Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 28 November 2024

This draft was nominated for deletion on 3 November 2024. The result of the discussion was Procedural close.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antisemitism on Misplaced Pages page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. Parts of this page relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This draft does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Judaism This page is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Misplaced Pages This page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia

On 3 November 2024, it was proposed that this page be moved to Allegations of antisemitism on Misplaced Pages. The result of the discussion was Procedural close.

Proposal to merge to Criticism of Misplaced Pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is, at this time, a consensus to merge.This article entered this discussion in an extremely weak position because of its bias and synthesis problems, and while there have been major improvements since the discussion started (thank you to ProfGray and everyone else who worked diligently on that), those attempting to salvage the current article have not managed to adequately dispel objections. In particular, many editors remain concerned that the current article is a collection of everything that falls under the category of antisemitism, rather than a discrete topic capable of supporting a quality article. Despite not being explicitly cited, it was clear several editors had questions about whether much of this content is due for inclusion.On the other hand, there seems to be a consensus that the topic is notable. Additionally, while some editors tried to argue that this article will necessarily always attract POV problems, the contention that it should be eliminated largely or solely for this reason was not compelling, as the project effectively supports many such articles. In sum, I don't see a consensus at this time that the topic should not have an article, just that this particular article isn't the one.Because it is clear that editors want to keep working on this, and I don't see any compelling reason they shouldn't be allowed to, I will move the article to Draft:Antisemitism on Misplaced Pages for their convenience. Before publishing it again, they should ensure that the article clearly shows that this is a discrete, notable topic and not merely a collection of every source that has mentioned the two together, or this outcome will likely recur. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727  15:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

While the creation of the article might have been well intentioned, I think it makes more sense as part of the broader Criticism of Misplaced Pages article, where it can be presented alongside similar topics like racism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Support merge This is obviously just a WP:POVFORK by itself, particularly in its incredibly short stub version right now. This should be a section in Criticism of Misplaced Pages and, if it became long enough in the future, then that would be a reason to fork it, like other sub-sections currently in that article. Silverseren 04:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

A POVFORK of what? Most articles begin as stubs; we don't normally delete or merge articles for being stubs especially mere hours after they're created. — xDanielx /_C\ 16:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge: Short mention on Criticism of Misplaced Pages is fine, but this topic warrants a stub as even its content relates to Jewish history and goes beyond criticism of WP. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Support merge. As evidence that this stub is likely to become a POV fork, take the statement in the stub that Misplaced Pages's consensus decision to regard the ADL as unreliable on issues of anti-semitism was viewed by Jewish community members as an attempt to delegitimise Jewish communal perspectives. Expressed in wikivoice, that claim reflects the POV of writers who weaponize the charge of anti-semitism. There is no common view of the "Jewish community" or "Jewish communal perspectives". Jews, like other religious and ethnic groups, are sharply divided on many controversies, especially now on Israel's policies and actions, ranging from strong support to strong condemnation. That statement from the stub can itself be criticized as anti-semitic because it delegitimizes Jews who do not share the writer's POV, as if they're not really Jews or are "crappy Jews" (a term for Kamala Harris's husband coming from a Trump supporter and radio host). NightHeron (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Why not treat this NPOV concern like any other content dispute, and handle it with WP:BRD? — xDanielx /_C\ 17:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I discussed this particular case of POV-pushing in wikivoice as evidence of a broader problem, namely, creating a POV-fork, that is, the article attracts POV-pushers and not enough editors would be watchlisting it to fix it every time. That can't be fixed by BRD, and is a good reason to support a merge into an article that editors closely watch. NightHeron (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe topics can inherently violate neutrality (though titles can). Topics can be provocative, but there's no policy basis for avoiding provocative topics that are notable, and we have many of them: Category:Criticisms, Category:Accusations, Category:Pejorative terms, etc. With divisive articles, normally editors on both sides will watchlist it and participate in disputes. That might not be happening yet since there's little incentive to improve content during an effort to remove it. — xDanielx /_C\ 18:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I think there is incentive to improve an article during a Merge or AfD discussion, because Notability could be reinforced by finding, say, academic articles that cover antisemitism (as a whole) and Misplaced Pages. ProfGray (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Support merge. There is no need for a specific page on this. We could have dozens of pages on "wikipedia and x", and that would be pointless naval gazing.--Boynamedsue (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

We do have quite a few such articles - Misplaced Pages and the COVID-19 pandemic, Misplaced Pages and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Misplaced Pages coverage of American politics, etc. Normally we include them if they pass WP:GNG, I don't see why we would treat them any differently. — xDanielx /_C\ 17:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say that this doesn't really merit an article of its own as it stands. It's an essay compiling largely unrelated incidents relating to Jews/Israel/antisemitism synthed together. For example, the presence of antisemitic usernames mentioned in a 2010 article not primarily about antisemitism is squashed together in the same sentence as an article mentioning attempts to minimise the significance of the labour antisemitism media frenzy of 2017. Also, some of the above might not either in my view, but other things exist.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Support merge If we're going to have an article about the portrayal of Jews in Misplaced Pages it definitely should not be titled like this one. This article seems to me to be an instance of Weaponization of antisemitism. NadVolum (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a case to be made either way as to whether this should be a stand-alone article. There certainly needs to be balance added if it is kept, since this seems to be a POV piece in intent. There is an international effort to discredit Misplaced Pages on this topic, I note, and this topic fits quite neatly with that political narrative. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  ...international or (((international)))?

  I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Please keep your anti-Semitism -- or aspersions of anti-Semitism --- off this site. If this is an attempt at a joke, please make better ones in the future. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  What evidence of "an international effort to discredit Misplaced Pages on this topic" is found in any reliable sources? This comment reads as if directed at the motivations (aka good faith) of the editor(s) involved, especially since the topic (article title) itself is NPOV. As such, the comment is inappropriate for this thread, right? ProfGray (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for taking to time to explain this so clearly for the benefit of the editors in this discussion.

  I found my more terse remark (and likely, it's cynicism is ill-placed in this discussion) necessary given the absolute irony that someone who sees a new article with the words "Misplaced Pages" and "antisemitism" would immediately jump to proclaim that international conspiracy is threatening to sully the reputation of this wonderful project of human knowledge. I initially waited to see if anyone else would call this out. But once I saw that this was ignored it was simply too difficult to pass up on this very gentle jab at the (probable) unconcious anti-Jewish bias being expressed in the name of neutrality. It was certainly not a joke but a terse, honest critique of that person's bias. I thought those three words ("intl. or intl.") should suffice (...a bit like the Trotsky-Stalin telegram joke...). I didn't think any additional discussion was required. Those who understood would not need any clarification. And those who did not understand would probably find better things to do. But since then I see a few editors insist on having all things explained. So here you have it. No hard feelings. We all have unconscious biases (whether it be antisemitic, pro-Jewish, or otherwise) and I am satisfied with the direction of this broader discussion and I will happily accept the outcome. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support merge - Upon further review, the lead sets up a POV essay and the shout out to Hebrew Misplaced Pages for its sound coverage is beyond the pale, so to speak. This is a POV fork that should be a subtopic of the larger article. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge for now - this is premature. The article was created hours ago, let's give it a chance to be flushed out before deciding that there isn't enough content for a standalone article. Any POV concerns should be addressed by improving the article; the same reasoning and precedent from Misplaced Pages:NPOV deletion applies to merges as well. — xDanielx /_C\ 17:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support merge as POVFORK. Then nominate all "Criticism of" articles for deletion for the same reason. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  That'd be quite a lot, some examples at Category:Criticisms by ideology and Category:Criticisms of companies. And of course Category:Criticism of Misplaced Pages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure if reading irony here. If it's okay to ask, is your point that "Criticism of" articles are here to stay? @Thebiguglyalien

  ProfGray (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm against criticism articles as a whole. The irony is that I'm fully aware it's not so simple as just nominating all of them for deletion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not to be a bother, Thebiguglyalien but is your point that you support deletion of all such articles, on principle? If so, perhaps you do not support the Merge per se into a Criticism article? Full disclosure -- I worked to improve this article. If you have a chance to glance at it again, feedback welcome. If the vote! is the same, fair enough. ProfGray (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's more of a pragmatic thing. My first choice would be to integrate due information into the subject's article or child articles about certain aspects (if it needs to be put in a criticism article to be due then I suspect it doesn't need to be covered at all), ultimately resulting in these articles no longer being necessary. My second choice is to at least make them workable and try to get them near NPOV, which is what I consider the more likely option. And don't feel like a bother if you ask me to specify; I have a tendency to forget that people can't read my mind. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support merge. I think it's actually premature to decide that this, by itself, should be a standalone topic. It's fine to treat it as a subtopic of Criticism of Misplaced Pages, but a page based on "X and Y" can be tricky when it's about a controversial topic. Misplaced Pages and racism, for example, is a red link, whereas Gender bias on Misplaced Pages is a topic with a more substantial history. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - It has additionally been pointed out on Wikipediocracy that Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict exists, making this even more of a POV fork. Carrite (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  In what may be a first for me, I should disclose that I came to this discussion by way of WPO. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support merge. Seems to be a POV fork. As it stands, the article is clearly non-neutral, and I cannot see any realistic chance of it ever being otherwise. An inherently divisive topic, hosted on a website that itself is inevitably going to struggle to cover subject matter concerning itself with any degree of neutrality. Misplaced Pages in general, and its coverage of specific topics both absolutely merit in-depth scrutiny, but such topics should be left to those working beyond the confines of the project. There will no doubt be many views on this particular subject, but Misplaced Pages itself has to be about the worst place to try to arrive at a neutral summary. Or to convince its readers that it can do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose merge for now per xDanielx and WP:DEMOLISH. Recent discussion of this topic in RS and reliable research about the Holocaust and concentration camp debacle should be enough notability and significant coverage for a standalone article. I might support a move/rename of this article, such as "Antisemitism on/in Misplaced Pages" as I think that's clearer. While there is a risk of navel-gazing here, that isn't a reason not to have an article at a notable topic, nor is OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Andre🚐 23:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Updated comment is below.Concerns that support merge. I'm checking the sources here. On the one hand, here's an academic study about a massacre of Jews (i.e., a specific case of antisemitism) that "compared English, Russian, and Ukrainian articles on Babi Yar. So this source is fine. On the other hand, there are many RS and concomitant notability problems:

1. this source (currently fn 2) is merely about access to Misplaced Pages's articles about antisemitism: Tausch, Arno. "The political geography of Shoah knowledge and awareness, estimated from the analysis of global library catalogues and Misplaced Pages user statistics." Jewish Political Studies Review 31, no. 1/2 (2020): 7-123.
2. this source only has one sentence about antisemitism with no evidence IINM (currently fn 9): Tripodi, Francesca. "Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Misplaced Pages." New media & society 25, no. 7 (2023): 1687-1707.
3. <correction, this source is good> this source doesn't seem to mention Jews or antisemitism at all (currently fn 12): Bao, Patti, Brent Hecht, Samuel Carton, Mahmood Quaderi, Michael Horn, and Darren Gergle. "Omnipedia: bridging the wikipedia language gap." In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1075-1084. 2012.
4. this source (current fn 3) is about I/P and belongs in could be in a subsection that points to the main article: Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Oboler, Andre, Gerald Steinberg, and Rephael Stern. "The framing of political NGOs in Misplaced Pages through criticism elimination." Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7, no. 4 (2010): 284-299.
5. more sources for Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict include current footnotes 16,17,18,19 -- this is about alleged anti-Israel bias, even though some refer to it as antisemitism, too
6. There's already coverage of some specific Poland - Holocaust editing, e.g., the 2023 charges mentioned in Grabowski Klein (currently fn 6) are in: List of Misplaced Pages controversies and List of edit wars on Misplaced Pages. See also current fn 7 and 8 and 22. Put in Criticism of Misplaced Pages or similar articles?

If there isn't even one Reliable Source with its main topic as Misplaced Pages and antisemitism (in general), how much synthesis is involved here?

Therefore, please carefully check the sources before assuming that it's a notable topic for an article. ProfGray (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I would agree, there is a hell of a lot of synthesis in this article as it stands. There are quite a lot of articles relating to specific incidents which relate to antisemitism, but I don't see anything that relates specifically to antisemitism as a whole. The Polish incident seems particularly well-covered.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support merge a WP:POVFORK based on WP:SYNTH; much better care needs to be taken to avoid such misconstructions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  If I may ask, POVFORK from what existing article? Upon further analysis, I'm seeing reliable sources that cover this topic and not seeing the content elsewhere. Fwiw, I agree that the neutrality of the writing should be improved. ProfGray (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support merge Might be better just to AfD it as POVFORK in order to speed things up, a merge discussion can drag on even when it is clear that is what should be done.Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  A deletion discussions will still take a week. If the consensus is clear in a few days time I will go ahead and merge the articles myself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Hemiauchenia: What do you think? If you think there is a consensus to merge, we can do that and if not, I am quite happy to AfD it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge what is salvageable but there is actually little is this one-sided mash of SYNTH that is salvageable. Zero 11:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Notice how the extensive recent editing has made the article into a full-fledged POV-fork, expressing the Zionist POV in wikivoice. For example, throughout the first section after the Overview, Community Perspectives, the writing is based on the false premise that the Jewish community is a monolith with agreed-upon "Jewish community perspectives" on Israel and the Palestinians. (For example, in wikivoice: was viewed by Jewish community members as .) As many commentators have noted, this allows them to weaponize the charge of antisemitism and call any opposition to the Zionist agenda "antisemitic". They then regard the many Jews who disagree with them and condemn Israeli genocide in Gaza as not really Jewish or as "crappy Jews" (in the words of a MAGA radio host, referring to Kamala Harris's Jewish husband). This POV-fork is what several of us who voted for the merge wanted to prevent. NightHeron (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  This comment criticizes the edit that includes, in wikivoice: was viewed by Jewish community members as . However, isn't it crucial to check the sources for this edit? The sources include info about dozens of major American Jewish organizations that present themselves as speaking for the Jewish community. While the Jewish community is not monolithic, the sources either support or help explain the edit, right?

  By the way, I myself have serious concerns with this article (as seen from my main comment here) but it is still important that comments address the merits of the article and not speculate about the intent of the editor(s) involved. ProfGray (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The edit in question did not say that "according to several Jewish organizations that claim to speak for the entire Jewish community,...". If it had, that would have been an attributed statement, not wikivoice. Rather, the editor took the organizations' claim as fact. But the only way the claim could be correct is if the vast number of Jews who vehemently disagree with the POV of those organizations are classified as non-Jews or as a lower category of Jews who should not be counted as part of the Jewish community, even if they've been observant Jews their whole life. NightHeron (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• 'Merge discussions go on the target page's talk page, not the talk page of the article to be merged. Also, the logical target, if there's going to be a merge, is ideological bias on Misplaced Pages -- a terrible coatrack of an article, but one which has managed to stick around, and where this would fit in. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hi there. I added a Antisemitic bias subsection to the Criticism of Misplaced Pages article. Doesn't that seem like a suitable location? Also, not sure that antisemitism is always treated in sources as an ideology itself. ProfGray (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge whatever little is salvageable. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Updated comment below. Sources that suggest Notability. Although 5 days ago I raised concerns (above) with the sources in an earlier version, the following solid sources appear to demonstrate the independent notability of this topic:

1. 2010 analysis that includes antisemitic bias: Oboler, Andre, Gerald Steinberg, and Rephael Stern. "The framing of political NGOs in Misplaced Pages through criticism elimination." Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7, no. 4 (2010): 284-299.
2. Research across different language Wikipedias on coverage of Holocaust: Makhortykh, Mykola. "Framing the Holocaust online: memory of the Babi Yar massacres on Misplaced Pages." Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media 18 (2017): 67-94. Also: Wolniewicz-Slomka, D. (2016). Framing the Holocaust in popular knowledge: 3 articles about the Holocaust in English, Hebrew and Polish Misplaced Pages. Adeptus, (8), 29-49.
3. Academic critique of WP coverage of Holocaust and Poland: Grabowski, Jan, and Shira Klein. "Misplaced Pages’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust." The Journal of Holocaust Research 37, no. 2 (2023): 133-190. Followed by a rebuttal by a Wikipedian, including a (paywall) academic article cited by Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2023-02-20/In the media. An ArbCom review has been covered by news media.
4. ADL case. Major Jewish groups say their defense against antisemitism is weakened by Misplaced Pages's handling of ADL as a reliable source, as covered by Jewish media. US special envoy on antisemitism also weighed in briefly. CNN and USA Today about media coverage over ADL. Given this coverage, and that ADL itself is focused on antisemitism, the antisemitic bias allegations are noteworthy.
5. Finally, in the past year, conservative and centrist Jewish organizations and journalists have argued that Misplaced Pages's coverage of ongoing war is not only anti-Israel, it also shows antisemitic bias. Coverage noted at: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-08-14/In the media and has grown since then. Whether "True" or not, their arguments are about Misplaced Pages and antisemitism, cannot simply be put into Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, right?
6. <Error> Judaism as a conspiracy theory, in "many" language Wikis: Bao, Patti, Brent Hecht, Samuel Carton, Mahmood Quaderi, Michael Horn, and Darren Gergle. "Omnipedia: bridging the wikipedia language gap." In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1075-1084. 2012
7. <Added> (currently fn1) Pfanzelter, Eva. "At the crossroads with public history: Mediating the Holocaust on the Internet." Holocaust Studies 21, no. 4 (2015): 250-271.

Does Misplaced Pages have an actual antisemitic bias? That's not our question. Our question is how much the topic is addressed by reliable sources. Perhaps all this content should be merged into Criticism of Misplaced Pages. For that purpose, that article now has an Antisemitic bias subsection. If this article is kept as a main article (child-parent) to the Criticism article, then this article should be renamed Antisemitic bias on Misplaced Pages to be consistent with comparable gender and racial bias articles. ProfGray (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The first 3 sources call for an article like Coverage of the Holocaust on Misplaced Pages. RS don't seem to connect W's coverage of Holocaust to W's coverage of the I-P conflict. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Rename and improve. I am generally opposed to "and" titled topics, which typically refer to non-topics and almost always turn out to be non-NPOV personal essays (same reason I opposed Zionism, race, and genetics, a non-NPOV essay that eventually became Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism). And in its current state it seems to be something of a POV fork. However, per ProfGray, there are a number of quality sources which clearly see something like Antisemitism in Misplaced Pages as a topic. And merging into the already baggy Criticism of Misplaced Pages article would make that unwieldier. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose merge I don't see this as a POVFORK. I agree with xDanielx's reasoning here. Should all of that be merged? Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support merge. This article is too small to warrant a fork, a section on Criticism of Misplaced Pages would do just fine. Misplaced Pages receives a lot of criticism from multiple sources regading a lot of different topics, the bar for creating a stand-alone article about each of these topics should be very high. Badbluebus (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge There’s enough serious sources to show that this is a serious and systemic issue, especially in regards to Misplaced Pages Editors in particular.

Not only is it clearly worthy of independent discussion, it might look so some that Misplaced Pages Editors are trying to bury allegations and criticisms made against them based on their actual conduct in a public space by credentialed journalists so as to remove the issue from the view of most of the public who browse Misplaced Pages.

To merge it would therefore look like trying to bury it, undermining what little trust in the Editors remains given the severity of both the allegations and well-documented evidence, for example in Pirate Wires’ investigative journalism on this issue.

Source: https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative KronosAlight (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This recusal suggestion seems most salient for Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict editing, though it could apply to the section here on anti-Jewish "bias in Israel-related content" and arguably to this Merge ("by burying independent articles...). Is there a WP guideline that recommends such COI recusals? Unrelated to I-P, there is an editor who recused themselves from Criticism of Misplaced Pages, which seems laudable.

Does Pirate Wires tend to be treated as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages? @KronosAlight

Also, would you reformat your vote! heading to bold? Or may I reformat it? ProfGray (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support merge. This article consists of two parts:

• Misplaced Pages and the Holocaust
• a WP:POVFORK of Misplaced Pages and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that aims to paint criticism of Israel as antisemitic

The second part should certainly be merged into Misplaced Pages and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and Criticism of Misplaced Pages). The first part is noteworthy and can constitute a standalone article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

In the article, there are two substantial sections before Holocaust, on user conduct and on Other anti-Jewish bias. Might it be fair to say that these parts are noteworthy with "significant coverage" by reliable sources? @Vice regent, thanks. ProfGray (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Support selective merge per VR and my own analysis. This is a POVFORK that uses synth to collect disjointed topics. (t · c) buidhe 14:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Our WP:SYNTH policy applies to statements, not to aggregations of statements. If it did, most of Category:Criticisms and many (most?) other articles would be in violation. Also to repeat, a POV fork of what? — xDanielx /_C\ 19:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support merge, as this page is a very clear WP:POVFORK. I don't think it's a terrible idea for an article in theory but clearly this iteration of it must be TNT'd. Loki (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Very clear POV fork of what? It's been asked a few times with no answer yet. — xDanielx /_C\ 19:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Submitted for AfD, can discuss merge and any alternatives there. Selfstudier (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural background. The proposer closed the Merge discussion on Oct 31st. I requested that the Merge be kept open and more time be given for improvements. On Oct 31, the proposer granted this request and stated in the edit summary: "Unclosing discussion. I will AfD the article in 4 days." Those four days would end tomorrow, Monday Nov 4, at 22:38 pm EST. Fwiw, this merge discussion had most comments before Oct 31. Since that time, there have been ~ 145 edits by 12 users, including substantive additions based on added reliable sources. ProfGray (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  And there is not even agreement on either the title or the scope of the article. Pointless to continue. Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. For a standalone article, the pivotal policy is WP:GNG. There is significant coverage of antisemitism concerns on Misplaced Pages, both in academic and media reliable sources. Many concerns are uncontested. Some concerns are controversial, yet merit inclusion due to significant coverage. Significant coverage includes in chronological order:

• 2005 case of "Nazis and Norms" in Reagle's 2010 book on Misplaced Pages. Book also covers at least one individual sanction case.
• Oboler (2010), academic study covering sanctions for antisemitic editing ("criticism elimination")
• Callahan (2011), academic study on bias in Polish vs English Wikipedias, including (real vs imagined) Jewish cases
• Pfanzelter (2015), qualitative analysis of 60 discussion threads, finding Holocaust denial and other antisemitic editor conduct
• Mohamed (2016) academic analysis on positive vs negative treatment of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
• Makhortykh (2017), academic case study of 3 lang Wikipedias, AOT on marginalization of Jewish suffering, disparaging memory of the Holocaust, and Holocaust denialism among editors
• Wolniewicz-Slomka, D. (2016) case study of 3 Polish, Hebrew, EN Wikipedias, looking at AOT omission of Jewish heroics, coverage of antisemitic attitudes, and whether Wikipedias were biased by Poland vs. Israel IRL dispute
• Commentary (2020) article on case of "Jew-tagging" that was mistaken as antisemitism
• The Forward (2021) article on Misplaced Pages's ability to overcome antisemitic vandalism
• Grabowski and Klein (2023), controversial journal article that has had media coverage, an academic rebuttal, and media-reported WMF response.
• Substantial media coverage of Misplaced Pages's decision on reliability of Anti-Defamation League, a major Jewish authority on antisemitism, including CNN and USA Today, as well as Jewish media. (2024)
• There are reliable sources with moderate coverage, such as Rosenzweig (2006) with analysis illustrated by handling of antisemitism in Father Coughlin article.
• There are also concerns raised in the media about antisemitism in Misplaced Pages's coverage of the I-P topic. I started a Talk thread about how that coverage should be handled here.

Despite its problematic start, this article topic is coherent and notable. The topic is not SYNTH for reasons articulated by others on this page. Afaik, this article was not created as a POVFORK from any existing article. I did add a brief summary of this topic in the Criticism of Misplaced Pages article, thus creating a proper connection to this as the main article.

Article improvements are still underway. I especially appreciate editors (e.g., Boynamedsue) who tagged sentences, which I've been addressing. Further improvement is needed yet per GNG: Article content does not determine notability.

See Keep comments on the AfD by 4 editors who have not weighed in here afaik

Fwiw, an early version of the article has been translated in Hebrew Misplaced Pages. I can comment there once the Merge / Move /AfD issues are sorted out here. ProfGray (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose merge more than ample sourcing on this notable topic for a standalone article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: There should be a section on Criticism of Misplaced Pages for which this is the "main article". This page is a large and well referenced summary of what has become quite a major news story in many countries. Fig (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Would you kindly move your statement above the "Too Big" section and into the Merge discussion? @Fig Or may I do so? ProfGray (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops! Please do more to the correct spot. (Pitfalls of phone editing.) Fig (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Important Article that needs to be here. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support merge ProfGray states the pivotal policy is WP:GNG but that is incorrect for a merge discussion. The pivotal policy is actually WP:PAGEDECIDE. A subject may meet GNG but PAGEDECIDE says at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. Key is this question in the policy:

  Does other information provide needed context?

  And here I have looked at all the sources ProfGray has listed above. Many of those don't, to my mind, establish the subject at all, but I was especially interested in Makhortykh (2017), which looks at 3 Misplaced Pages language variants and compares their framing of the Babi Yar Massacres. That would seem to be exactly what this article needs. But see the conclusion which says:

  The difference in interpretations can be explained by the significant politicisation of memory in post-socialist spaces, particularly in the digital sphere, where the past does not only stay ‘as alive as the present’ (Rutten and Zvereva 2013: 5), but is also never neutral. Digital media – such as Misplaced Pages – not only serve as spaces for cultural and political self expression, but are also often used for the process of establishing collective identities through selective interpretations of the past and the present.

  Although the case study is on a matter at the interface of antisemitism, the paper is not actually about that, and the conclusion sits in a wider context on the polticisation of memory. That context belongs in the criticism of Misplaced Pages article, and spinning out the one issue based on that source would be to misunderstand, and indeed subvert the thesis in the source.This is a general problem. Because the page as it shows at this time has Antisemitic bias on Misplaced Pages has been raised as a concern over the conduct of some editors, systemic anti-Jewish bias, ... as the first sentence of the lead. But nothing in the sources, nor indeed the main section of the page, is about a systemic bias. Indeed the very framing of the title is in breach of WP:AND in a manner that introduces unintended POV. If the subject is Misplaced Pages and antisemitism, then the implication is that the antisemitism is systemic. I understand that there is some agreement to change that title, but that is the subject as framed at this stage, and as described in the opening lead sentence. That subhect is not notable, because no independent reliable secondary sources talk about a systemic anti-Jewish bias. This is why the information needs to sit in a broader context: an encyclopaedia article on this subject needs to educate a reader about the politicisation of memory in the digital sphere. The page must not be a polemic on a specific point of view, but an article that will allow a reader to enhance their critical reading and thinking skills. To be that, it needs to sit in an appropriate context. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  It makes sense to revise the first sentence, so what would be viable for now (until this discussion is close)?

  If the subject is Misplaced Pages and antisemitism (which it is now), then couldn't it cover any form of bias in articles (systemic or otherwise) plus antisemitic discourse among editors, including the misconduct in the first section?

  Plus, it could cover how Misplaced Pages generates knowledge about antisemitism, regardless of Misplaced Pages's own biases, as with the second paragraph, i.e, Scholars have also used Misplaced Pages data in sundry ways to research online antisemitism. The European Holocaust Research Infrastructure used Wikidata to improve its coverage on Nazi-era ghettos and camps. This can be expanded, but are there objections to this aspect of Misplaced Pages and antisemitism?

  Anyway, I revise the first sentence and welcome feedback or revisions. (Also I want to respond about the politicisation of memory context, thanks for bringing that up.) ProfGray (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  If it needs to start with the current article title, I'd welcome feedback on this as a first sentence: Misplaced Pages and antisemitism issues have been raised over editor conduct, anti-Jewish bias in articles and editor discussions, source selection, and with aspects of Holocaust and Israel-related articles. This drops the point about diff language Wikipedias, which sounds almost defensive. ProfGray (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Similar to your suggestion about politicisation of memory as the context for these studies, I added context with a sentence based on Manca review of this subfield, who included the Wolniewicz-Slomka and Makhortykh studies. ProfGray (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge This topic has received substantial coverage in reliable sources, providing sufficient material to justify a standalone, in-depth article. Merging it into Criticism of Misplaced Pages would make that article overly lengthy and disproportionately focused on one criticism. As Misplaced Pages is not limited by space like a paper encyclopedia, there is ample room to create separate articles on a variety of topics. Whizkin (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Merge This seems highly likely to become a POV fork and a battleground as there are multiple, mutually exclusive, and vehemently argued definitions of antisemitism on Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, would most (standalone) articles on antisemitism likewise be a problem, since the topic's definition is disputed? Is there a policy against articles that are vulnerable to intense definitional disputes? ProfGray (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm just not sure we need to open another battleground in the I/P conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I know what you mean! But this article is about antisemitism, i.e., hostility to Jews, which is mostly distinct from the I-P conflict. There is a limited-weight section for when it intersects with I-P. Otherwise, there's the Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, right? ProfGray (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  But this is what makes it a perfect example of a risk of a POV fork. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support merge, I'm not seeing enough here to justify a stand-alone page at this time... I would especially note that the page is confused, the title says "Misplaced Pages and antisemitism" but then it changes that to "Antisemitic bias on Misplaced Pages" before seeming to water it down even more in the body to any bias which tangentially involves Jewish people... All the way down to the Source selection section which talks about neither bias or antisemitic bias. What we have for unique sources also appear to largely be unique because they're low quality (for example the Washington Examiner) so there really isn't a strong argument to keep this page seperate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  The first sentence has been revised, feedback welcome. Which sentences deal with a tangential bias toward the Jewish people? ProfGray (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  Talk about missing the forest for the trees... "Misplaced Pages and antisemitism issues" isn't any better, "Misplaced Pages and antisemitism" is still a much broader category. Making it so selective is a major NPOV issue Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for responding. In what way(s) is "Misplaced Pages and antisemitism" broader than "Misplaced Pages and antisemitism issues?" Agreeing that it should not be selective, what's a suggested rewriting of the first sentence so that it begins with "Misplaced Pages and antisemitism" without a word like issues? ProfGray (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, Misplaced Pages and antisemitism includes everything in the topic Misplaced Pages and antisemitism, not just issues. Would have thought that was self explanatory, generally when you add a word to something like that you change the meaning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  ok, from that understanding, it'd be great to hear a suggestion -- what would be a better rewording for the first sentence? ProfGray (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  Since we do not know whether the article will be merged, or whether if it is not merged, it will retain the current title, all this tweaking seems rather academic. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support selective merge - much of this is repeated elsewhere on wikipedia, about user behavior or Israel-Palestine controversy. Some of this is POV fork to build case Misplaced Pages is inherently antisemitic. with regard to the ‘Too big?’ issue by andre, we can just trim whatever we need to and link to the appropriate non-POV fork articles. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  It'd be helpful to specify any wording that implies "inherently" antisemitic, which would be problematic, especially since Misplaced Pages is described in ther article as acting against antisemitic conduct. There are scholars who argue that the openness of WP editing makes it vulnerable to various problems, though not sure any claim that openness makes it more vulnerable to antisemitism than other biases. ProfGray (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support selective merge As others have noted I don't see any good reason to have this as a stand-alone page. Whatever is salvageable, and I don't see much of it, can be merged into Criticism of Misplaced Pages without any issues related to size.Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge - There are plenty of reliable sources for the content, and it doesn't make sense to split this into other articles (e.g. Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Misplaced Pages and the Holocaust) since neither of those have the full scope that this one does. There should be a section on Criticism of Misplaced Pages for which this is the main article. Qualiesin (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Fwiw, when I began revising the article after the Merge proposal, an early step was to indeed create a section in Criticism of Misplaced Pages, as you suggested, to create a place either for the merge or for the Main article link. ProfGray (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support Merge: Per nomination and Sirfurboy, it would be better to merge this with that article. GrabUp - Talk 08:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Merge: "and" pages allow the creation of WP:SYNTH. Misplaced Pages people decided to declare ADL unreliable on antisemitism as related to Zionism and Israel, but did not declare ADL unreliable on antisemitism in general. As such, this fits into a big-tent page, like "Misplaced Pages and reliability decisions". It would also fit into a page on Criticism of Misplaced Pages, since indeed partisan sources have criticized Misplaced Pages for its decision. The source about ethnic/religious tagging has a legitimate place in the criticism article, but is only speculative here... Some of the elements discussed here (like the Grabowski-Klein paper) are already in the larger article. -- SashiRolls 07:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  SYNTH is normally applied narrowly to statements; I don't think there's any precedent for applying it to entire articles. In some sense all articles involve original aggregations of source material. — xDanielx /_C\ 19:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not necessary to reply every time someone mentions SYNTH. Starting from Grabowski's study of the entry Jew with a coin, which correctly studies how a harmful stereotype was minimized by a small group of editors on en.wp, the WJC press release currently being cited stretches to a more general "the English-language version of Misplaced Pages promotes negative stereotypes" (cited out of context from the bottom of page 8), which was being further stretched into "the World Jewish Congress alleged that Misplaced Pages entries in English demonstrate a pattern of antisemitic and anti-Israel bias". Synthetic fibers are quite STRETCHY too. -- SashiRolls 20:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The WJC and ADL sentences have been improved, thanks to your feedback and specific edits. Are there other sentences that imply a conclusion not found in the sources (i.e., Synth), or come across as problematic for other reasons? @SashiRolls Thanks again for the feedback. ProfGray (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support Merge -and trimming: not every block is noteworthy, Huldra (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Since the article is being actively edited, it'd be helpful to identify any specific block that should be omitted, or needs more to be worth noting in the article. ProfGray (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge - I'm convinced by the POVFORK and SYNTH arguments above, esp. VR's and Sirfurboy's. Levivich (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

VR's point about Holocaust and Israel-related aspects? What about the 1st, 2nd, and 5th sections of the article, which has been revised substantially since VR's comment?

Sirfurboy's comment made good points. See my replies there. Have all of their points been addressed in edits? Also, Sirfurboy doesn't mention POVFORK or SYNTH, right?

Since the article is being actively edited, please identify any sentences that imply a conclusion not found in the sources (i.e., Synth), that'd be very helpful. ProfGray (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Too big?

WP:NOMERGE tells us to avoid merging if the resulting article would be too long or "clunky". Criticism of Misplaced Pages is already at 9,356 words (per prosesize), in the range where WP:SIZERULE says it Probably should be divided or trimmed. Merging would put it over 10k words.

While I don't see why a merge is needed (most arguments for it are not a standard WP:MERGEREASON), if we must merge this somewhere, Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict might be suitable (it's a slightly different scope but most content could fit either) and doesn't have a size issue. — xDanielx /_C\ 02:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I sympathise with the question of length, but some articles do need to be longer than our guidelines. I would disagree strongly on the location. Suggesting all forms of antisemitism are relevant to Israel/Palestine is not a defensible position.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason length is not a problem is that lots of this article is irrelevant or synth and doesn't need to go anywhere. Zero 11:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If the idea is to delete the bulk of the content (for reasons other than redundancy), then this doesn't really seem like a merge in spirit, and I would argue that this isn't the right venue or process. — xDanielx /_C\ 17:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The material from this page that might end up being merged into another article need not necessarily be the entirety of it, as in a copy-paste. One could merge revised and shortened content into another page, without changing the premise of the ongoing merge discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Merges with massive amounts of deletion are quite frequent.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sort of, but that's usually either

• an AfD where the subject isn't notable, so the alternative is deletion,
• or a merge that results in lots of redundant material being deduplicated.

Here neither applies, and most arguments for merging aren't standard WP:MERGEREASONs, so it feels like a backdoor to deletion without the policy rigor of AfD. — xDanielx /_C\ 20:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I had the impression that avoiding a POV-fork was a pretty standard reason for arguing for a merge. NightHeron (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it would fall under the duplicate/overlap reasons, but here there isn't much overlap with anything (as far as I know), so it's not actually a POV fork in my opinion. — xDanielx /_C\ 20:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Post-merge comments

XDanielx, ProfGray etc, I do support the creation of an article called Misplaced Pages and the Holocaust.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, I've requested that the Merge (closure) be undone, so the discussion can continue. Thanks for the ping. ProfGray (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:AND. These are not closely related topics. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

In terms of article name, would it be better to have something like Holocaust-related misconduct on Misplaced Pages? A suggested title would be welcome. ProfGray (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Is that a distinct subject discussed in multiple independent reliable secondary sources? If so, the title is better. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I guess we can give editors who want to fix it up some time to do so before the inevitable AfD happens, but I think the request to revert the close that clearly reflected consensus was unfortunate, and we will eventually just wind up with the same result. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

After finding more reliable sources that are not closely related to anti-Jewish bias, just wanted to let you know, VR, that there's likely notability for the article you recommend. IMO it could be linked as a See Also article from the section here. Might start it in my Sandbox or as a Draft, do you have a preference for either? ProfGray (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Change in venue

I have argued that this should be moved to AfD, especially now that the destination contains related content, as much as can reasonably fit. So there's no merging to be done; a merge would really just be a deletion, besides a redirect I guess. I don't want to complicate things, but feel this needs to be evaluated within the framework of deletion-related policies.

I thought this discussion had been supplanted by the AfD, but that was procedurally closed for a couple reasons - one, it wasn't clear to the closer if Selfstudier was actually seeking deletion, and two, this merge thread is still open so it wasn't clear how an AfD should interact with that. See here where I asked the closer to elaborate.

The former reason could be easily be fixed if someone seeking deletion (or indifferent to merge vs deletion) could file an AfD explicitly seeking deletion. @Hemiauchenia: if you were willing to archive this discussion, that might be the easiest way to fix the second concern, or is this something we need to discuss further to get consensus on which venue is suitable?

I think regardless of which venue this is decided at, the closer should ideally consider all relevant arguments. So if this discussion is archived/supplanted, arguments here should still be considered, but might be evaluated within more of a deletion framework. — xDanielx /_C\ 03:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

A merge is not a deletion. Selfstudier (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, we need to stop opening new and conflicting processes whilst one is ongoing. That is disruptive. The merge needs to be closed before any new discussions are started. Secondly, and I have said this before, merge is not deletion just because the actual merge has already been carried out. A merge is a two step process where you firstly copy and merge content to the target, pointing back to the source page, and secondly you redirect the source page. The edit history is all preserved and merging can even continue after the redirect is made. All the work is preserved and it is a matter of editing to work material appropriately into the target. If the merge is closed without consensus to merge, then that would be the time to consider an AfD. Close the merge first. I have already placed a close request. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't open any conflicting process during this one. My hope was that this one would be archived in recognition of the change in venue. I assume that was Hemiauchenia's plan, which Selfstudier preempted by opening an AfD a day earlier.

I also didn't "carry out the merge". ProfGray, who seemed to lean merge initially, later decided to improve the article, which included adding a bit of summary content to the parent. That just happened to be similar to what a merge would look like because the proposed destination is WP:TOOBIG to fit more than a summary.

I don't think anyone cares that much about whether we keep the history under a redirect. History can always be recovered anyway.

If the effective outcome of a merge is approximately equivalent to a deletion outcome, then to me it's a de facto deletion, and should be evaluated as such with the proper process and policies. — xDanielx /_C\ 16:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

then to me it's a de facto deletion No, it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

A few things to note here:

1. If the Criticisms article is WP:TOOBIG it would make sense to spin out major sections of the article that maintain context within the section, rather than spinning out much shorter sub topics. Although there is also a question as to whether editors should do what real world editors will always do. Good old fashioned precis. We call ourselves editors, but we seem to be averse to cutting fat from articles. I know we seem to be quite content that no one reads our articles through, but we should not be writing them in ways that ensure that.
2. I didn't say you did open a conflicting process. But you did propose doing so.
3. Keeping history under a redirect is not about what people care about, but what we are required to do under the CC-BY-SA license under which we all release our work here. We contribute our copy to this site on the basis that our edits are properly attributed. The redirect needs to preserve the edit history after a merge, because the new page will contain text that was written for the source page. Any editor seeking to see who wrote a passage may look through the edit history, which is all attributed. At some point they find a comment akin to "this material merged from page x, see that page for history". So now they look at the edit history of the redirect and can find who wrote the passage. Breaking this link breaks the license agreement. So we never delete the history of material that contributes to a merge. There is even a "from a merge" template that goes into the redirect to alert anyone wanting to delete the redirect that they should not do so. Merge is not deletion. It is a normal act of editing, an essential tool in the editor's armoury, that is frankly underused and undervalued.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I supported a change in venue to AfD; I didn't say it should be concurrent with this discussion. I assumed Hemiauchenia was planning to archive this one.

I don't think ProfGray's addition of related content was really WP:COPYWITHIN, keeping in mind that citations don't count since they contain no real creative content. If any meaningful pieces of text were copied though (which I didn't notice), we could fix it with a simple H:SUMMARYONLY attribution.

Even if there was a good reason to keep a redirect, I don't think "delete, keeping a redirect" can reasonably be considered a merge and not a de facto deletion. — xDanielx /_C\ 17:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support merge or deletion not convinced that this topic is a coherent one that has been covered as a whole in sources. I don't support a list of alleged incidents of antisemitism as I think that devolves into navel gazing. (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I Don't Follow the Sense of Torres Quote

Can anyone explain the logic of Congressman Ritchie Torres' criticism of Misplaced Pages for WP's characterization of Zionism as a form of colonization? In the section on Anti-Israel Bias he's quoted (without any other opinion about his allegation) as saying it was "downright antisemitic" in view of the fact that some of the colonizers were Jews from N Africa, the Mideast, and Ethiopia. But is it anti-American to say that the European settlement of North America was colonization (in a brutal form that almost exterminated the native population), in view of the fact that many of the early colonizers were oppressed Pilgrims escaping persecution in Britain and many of the later colonizers were people escaping hardship and persecution in Europe and elsewhere? Is it anti-Australian to similarly speak of the colonization of the Australian continent, in view of the fact that many of the early colonizers were exiled prisoners who went involuntarily? I don't understand how the nature of some of the colonizers can invalidate the charge of colonialism or justify accusing those who use the terms "colonization" or "colonialism" of bias. NightHeron (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: "downright antisemitic" -- that's a quote from Hen Mazzig, as stated in our article. Not Torres. Another source for Mazzig attribution is here: https://www.jns.org/wikipedia-defines-zionism-as-colonialism-sparking-outrage/

Re: Torres. Is there a concern that readers will not understand the criticism made by Torres? If so, then there could be some explanation in wikivoice. Rightly or wrongly, it seems Torres is making a point similar to the concern raised above, in this Talk, that Jews are divided and diverse, not to be over-generalized. Thus, the article might add, "Torres expresses the view that it is improper to characterize all Jews as Europeans." Is this the context or explanation that readers need?

Fwiw, the media source (Wash Examiner) links to this Torres statement: https://x.com/RitchieTorres/status/1836068546452877675 Also, maybe the Examiner's reporting on Kenneth Marcus is worth adding? ProfGray (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Marcus statement

As noted above, the Torres statement may need explanation for readers.

The same source reports on the view of Kenneth Marcus: Marcus, who served as assistant U.S. secretary of education for civil rights in the Trump administration, told the Washington Examiner that historical anti-Zionism consisted of Jews who opposed the establishment of a Jewish state due to “certain ultraorthodox Jewish messianic views or based on other historical considerations that simply aren’t applicable today.” A doctrine that was held by the original anti-Zionist Jews and is still held by some today is that the establishment of a Jewish state is supposed to happen at the coming of the Jewish messiah. They believe it must be divinely ordained, not done by humans. Modern non-Jewish anti-Zionism, Marcus explained, derives from “historical antisemitic movements as opposed to other forms of anti-Zionism,” such as ultraorthodox Jewish anti-Zionism, “that have nothing to do with antisemitism.” As a result, he said, “21st-century anti-Zionism,” such as the ideas espoused on Misplaced Pages’s revised entry about Zionism, “is essentially antisemitism.”

Suggested added sentence to the article: Kenneth Marcus, academic and former government official, said that Misplaced Pages's article on Zionism was promoting “21st-century anti-Zionism,” which Marcus characterized as "essentially antisemitism." Feedback? ProfGray (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional quotes and information from sources. Your proposed sentence does not give the rationale for Marcus' claim that 21-st century anti-Zionism is "essentially antisemitism". A crucial historical assumption that he makes is that anti-Zionism has always been either religious Jewish opposition (existing mainly much earlier than the 21-st century) based on the belief that God intended for a Jewish state to be created when the Jewish messiah comes and not before, or else non-Jewish anti-Zionism. This dichotomy of anti-Zionist thought is based on a simplistic view of Jews that completely ignores the diversity of religious and philosophical views of people who self-identify as ethnically Jewish. There has been a large and influential Jewish participation in leftist movements (communist, socialist, social democratic, progressive, etc.). Many are Reform Jewish in religious beliefs (not sharing the Orthodox Jewish belief about a messiah giving rise to a Jewish state) or atheist or agnostic. Marcus' statement itself could arguably be characterized as "antisemitic" because of its stereotypical view of what Jews believe and his effective dismissal of an important section of the Jewish community as non-Jewish and hence anti-Zionist because of antisemitic motivations. Jews, like other ethnic groups, are not a monolith, and to presume that they are can plausibly be regarded as a form of antisemitism. NightHeron (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the proposed sentence does give any justification or rationale for Marcus' claim ("essentially antisemitism"). But it still merits inclusion in this (potential) article because he's saying Misplaced Pages's article had an antisemitic bias, right? @NightHeron

It may be a valid critique to consider if Marcus is making faulty assumptions. And faulty assumptions can have prejudiced implications ("arguably be characterized as.." etc). But for a WP article, there's have to be an outside source that delivers that critique and, presumably, one that consider the specific Misplaced Pages article that he refers to. Fair enough? ProfGray (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, but we have the option of excluding the quote as WP:UNDUE if we can't find any source that addresses it directly. When an opinion is somewhat extreme and denigrates a lot of people, for example by accusing them of racism, sexism, or antisemitism, it's particularly important not to include such an allegation as a stand-alone comment without context. In the case of the Marcus quote, he's denigrating all 21-st century opponents of Zionism except for the tiny proportion that's motivated by the belief that the Jewish state was supposed to wait for the coming of the Jewish messiah. The people he accuses of antisemitism include all non-orthodox Jewish opponents of Zionism, as well as others who have recently adopted a strong anti-Zionist viewpoint as a result of atrocities against children and other innocent civilians in Gaza. I agree with you that ideally we could include the Marcus quote in a proper context with sources that discuss what he said. However, there might be no publicly available sources that comment directly on it. It's likely that people who've written in opposition to what they term "weaponization" of allegations of antisemitism feel that they don't have to respond directly to each allegation. In that situation I think it's best to just remove the Marcus quote. NightHeron (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I would question whether Marcus has sufficient understanding of the situation to be due inclusion here. His academic education is in American law and not anything associated with the study of racism, religious and ethnic discrimination, etc. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

There's Brandeis, I guess. Lotsa lawyers there, too. Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

On the one hand, perhaps he is positioned sufficiently (e.g., by the newspaper and by his status) to be worth quoting to express that POV, regardless of whether we think he understands. After all, he doesn't need to pass a Reliable Source test, only the newspaper does, right?

On the other hand, if his understanding does matter, then let's look at his expertise. He is the author a 2015 book, published by Oxford University Press, The Definition of Anti-Semitism. He was also Staff Director at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He wrote a 2012 book, Cambridge Univ Press, on Jewish Identity and Civil Rights.

So, it's fair to say that he is perceived as a expert on antisemitism (and discrimination etc). Since he spoke on this article's topic, doesn't it make sense to present his perspective? cc: Simonm223, Selfstudier,NightHeron thanks. ProfGray (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we are looking at a question of balance here. The view that wikipedia is pushing anti-Zionism and that anti-Zionism is essentially antisemitism is one person's personal opinion. Most mainstream scholars on antisemitism and Palestine do not accept the view that anti-Zionism is essentially antisemitism, so the claim is controversial.

However, these scholars have not commented on the wikipedia article in question. Therefore we are giving prominent coverage to a strongly biased throwaway comment by one individual which has not received enough coverage to be contradicted. I don't think that Marcus fits the definition of subject matter expert, so in view of this the sentemce wouldn't appear to be WP:DUE. If the comments sparked a debate in reliable sources, where contradictory opinions were expressed, that range of opinions might be due.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a low opinion of using newspapers to establish WP:DUE especially when academic material is available. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Marcus is a well-known, published scholar on antisemitism. He even leads an organization that works on antisemitism. He did comment directly on the Misplaced Pages article in question (Zionism).

Is there some measure by which he is not a subject matter expert on antisemitism?

The draft currently includes comments by Hen Mazzig and Rep. Torres. Surely Marcus is a more recognized expert than those two, right?

I appreciate the desire for balance. Even if there's no published statement that presents another viewpoint about the Misplaced Pages article, it'd be fine to include in wikivoice an NPOV contextualizing statement such as "it is a disputed position that contemporary anti-Zionism is antisemitism." ProfGray (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @NightHeron that this quote is likely WP:UNDUE these reasons being those that NightHeron already described plus the presence of a preponderance of stronger academic sources that could approach the topic more dispassionately. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it is a lot more than disputed, at least by best sources (ie not by Israel, ADL and the rest). I don't particularly object to an attributed WP:COATRACK type comment from Marcus but it is WP:RECENT for all that. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Four question to be responsive to concerns above. Our discussion is about a paragraph that begins: In 2024, Misplaced Pages faced accusations of bias based on changes to its article about Zionism. (1) Is there any disagreement that such accusations were made?

To support the "accusations" sentence, the paragraph cites ADL, Hen Mazzig, and Rep. Torres. (2) Are there any objections to citing these 3 with the current snippets of their accusations?

This Talk section is a proposal to add an additional sentence from Marcus. The objections above include UNDUE weight. (This includes RECENT, which is a cause of potential UNDUE writing and COATRACK, which would be a pile-on of undue weight, right?) In order to provide the proper weight to the 2024 accusations of this paragraph, (3) what would be objections to cutting back the # of words given to Torres and Mazzig, so that Marcus could be added? Or to replacing Torres or Mazzig for Marcus?

(4) Would this clarification be acceptable? In 2024, Misplaced Pages faced accusations of anti-Jewish bias based on changes to its article about Zionism. Bold only to show the editing change, of course.

@Simonm223@Selfstudier@NightHeron @Boynamedsue Also pinging @XDanielx, who edited the article before and not sure if watching the draft, hope that's okay. ProfGray (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Marcus is problematic not only because his criticism of Misplaced Pages is biased, but because he insists on the outlandish claim that all opposition to Zionism is essentially antisemitic with the only exception being orthodox Jews who wanted Zionism to wait for the coming of the Jewish messiah. It's like saying that any opinion that settlers to N America were wrong to steal the Indians' lands and commit genocide against the Indians can be dismissed as simply anti=American, except for people who believed that they should have waited for the arrival of a messiah before they started killing Indians. Totally whackadoodle. NightHeron (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@NightHeron -- thanks for the reply. It'd be helpful to me to see comments on the 4 questions above, including #1 and #4. Not sure that it matters how WP editors view Marcus and I do not want to express any opinion regarding his claims. What matters is how Marcus is seen in the world -- gets published by academic presses, gets appointed to leadership positions, runs an organization that deals with antisemitism, etc. Fair enough? ProfGray (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

My point is that Marcus' theory about the nature of opposition to Zionism is essentially a fringe theory (although one that's espoused by many Zionists), namely, that (except for a small number of orthodox Jews who are waiting for the Jewish messiah) people who object to Zionism because of what has been done to the Palestinian people in the name of Zionism really have secret anti-Jewish motives, that is, are part of an anti-Jewish conspiracy that even includes Jews who oppose Zionism. This belief should thus be handled carefully, like any fringe notion. I think that that's the relevant issue, not necessarily your 4 questions. NightHeron (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this concern. Perhaps this can be separated into two parts:

One -- (A) Do Marcus and many Zionists say that (all or some) contemporary (non-Orthodox) anti-Zionists are also always / generally antisemitic? Seems likely, though this is an empirical q. (B) Do they also claim "secret anti-Jewish motives" or "conspiracy" by anti-Zionists? I'm doubtful, but it's also something that can be addressed -- is there any evidence for this?

Two -- If (A)+(B), would it be covered by WP:FRINGE? Probably not, because it's not a view that's deemed falsifiable by scientific or historical evidence. It's an opinion about what to condemn as bigotry. Fringe cannot simply mean POVs with low % of adherents. Also, while Zionist Jews may be small % English-speaking humans, they are a sizeable % of people who care about and have a stake in the meaning of antisemitism. By analogy, it'd be incorrect for hearing people to treat the deaf community's definition of anti-deaf prejudice as a fringe theory. ProfGray (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion of how anti-Zionism can be antisemitic in the articles on New antisemitism and 3D test of antisemitism. The concept dates to the early 1970s.

Proponents of the concept generally posit that in the late 20th and early 21st centuries much of what is purported to be criticism of Israel is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that together with evidence of a resurgence of antisemitic attacks on Jews, desecration of Jewish symbols and Judaism, Holocaust denial, and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse and online hate speech, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs. Proponents argue that anti-Zionism and demonization of Israel, or double standards applied to its conduct (some also include anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, and Third-Worldism) may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism, particularly when emanating simultaneously from the far-left, Islamism, and the far-right. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I personally find it frustrating when people interpret WP:FRINGE such that only History, among the humanities, can be seen as having Fringe content. And I do think the idea put forward by Marcus, that all criticism of Zionism except for that of orthodox Jews is necessarily antisemitic, should be treated as fringe. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the whole AZ =/!= AS needs an article all to itself, I'm reasonably confident in the interim that a majority of best sources are going to be saying, as an absolute minimum, that not all AZ = AS, in which case people asserting AZ = AS are just wrong. Depending on exactly what those best sources say, it may well be a fringe or at least a minority position. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the AZ ~~ AS connection could have its own article. Meanwhile, there's a really long section (w subsections) Anti-Zionism#Allegations of antisemitism.

Minority positions deserve some encyclopedic attention, as long as reported by Reliable Sources and properly presented and attributed, but not UNDUE coverage. Even if editors personally consider an opinion wrong, it can be put in the article in a suitable way.

WP:FRINGE policy does not apply to this type of minority opinion, because it's about how to categorize prejudice, which is not a scientific, falsifiable matter. ProfGray (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about listing of genocide as blood libel etc

A sentence was added with about 10 sources, re: Misplaced Pages's listing of genocides. This point does seem relevant to this article on antisemitism. I edited the wording to a more neutral point of view. However, 10 sources is too many for Misplaced Pages style. Let's choose the two most reliable sources -- and can we quote anyone who is charging WP with a "blood libel" or other antisemitic concern? cc:User:Allthemilescombined1, thanks. ProfGray (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Well -- 8 minutes later -- checked the 10 sources and none of them mention Misplaced Pages or charge Misplaced Pages with bias. The current fn #36 does discuss the Misplaced Pages decision, but does not mention blood libel or antisemitism. Need to be sure that a source brings up both Misplaced Pages and antisemitism, else it will be rejected as Misplaced Pages:No original research

This Haaretz article does mention Misplaced Pages and it's generally a good source. But it only mentions anti-Israel bias, not antisemitism. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-11-07/ty-article/.premium/wikipedia-editors-add-article-titled-gaza-genocide-to-list-of-genocides-page/00000193-0749-d3a2-a3d7-4f491b760000

This Jewish Journal article goes into more depth about Misplaced Pages. Again, only mentions anti-Israel but not antisemitism. https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/376425/wikipedia-editors-add-gaza-genocide-to-list-of-genocides-article/

@Allthemilescombined1please see above. The sentence needs a proper reference or it should be deleted. ProfGray (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Added to this sentence, with reference. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@ProfGray I added Dara Horn's comments on antisemitic genocide accusations. Also: Adam Kirsch describes the convergence of anti-Zionism with "older patterns of anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish thinking", citing as an example the protesters who chanted "MSK shame on you, you support genocide too" because of a donor's politics. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1-- hi. This article is about antisemitism on Misplaced Pages, such as biased Wiki articles or Wiki editors getting sanctions for anti-Jewish conduct. Especially because this article has been heavily contested, any reported accusations or findings of antisemitism must be about Misplaced Pages, explicitly. Since the Horn and Kirsch sources do not mention Misplaced Pages, the associated sentences need to be removed. (They might be used in articles, maybe Antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war?) Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions about this. ProfGray (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@ProfGray I added "Genocide accusations against Israel on Misplaced Pages have been criticized for a lack of NPOV tagging, in contrast to genocide accusations against Hamas" with a source. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the use of this line because, frankly, the idea that accusations of genocide by Hamas are NPOV tagged while accusations of genocide by Israel are not is because any assertion that Hamas, as it is currently composed, would be functionally able to perpetrate genocide actions is a WP:FRINGE statement. As such the source criticizing Misplaced Pages is effectively holding that Misplaced Pages is giving insufficient credence to a fringe position. We wouldn't include such a criticism in an article on Misplaced Pages and UFOlogy. We shouldn't do it here where the stakes are rather higher. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223Imagining what Hamas has or doesn't have functionally would be a WP:SYNTH statement and WP:FUTURE speculation. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Adjudicating the reliability of a source according to WP:FRINGE guidelines isn't an article space edit and is not subject to WP:SYNTH synth restrictions. So, actually, no it's not synth for me to say it's a fringe belief that Hamas has the material capacity to commit genocide. This is pointedly not a comment on any future state but, rather, is about capacity right now. Simonm223 (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the new(ish) sentence ("Genocide accusations.... lack of NPOV...") but for a different reason than stated above.

• Fringe does not apply to this kind of POV. Regardless of beliefs about Hamas, the opinion to be put into our article (or deleted) is whether Misplaced Pages has anti-Jewish bias. The article cites a historian and WP editors, it goes into detailed analysis of WP and the bias concerns. If there's a reliable source that puts argues against Bandler's informants and sources, etc., we could report that critique. But that critique is not our role and, really, FRINGE would not be the right policy to carry such a critique.
• @Allthemilescombined1-- the problem with the sentence is that it does not mention anti-Jewish or antisemitic bias. This article is about antisemitism on Misplaced Pages, not anti-Israel bias on Misplaced Pages. For that topic, there's: Misplaced Pages and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. That article has two Bandler pieces and the new sentence ("Genocide accusations...") could go there, supported by another Bandler piece.

My plan is to delete the sentences in this paragraph because they do not fit the scope of this article.

Meanwhile, it would be very helpful to know if there are other sentences anywhere in the current draft that are disputed or need to be tagged, so I'm tagging some editors who have been raising concerns @Simonm223 @NightHeron @Selfstudier @Boynamedsue, thanks. Even more with the new title, this article meets Notability criteria and, though it can be improved, the draft appears to have undergone enough improvements to be ready to move to main space. ProfGray (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The following line The framing of Misplaced Pages articles can be biased against Jews, at times, as Wolniewicz-Slomka and Makhortykh found, for instance, when Jewish heroics was omitted or Jewish suffering marginalized. should be moved to the section on holocaust related subjects as both sources are explicitly about that topic. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned about how this sentence is inserted into the I/P section where, by article copy, it appears to be about WWII related topics Citing the Grabowski and Klein study of "a small group of editors", the report contends that "Misplaced Pages's entries on Jewish subjects, particularly those related to Polish–Jewish history surrounding World War II, perpetuate and reinforce damaging stereotypes and misconceptions" leading the keynote speaker, politician Manuel Valls, to speak of an "antisemitic bias" in Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This paragraph is blatantly non-neutral by presenting as if all commentary on Misplaced Pages's treatment of Zionism was saying it was anti-Jewish. In 2024, Misplaced Pages faced accusations of bias based on changes to its article about Zionism. Some of the controversial language related to the framing of Zionism as colonization, as well as the statement that Zionists wanted "as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinians as possible". The Anti-Defamation League called the revised language "historically inaccurate" and "derogatory". Israeli writer Hen Mazzig called the entry "downright antisemitic", saying that it promoted the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry. US congressman Ritchie Torres called it a "warped telling of history," counting "Israeli Jews from the Middle East and North Africa, as well as from Ethiopia" among the "European colonizers."

Beyond that I've said my bit on the NPOV tag claim. And otherwise I have no further concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, one last thing about the final quote - I'm also uncertain how Ritchie Torres is WP:DUE in this circumstance. He does not appear to have any relevant expertise. He is just some politician. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added to the section on "Gaza genocide" with another source. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I cut the Ritchie Torres sentence and source. I remain concerned about the para in general as non-neutral but this much is a pretty clear WP:DUE matter. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Since the view of Marcus does merit mention, IMO, it's fine to delete Torres. However, it seems like you accidentally deleted the source, which also covers Hen Mazzig. @Simonm223 Please restore that source, ok? ProfGray (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's no problem. Didn't realize that source was doing double-duty. I put it back. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that citing Grabowski as evidence of bias against Israel is an obvious stretch as I mentioned earlier.

Other than an offhand comment about how, in general, the Left criticizes Zionism as a colonialist project, in this podcast (where the interviewer is trying to get JG to talk about bias against Israel) he says literally nothing else about it, citing his lack of expertise on the question. -- SashiRolls 17:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with keeping Grabowski in the article but I think it should be moved to the WWII / holocaust section to avoid WP:SYNTH. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Horn, Dara (2024-10-07). "October 7 Created a Permission Structure for Anti-Semitism". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2024-11-19.
2. Kirsch, Adam (2024-08-20). On Settler Colonialism. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 98–99. ISBN 978-1-324-10534-3.

• Draft-Class Judaism pages
• NA-importance Judaism pages
• Draft-Class Misplaced Pages pages
• NA-importance Misplaced Pages pages
• WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles