Crikey and The Conversation (website), which you yourself acknowledged on this talk page are both fine. I therefore think it's fair to say that accordingly to a neutral and extremely experienced editor, about one quarter of the sources you have added to the article are probably not reliable.
You and I are the only two major contributors to this article, and I note the editor with the third highest amount of edits has just been topic-banned for his systemic bias in this area. This is not intended as an insult, but I believe the way you chose to write this article shows a strong bias, and I think any dispute resolution process would agree with me. Here's the article as you wrote it before anyone else edited it: [9]. I noted some of the issues at this NPOVN discussion. I will point out a couple issues only for the purpose of anyone new joining this conversation:
  • The article made no mention of the group's previous action of targeting the employment of Antoinette Lattouf. The reason this is a problem is because you wrote the article with 38 sources. You must have done an incredible amount of research to find that many sources. I try to adhere to WP:AGF, but its difficult for me to assume you didn't come across this extremely relevant information about the history of the group's actions in such a massive search.
  • The article only stated the leakers "contended" that some members of the group were conspiring against pro-Palestinian figures, whereas even some of the sources you used to write the article confirm that this actually happened. Sources used in the article at the time detailed what this campaigning was, which is extremely relevant to an article on this subject, but was not included. Many other sources not used went into detail about the campaigning. As per my point above, given the extent of your research, I think you should have been aware of this.
Buidhe stated with this very recent edit [10] regarding some sources you used, that a statement "seems to fail verification as written with some sources calling it antisemitic but not addressing the leakers' motives?" This issue they have pointed out is a systemic problem here with many of the sources you have chosen. Yes, you are absolutely correct that considerably more sources call this antisemitic than try to defend the leak either partially or in full. However, as noted by others, at least some of the sources that make this accusation are not covering this issue in an unbiased manner, yet the nature of the sources making this accusation are not clarified in an way to the reader. As I also pointed out in the section above, many sources DO NOT describe this as an antisemitic incident, and instead just point out what happened as straight, un-opinionated news. This is not reflected in the article; the sources currently used do not represent the full range of reliable sources discussing the topic.
Of the sources you originally used to describe this as antisemitic, one was Tablet (magazine), a particularly contentious source on Wikipedia which has since been removed by me [11]. Another was an opinion piece by Newsweek, a source that was noted as unreliable at the deletion nomination and that has since been removed by Buidhe. Accusations of antisemitism absolutely should be kept, but the sources used for this and how it is worded considering the sources need a comprehensive, independent review.
As I pointed out at the the NPOVN discussion, I've never edited in this topic before. Despite how long I have been editing Wikipedia, I have no experience in trying to add due weight from biased sources in contentious topics. This article desperately needs a third, neutral editor. Someone who is not me or you, and who also does not have a history of editing in this area from a particular point of view, needs to systemically go through the sources and see if they are unreliable and need to be removed. Of the sources that are kept, in relation to statements and accusations, someone needs to review if sources used represent the full range of reliable sources discussing the topic, whether the sources are accurately summarised, and whether they are given due weight considering any potential bias. Until such time as that happens, I am adding a neutrality tag to the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't just POV—it's that the sources cited fail verification, which is a really serious problem given the BLP issues at stake. If you want to ascribe "antisemitic motives" to the leakers, the source absolutely needs to explicitly discuss the leaker's motives. Just calling it an antisemitic action is not enough. Please don't cite op eds either because they are not reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Buidhe. See the comments of TarnishedPath in the section below. TarnishedPath, what are your opinions on whether such sources should be removed? Keeping in mind this failed verification issue is completely separate from the overall issues of potential bias and the sources chosen not representing the full range of reliable sources, nor the comments at the article's nomination for deletion regarding unreliable sources that need to be removed. The sources and the statements attributed to them need thorough oversight. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane, noting that the lead doesn't need references as long as references supporting it are found in the body, at the moment the second sentence of the lead has four references and the third sentence has 17 references (8 of which have the failed verification tag after them). I'm going to go through now and remove some opinion pieces. Opinion pieces don't' belong in a contentious topic area unless they are from academic sources and written by subject matter experts. TarnishedPathtalk 06:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just made an edit at Special:Diff/1275820886 to reduce the number of references in the third sentence of the lead from 17 to 4. I've also changed the sentence to make it not as long. TarnishedPathtalk 07:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your input and contributions TarnishedPath. Just clarifying, did you go through citations that appeared in the lead only, or the whole article? I don't expect you to do more than you've already done. I only ask as if you reviewed whether citations are to opinion pieces/unreliable sources in the entire article I'll remove the neutrality tag. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane at present, I've only checked the lead and only removed what was obviously opinion or primary without going too in-depth. TarnishedPathtalk 10:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane so short answer is I'd keep the POV tag for the moment. TarnishedPathtalk 10:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over-referencing in the lead

[edit]

I note that there is a ridiculous amount of references in the lead. Most of them need to be changed. Each sentence should have no more than 4 references maximum and preferably no more than 2. I also note that some of the references are tagged as failed verification. They should be removed. TarnishedPathtalk 03:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]