Draft talk:Antisemitism on Wikipedia

Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia

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

Nah, don’t merge. I am pretty sure that this page could warrant as its own article. It doesn’t need to be presented alongside similar topics. 2607:FEA8:FD04:8183:BC1F:FF73:8E47:AD (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - Antisemitism is not racism. (or at least not in the ordinary sense) Jacker1968 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 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 Wikipedia 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^C 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 ^T/_C\^R 16:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge: Short mention on Criticism of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 ^T/_C\^R 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 ^T/_C\^R 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 Wikipedia. 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 - Wikipedia and the COVID-19 pandemic, Wikipedia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Wikipedia 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 ^T/_C\^R 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia" 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:NPOV deletion applies to merges as well. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, but a page based on "X and Y" can be tricky when it's about a controversial topic. Wikipedia and racism, for example, is a red link, whereas Gender bias on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia" 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 Wikipedia's articles about antisemitism: Tausch, Arno. "The political geography of Shoah knowledge and awareness, estimated from the analysis of global library catalogues and Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia." 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: Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Oboler, Andre, Gerald Steinberg, and Rephael Stern. "The framing of political NGOs in Wikipedia through criticism elimination." Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7, no. 4 (2010): 284-299.
5. more sources for Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia controversies and List of edit wars on Wikipedia. See also current fn 7 and 8 and 22. Put in Criticism of Wikipedia or similar articles?

If there isn't even one Reliable Source with its main topic as Wikipedia 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^talk 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 Wikipedia -- a terrible coatrack of an article, but one which has managed to stick around, and where this would fit in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hi there. I added a Antisemitic bias subsection to the Criticism of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia." 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 Wikipedia. Adeptus, (8), 29-49.
3. Academic critique of WP coverage of Holocaust and Poland: Grabowski, Jan, and Shira Klein. "Wikipedia’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 Wikipedia:Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia's coverage of ongoing war is not only anti-Israel, it also shows antisemitic bias. Coverage noted at: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-08-14/In the media and has grown since then. Whether "True" or not, their arguments are about Wikipedia and antisemitism, cannot simply be put into Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia as a topic. And merging into the already baggy Criticism of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia would do just fine. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia Editors in particular.

Not only is it clearly worthy of independent discussion, it might look so some that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, which seems laudable.

Does Pirate Wires tend to be treated as a reliable source on Wikipedia? @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:

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

The second part should certainly be merged into Wikipedia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and Criticism of Wikipedia). 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 ^T/_C\^R 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 ^T/_C\^R 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia – 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia generates knowledge about antisemitism, regardless of Wikipedia's own biases, as with the second paragraph, i.e, Scholars have also used Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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)

• 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 Wikipedia would make that article overly lengthy and disproportionately focused on one criticism. As Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia and antisemitism" but then it changes that to "Antisemitic bias on Wikipedia" 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... "Wikipedia and antisemitism issues" isn't any better, "Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia and antisemitism" broader than "Wikipedia and antisemitism issues?" Agreeing that it should not be selective, what's a suggested rewriting of the first sentence so that it begins with "Wikipedia and antisemitism" without a word like issues? ProfGray (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, Wikipedia and antisemitism includes everything in the topic Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Wikipedia and the Holocaust) since neither of those have the full scope that this one does. There should be a section on Criticism of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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. Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia and reliability decisions". It would also fit into a page on Criticism of Wikipedia, since indeed partisan sources have criticized Wikipedia 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)

Too big?

WP:NOMERGE tells us to avoid merging if the resulting article would be too long or "clunky". Criticism of Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 ^T/_C\^R 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^talk 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 ^T/_C\^R 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 ^T/_C\^R 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 ^T/_C\^R 20:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Post-merge comments

XDanielx, ProfGray etc, I do support the creation of an article called Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? 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 ^T/_C\^R 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 ^T/_C\^R 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 ^T/_C\^R 17:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Recommended edits if article is kept

To better assess the viability of this article, let's discuss edits that might improve it. How about restructring the headings to cover the different subtopics of antisemitic bias?

• Explicit antisemitic conduct. This could include media coverage of swastika vandalism and antisemitic user names.
• Bias in coverage of the Holocaust.
• Bias in articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict. This would be a child-parent subsection to the main article on Wikipedia and the Israel-Palestine conflict.
• Systemic bias. This could include terminology bias. Also, suppression of accusations of antisemitic bias, as argued by: Oboler, Andre, Gerald Steinberg, and Rephael Stern. "The framing of political NGOs in Wikipedia through criticism elimination." Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7, no. 4 (2010): 284-299.
• Efforts to address antisemitic bias

The current article also mentions concerns with bias in Arabic Wikipedia, treatment of Jewish biographies, etc. Under what heading would we place the antisemitic bias concerns with the ADL case? ProfGray (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional suggestions, numbered for feedback:

1. It should read "October 7, 2023" and 2024 in the Bias in Israel-related content section, 2nd paragraph
2. Change title, Move, to Antisemitism on Wikipedia. This would be comparable to gender and racial bias articles, which are also subarticles to the Criticism of WP article.
3. Revise opening, e.g.: Antisemitic bias on Wikipedia has been raised as a concern over the conduct of some editors, systemic bias, and aspects of the coverage of the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
4. Place Wikipedia's responses, if any, within each (new) subtopic. Likewise, for each subtopic, bring in global coverage from non-EN wikipedias.
5. Attribute research findings to specific studies, match various types of antisemitic bias to the particular experts or advocates holding that view.
6. Include a subsection with various published recommendations about how WP might reduce antisemitism.
7. Write the major points very concisely in the parent article, Criticism of Wikipedia, and elaborate fully in this article. Minor points can be covered here, skipping the parent article. ProfGray (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Subsection_on_Antisemitic_bias_on_Wikipedia Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I think grouping by topics along those lines seems like a nice direction.

In terms of what to do with any content about other-language Wikipedias, it seems we have a few options -

1. Make language the main top-level organization. I suspect we won't have enough non-English content for this to work well.
2. Make most sections about English, with a special section for Arabic. Feels a bit weird since it deviates from the otherwise topic-based organization.
3. No language-based organization, just consider all languages in scope within each section.
4. Or explicitly scope the article to English Wikipedia only.

I think 3 or 4 might be best? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

How would you feel about broadening the Israeli-Palestinian section to be about Israel, not necessarily the conflict? I figure it would enable some other material, e.g. from [1], to be included.

The ADL content also feels a little out-of-place there; do you think a section about sources would make sense? ADL alone is a small topic, but maybe it could have some other content based on the paper about NGOs, or [2] talks about source selection leading to bias in Holocaust content. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the ADL case is quite significant for this article -- not so much because of the actual RS ruling -- but because of the strong Jewish community reaction and because the ADL has been perceived as an authority and leader on determining antisemitism (or antisemitic bias) and combating it.

Let's not limit to English WP, partly given the sources available, and partly to keep with aspirational WP goal to have a global perspective.

For the I-P section, it'd be best to have a heading that focuses readers on the antisemitic concerns with the overall I-P topic. So I may revise it again, or leave it to later. Thoughts? ProfGray (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this case of Holocaust distortion is pertinent: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In the media ProfGray (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree we should cover the ADL case, since it received significant coverage. I just meant that it didn't seem specific to I-P, so not sure about it being in that section.

I don't feel strongly about the sections, but just want to make sure we have some place for criticism that relates to Zionism or Israel but isn't focused on the I-P conflict specifically. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi. @XDanielx, it may be wise to have a Talk section specifically about how to handle Israel-related bias.

Unless or until renamed, this article is about antisemitism, right? As such, it seems improper to assume that any anti-Israel bias is also anti-Jewish (aka antisemitic). Israel advocacy groups, incl ADL, often presume an overlap by using the IHRA definition, but Wikipedia has not taken a stance re:IHRA.

Accordingly, it makes sense to refer only to sources and situations, whether in WP articles or internal discussions, in which the Israel-related matter is explicitly discussed in terms of anti-Jewish or antisemitic bias. I plan to restore the lede and open a Talk section for this question. Thanks, ProfGray (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Synth topic?

Are there high quality RS that treat antisemitism and wikipedia as a coherent topic? We seem to have good RS talking about certain instances of antisemitism and wikipedia, but we can't WP:synthesize individual incidents to make a topic.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that this topic is synthetic. There are a number of articles, primarily about the Holocaust fake concentration camp debacle, that do treat this as a topic. Andre🚐 19:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia and antisemitism is not a topic, Wikipedia and antisemitic bias might be, if sufficient sourcing can be found to back that up. This article is synth city atm. Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Andrevan Can you link that article? I'm curious if it covers the I-P dispute. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Something like this perhaps [3] and no, those articles are about WWII not the I-P stuff. For that, something like this [4] or this [5] regarding the ADL stuff is relevant. Note that these are about Wikipedia and antisemitism in the sense that they are about coverage of antisemitism on Wikipedia, not that Wikipedia is antisemitic. Andre🚐 19:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, so my major objection was connecting the Holocaust to I-P stuff under the umbrella of antisemitism is a violation of WP:SYNTH.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably a moot point now, but that isn't synth. Both relate to the topic. Andre🚐 01:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It is absolutely synth. Can you find a source that discusses both wikipedia's holocaust coverage and I-p coverage in the context of antisemitism? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of antisemitic incidents in Kemp Mill, Maryland. The article consisted of antisemitic incidents that all individually met WP:V, but there was no single RS covering the phenomenon of antisemitism across Kemp Mill as a whole.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not what synth is. It's not synth if you have an article about antisemitism and it covers one thing about antisemitism and another thing also about it, but not related to the first thing. That's simply juxtaposition. WP:SYNTHNOT. The example you gave is WP:NLIST, not synth. Andre🚐 04:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION allows for juxtaposition only when there's no insinuation. In this case, the insinuation is that banning ADL as a source was motivated by antisemitism, the same kind of antisemitism that lead to Holocaust revisionism on wikipedia. While the first 3 (of the 5 sources provided by ProfGray) do deal with The Holocaust, they say nothing about the I-P conflict. The last 2 (if they constitute RS at all — I thought we agreed the ADL is not RS?) deal with I-P but don't connect it to Holocaust revisionism.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The first source (Oboler 2010) does include a case characterized as an "anti-Jewish agenda" with a campaign of "antisemitism." (p.292) Another case deals with Holocaust and I-P as follows: "In one change, a research finding stating that War on Want was “accused of making political use of ‘Holocaust and anti-Semitic themes’” was revised by Evelyn727 to state that the NGO was accused of being “involved in international lobbying to isolate Israel.”" etc. Also cases related to I-P. @Vice regent

The Holocaust-related criticisms are a subset of antisemitism, right? Not all I-P criticisms refer to antisemitism, of course, but some explicitly do. I will try to check the other Holocaust sources as they get written up for the article. ProfGray (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This article here should be merged/redirected per consensus and if editors wish to start a new article from scratch about an identifiable topic that is not simply a recreation of this one, then they can do that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The Merge discussion was reopened, which means that it is acceptable to continue editing this article. Indeed, there is an explicit window of at least 4 days for editing, per this diff, before an anticipated AfD. Articles may also be edited during an AfD. ProfGray (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Not saying you can't edit, my suggestion is cleaner, the article as is, just a mess and tweaking it won't help. Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@ProfGray You are correct. That source does indeed talk about antisemitism in the actions of Alberuni and Evelyn727. However, these mentions don't seem to be significant, one paragraph on antisemitism and less than half a sentence on Holocaust.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That is plenty significance enough. Andre🚐 15:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

We'll test that assertion at AfD. Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The entire Alberuni case is about antisemitism, even if the word 'antisemitism' is not repeated in paragraphs about "names attacking Jews" and so on. Likewise, the entire Evelyn727 case is about "Holocaust and antisemitic themes," though the author doesn't repeat the wording. These cases are relevant insofar as it shows that Oboler (2010) covers a range of "criticism elimination" efforts, not limited to I-P. (Relevant to some views of SYNTH, which I am not addressing myself at this stage.)

As for significance for Notability, this will likely depend be gauged by the overall coverage of the topic by reliable sources such as Oboler, but not Oboler alone. ProfGray (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Andre🚐 15:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There are 3 short paragraphs on Alberuni (177 words). I don't agree that entire Evelyn727 was about antisemitism, and in any case it mentions them as having made only 18 edits. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Number of edits is not relevant, it's the weight given in reliable sources. 3 paragraphs is sufficient to be more than a passing mention. I also agree with ProfGray that it's obviously about antisemitic themes even though it doesn't explicitly have to mention that exact wording for it to be clear in context. Even if it's not "entirely" about it, that is not the criterion here. Something given space and time in reliable work that relates to this topic may be included. It's only SYNTH if it makes a conclusion not present by combining disparate material. "Being related" or "entirely about" isn't SYNTH. It's an extra-narrow comb not justified by the usual method of article writing or any guideline. Andre🚐 17:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

For your question about RS sources, see my comment above at this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia%20and%20antisemitism&diff=1254534776&oldid=1254500739 ProfGray (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ProfGray (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems pretty arguably WP:SYNTHy to group a lot of disparate topics ranging from user behavior on an online forum (always inappropriate conduct), the Holocaust denial controversy a few years ago, and the current conflation of wikipedia's coverage of Israel/Palestine conflict and antisemitism. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The article's recent edits make it read even more like an essay than before! It is basically creating an argument that WP is antisemitic rather than cataloging the arguments of people who think that. The case for a minimalist merge gets stronger with every edit.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this article should describe the arguments (or findings) of people who think that WP has antisemitic bias, so thank you for placing specific tags. I will try to address these concerns and please continue to give feedback. @Boynamedsue

• For a lead section, citations need not be given because it summarizes what comes below. Is that a suitable approach for the first sentence of each section? If not, then those sentences would need to be deleted. If yes, then perhaps these sentences do not properly summarize what follows? I will review these sentences tomorrow. IINM, some of the OR and by whom tags are on sentences that were moved but I had not yet reviewed, so I (or others) should do so.
• For the Makhortykh point about 3 wikipedias has users pushing Holocaust denial, I added a quote to the citation. Would it be better to say WPs 'had some' users?
• On Deborah Lipstadt, added a quote to the citation and reworded. Hoping her concerns are more clear now.
• Last sentence on JVL and NGOM -- I have not reviewed that sentence but it seems problematic, at least because our article doesn't say what objections were raised to these WP bans.

Thanks again for tagging sentences to be improved. ProfGray (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Now I see that there are helpful comments in the edit summaries for the tags -- I plan to look at these tomorrow (or Monday). ProfGray (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Today I revised or removed sentences that were tagged. Not sure who provided each tag, but any review of these edits would be appreciated. ProfGray (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Trivia

@ProfGray, another concern I have with the article is it about antisemitism on wikipedia, or is it simply about any mention of antisemitism in the context of wikipedia. For example, currently the article talks about some Wikipedians removing antisemitism from the infobox at Hamas, but the source doesn't say whether such removals were motivated by antisemitic bias. It seems the only reason that information is in this article is because it mentions antisemitism. Making this article about anytime antisemitism is mentioned in the context of wikipedia, seems like a bit of WP:trivia to me.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

To be sure, the article should not be a list of every alleged (or even substantiated) instance of antisemitism. Let's restructure the article and enable it to give a coherent account of the topic. It will then be easier to see if it's a list of miscellaneous "trivia" in the WP sense (though some may say that antisemitism is never trivial in the ordinary sense). The Hamas point is within a source that had a fairly narrow list of 7, and Hamas itself is historically associated (rightly for wrongly) in a significant way with antisemitism, so perhaps it's best to defer judgment on that particular item, okay? ProfGray (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The source on that Hamas point never claims that users removing antisemitism label from Hamas were motivated by antisemitism. Its "trivia" in the sense that it has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia has an antisemitic bias.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Bias is often observed, alleged, or even legally determined without knowing motivation. Wikipedia comes across as biased to the author, and some of the ppl cited about Hamas, not necessarily because of the editors' motivation but because of the effect. That's the whole impact not intent discourse about bias, right? Likewise, WP's gender bias is not always done on purpose. ProfGray (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

With respect, I think you're missing the point, and that is that the source is not accusing wikipedia of being antisemitic, but accusing Hamas of being antisemitic.

More trivia: "editors allegedly methodically erased accusations of antisemitism made against the UK Labour Party." Again, the source seems to be accusing the Labour Party of being antisemitic.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not given in the source. It's true that there were allegations of antisemitism within the Labour Party. It was a huge scandal during Corbyn's run for PM and probably even cost him that. Andre🚐 17:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The source does cover claims of anti-Israeli bias, which I think ought to be in scope for this article. I see your point that anti-Israeli bias isn't necessarily antisemitism, but I think we should remedy that by clarifying the scope in the lede, or possibly renaming, to clarify that claims of antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias are both in scope. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It's also typical for articles to touch on closely related topics that don't technically fall under the scope implied by the title. So it might be okay without any official changes in scope, but if so we should reword to clarify that that content is about claims of anti-Israeli bias, avoiding implying anything about antisemitism. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Antisemitism on Wikipedia or perhaps allegations of antisemitism on Wikipedia might be a better name (see Category:Allegations, with a particular nod to its subcategory of Category:Conspiracy theories (to be clear, I am not saying there is no antisemitism on Wikipedia, editors have various POVs, but this is applicable to the loudest claims that this is a systemic problem related to purposeful, coordinated editing, somethiung that has never been proven, but is a boomerang criticism). Frankly, I'd support merge, since I am concerned sources we have are low quality (mostly biased and not very reliable). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

At the minute there is a strong consensus to merge, so the title isn't something we really. need to get into.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Allegations of antisemitism on Wikipedia seems reasonable to me, since most of the incidents are not blatant antisemitism, but accusations which involve some interpretation. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I would support this sort of renaming rather than a merge. It avoids the risk of synth and is a proper topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I find the whole business of just saying 'antisemitism' is a mess, and the problem isn't covered even in the section about the ADL where it's meaning and ambiguity/misuse was a major factor. I think "Opinion | Hamas Didn't Attack Israelis Because They Are Jewish | Common Dreams". www.commondreams.org. Retrieved 2024-11-02. about covers my feelings. I've no doubt antisemitism is high in Hamas but it wasn't the reason they attacked Israel. NadVolum (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think both can be true, since that dispute was about Hamas' ideology generally, which could include antisemitism even if it wasn't a primary motivation for the attack. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Omnipedia's findings

• Remove or rephrase the line "A 2012 study found that many Wikipedias treated Judaism as a conspiracy theory" in the section Systemic anti-Jewish bias, as it misrepresents the citation's findings.
• The source instead states "We also see that Judaism is discussed in many language editions’ coverage of conspiracy theories, demonstrating that this form of anti-Semitism is unfortunately widespread." Pg 2 of Omnipedia: bridging the wikipedia language gap PDF
• The source is saying that Judaism is a topic of many conspiracy theories (same as Freemasonry, the US, or the CIA), not that Wikipedia is treating Judaism itself as a conspiracy theory.

Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this. Correcting now. ProfGray (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Neutrality tag

@Boynamedsue: do you have ideas about how neutrality could be improved? I'm mainly thinking about the tag in the sourcing section, though similar concerns may arise elsewhere.

• It seems like a valid point that inclusion may seem like an implied claim of antisemitism. Do you think a title like Allegations of anti-Jewish bias on Wikipedia would help with this concern? I figure "anti-Jewish bias" is broader/milder than "antisemitism".
• I would agree we should ideally do more to represent the other side of these Wikipedia disputes, I'm just not sure if we'll be able to find secondary sources to do so. Should we consider citing Wikipedia at all? I think it would require a bit of WP:IAR, since it would seem to break the reliably-published prong of WP:PRIMARY.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

In terms of the neutrality tag on the last section, sources which outline the problems with ADL's identification of individuals as antisemitic exist and were referred to in the RfC, they should be included as context in a sentence prior to the criticism. Then the criticism needs to avoid the impression of wikivoice, I tried an edit with "what they perceived as Jewish communal opinion" or something similar, but a direct quote would also work there.

In terms of the title, I personally still think this should be merged, and a consensus for that exists, so I'm not massively fussed. But the title "anti-Jewish bias" is worse. It still associates bias against Jews with bias against Israel (if we are going to have the Israel-Palestine section) and takes the very nuanced analysis in the Babi Yar article, which actually focuses on the use of Holocaust memory in the construction of modern nationalism and makes it about anti-Jewish bias.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It does seem to me that links should be made to the closes or to the summary at RSN for the decisions on reliability. Insofar as there are claims being made for example about the JVL, a link to the close, which explains the problem of circular citation (currently unmentioned in this entry) would be wise. In the Criticism of Wikipedia entry I've boldly added a link to the close of the ADL discussion in mainspace, which may be a no-no, but seemed the fairest solution. Perhaps that link should be relegated to a ref-tag. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The 9 media sources in the RfC discussion are at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439.

Agreeing that anti-Jewish and anti-Israel bias should be differentiated, except where an overlap is clearly involved. See Talk section below on this point.

Hopefully the nuanced Holocaust scholarship is now better represented in that article subsection. ProfGray (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

§ Source selection

What's the point of the following para: Wikipedia maintains a list of "perennial sources" whose reliability has been evaluated by a community of editors, with results like "generally reliable", "generally unreliable", or "deprecated". These classifications affect editors' ability to use the sources on Wikipedia. Sources deemed generally reliable include Al-Jazeera, Amnesty International and B'Tselem. Sources deemed generally unreliable include Jewish Virtual Library, an online encyclopedia, and NGO Monitor, a pro-Israel advocacy group.

One could add to "Sources deemed generally reliable" - CNN, Nyt; and "Sources deemed generally unreliable" - Brietbart, Al Mayadeen. One can arbitrarily select any of the sources listed on wp:rsp to make a point that suits one's perspective. — hako9 (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with this concern and the deletion of the sentences above. The critique by Bandler the Jewish Journal, is about ideological bias and anti-Israel bias, without mentioning any anti-Jewish aka antisemitic aspects. The other reference, by Elia-Shalev, could be used for ADL if need be, but again refers to JVL or NGO Monitor in terms of anti-Israel bias. ProfGray (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the sources were imply an alleged connection to antisemetic bias, but yeah maybe it wasn't explicit enough to clearly establish relevance. Might be useful to keep the first sentence at least (or similar) for context. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Distinguishing anti-Jewish and antisemitic bias from anti-Israel bias

Opening up discussion on the article topic (currently defined as antisemitism) in relation to anti-Israel concerns.

It seems improper to assume that any anti-Israel bias is also anti-Jewish (aka antisemitic). Israel advocacy groups, incl ADL, often presume an overlap by using the IHRA definition. However, Wikipedia has not taken a stance re:IHRA.

Accordingly, it makes sense to refer only to sources and situations, whether in WP articles or internal discussions, in which the Israel-related matter is clearly discussed in terms of anti-Jewish or antisemitic bias. In other words, this article can have a section on anti-Jewish concerns as a (parent-child) subset of anti-Israel bias concerns in general, which belong to Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Fwiw, not implying anything about the Truth of concerns, allegations, etc.

This approach is reflected in my recent edit of the opening sentence and removing 2 sentences about Israel and Gaza. ProfGray (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I might prefer a broader scope which encompasses allegations of anti-Israeli bias, but that's fair to make those changes for now pending a possible rename or other explicit scope decision. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2024

Wikipedia and antisemitism → Allegations of antisemitism on Wikipedia – One of the names suggested by Piotrus. The article primarily covers cases which are too controversial to label as antisemitism in wikivoice, so I think Antisemitism on Wikipedia would be a WP:POVNAME. The current Wikipedia and antisemitism might be okay (see also WP:AND), but "allegations" or "accusations" feels a bit safer, making it extra clear that the scope includes allegations whose merit Wikipedia does not take a position on. "Allegations" also feels like the most conventional name, matching most names in Category:Allegations. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support, seems to be an improvement. Andre🚐 17:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Alternative. Consider the reasons for Antisemitic bias on Wikipedia:

• Key reason is that some cases are clearly established, not disputed. These don't fit well under the title of an 'allegation,' such as:

1. Neo-Nazi attack on Jewish ethnocentrism and other articles,
2. Sanctions on indiv editors cited in academic literature,
3. Wikipedia's responsiveness to swastikas and other vandalism.
4. Edit disputes over removing antisemitic views of organizations or individuals, e.g., Father Coughlin

• Most of the academic findings of bias in the article, which are not contested, would not be referred to as "allegations."
• Consistency with Racial bias on Wikipedia that likewise covers accusations that are not in wikivoice.
• IINM, the "allegations" level items are the ADL case and the Grabowski-Klein article, right? While important, perhaps these should not sway the entire topic.

I appreciate the spirit of renaming and glad that it will be limited to antisemitism and not anti-Israel. Thanks for moving conversation forward. ProfGray (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this, too. Andre🚐 17:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Besides allegations about ADL and Grabowski Klein, there are a few isolated "allegations" that may or may not remain in article (i.e., UK Labour, Hamas). I haven't fully reviewed them and they, and others that come along, should not be written in wikivoice. ProfGray (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree some cases are clearly established, but I figure both names are imperfect for reflecting a combination of established and alleged antisemitism, so it might be best to go with the more conservative option. Particularly since this is at risk of being deleted due to POV concerns (despite it not being a standard reason for deletion); I figure a rename like this might assuage some concerns.

I would argue that some other content should be viewed as allegations, like "Jew tagging" could plausibly be non-malicious, or there could be non-malicious explanations for correlations with language like "lobby" and "conspiracy". — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this issue belongs more on the Criticism of Wikipedia entry than it does here. I remember going through and removing the tag "French Jew" from around 50 or 60 pages back in mid November 2018 because either there was no reference or the category was not defining. Most of those I've looked back in on have been reinstated by IPs... usually because they've found a reference that shows that someone in the family was Jewish (in one case a biography of the father). Is this anti-Semitism or Jewish pride? It seems to me very difficult to know for sure, but it nevertheless represents a problem for the GDPR, in my opinion, to say that "Janine X's father was from a Jewish family" and to categorize Janine as a French Jew, if Janine herself considers that nobody's business but her own. (For full disclosure in the case I have in mind the IP did not reinstate the category:French Jew label but instead added category:French people of X-ian-Jewish descent.) The source speaks about the ease with which it is possible to categorize people into ad hoc lists based on religion, which -- as it happens -- is illegal in the country I live in. This is why I think it's better suited to the criticism of wikipedia entry, a source indicating someone's religion is not an ad hoc list in the way that Wikipedian categories are... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional context on that. The source mentions antisemitism as a "possible" motive, but it does like a fairly weak/speculative connection, so I think it may be reasonable to remove (though cc I.am.a.qwerty who I think was the author of that). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. Most of the content of this page is simply a reporting of factual occurrences - they aren't "allegations" because they clearly happened. If editors want to argue that maligning Jews isn't antisemitism then the place for that is the antisemitism article, not here. Fig (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment Still not seeing any reason why this cannot be merged per the already established consensus, any editor may recreate a different article/scope if they believe it meets GNG.Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Most arguments for merging/deleting were based on fixable issues rather than notability, so we've been working to address them. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Editors are still adding !votes to merge, this starts to look like an end run around consensus procedures. Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The merge was proposed mere hours after creation. The present article bears little resemblance to that initial version, and it's still evolving, with issues actively being addressed. Moreover, from a procedural perspective AfD is the more appropriate forum for a proposed merge that largely has the effect of deletion, and an AfD is forthcoming. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Afaics, there is not even agreement on a title or a scope, never mind any other problems. Selfstudier (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, but this very discussion is an effort to settle on a name/scope. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The cleanest and simplest procedure is to carry out the merge, then do a fresh start with only appropriate material. The material will not be lost. Selfstudier (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're seeing that, as my reading is that the vast majority of merge !votes are citing WP:POVFORK, which would be an issue of the article's scope & coverage as a whole rather then just fixable issues with regards to content. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

True, but it's not clear what it would be a fork of, so it seems like POV fork is being used as a misnomer for an article with a WP:POVNAME or other POV issues? If so, I would think alternate names or other neutrality improvements could alleviate the concerns. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Well the merge discussion refers to Criticism of Wikipedia as the target, so it should be safe to assume that, unless stated otherwise, those people think it's a POV fork of the article they want to merge it into.

So again, it seems clear that, at least to me, the people !voting merge & citing WP:POVFORK are doing so because they agree with the original proposal, not because they are using the wrong terminology. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Which is on the face of it, impossible, since it was created before its supposed fork-parent. Andre🚐 20:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Huh? This article is only a little over a week old & the original proposed merge was to Criticism of Wikipedia, an article created in 2004. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, got my wires crossed and thought I was responding to a different merge proposal. Striking. Andre🚐 20:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural close A valid and clear cut consensus exists for a merge. Editors with ideas that the content should be this or that or the article title this or the other can sort that out after the merge is carried out. Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  An AfD is forthcoming, you can make your case there. No reason we can't try to improve the article in the meantime. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  And lo it forthcame. Folly Mox (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support-ish. If this page remains as a standalone page (which I oppose, having supported either deletion or merging), then it would be an improvement to get away from the "A and B" title structure. I'm not terribly fond of "Allegations" in the title, but some sort of non-and title would be an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support per my comment above, although I still think a merge would be sufficient. ProfGray and others make some fair points that the current title might actually be ok too, as would be others, so... shrug. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close A merge discussion which at present has a strong consensus to close is still open. People need to stop opening discussions until that one is concluded.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. A better description of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, leave it as is MaskedSinger (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support seems less of a pov title Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support I also oppose a standalone page and supported a merge per ongoing reopened merge discussion, so if not that then this instead.Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Use of "allegations" is a weasel word implying that the claims in the article are not established, when most of them clearly are. Denial of antisemitism is itself one of the most prevalent forms of antisemitism these days. Qualiesin (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a WP:OTHERCONTENT (that essay is an essay) argument, but per reasoning like at the Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism#Requested_move_29_October_2024 close, I think the title is fair. Not sure this should be a separate article, but that is another question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Either have Antisemitism on wikipedia (backed by quality scholarly sources), or don't have this article at all. "Allegations of antisemitism" on wikipedia will produce an article that is a collection of baseless allegations, which is not what wikipedia is meant to be.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia coverage of Labour Party

I revised the write-up of Yair Rosenberg's criticism of Wikipedia coverage of Labour and Corbyn. Feedback welcome. He wrote in Jan 2018. Is it acceptable MOS, either in a note or in the article body, to provide a diff showing the Corbyn article at the time? Would it be too much Original Research to provide a note showing that within 3 months the Corbyn article did have a section on Corbyn's responses to antisemitism accusations? Though not covered in the meda, Wikipedia did appear to resolve this alleged bias.ProfGray (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Misc claims of anti-Jewish bias

Found these sources, the first seems reliable and useful. Not sure if there others could improve the article's coverage of criticisms about anti-Jewish bias.

Richard Greenberg, Sept 4, 2006. "The lie that just won't seem to die: Jews behind 9/11" The Jerusalem Post. [6] Based on research by Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates: "Efforts to connect the Jews with 9/11, however, are not limited to fringe groups talking with one another. Contributors to Wikipedia, the popular and influential online encyclopedia, have tried repeatedly to insert anti-Jewish 9/11 theories into Wikipedia's pages and represent them as fact or at least plausible versions of reality, according to Berlet. The insertions - which represent one of countless pieces of potentially suspect information submitted to Wikipedia almost daily - have been promptly excised by the encyclopedia's volunteer editors, says Berlet, himself a Wikipedia editor, "but it requires constant attention." It's impossible to determine how many viewers have seen the postings before they were removed from the Wikipedia Web site, which has a daily viewership of roughly 30 million, according to a company spokesman."

Karin Quillan, July 12, 2010. "Wikipedia’s Jewish Problem: Why won't the online encyclopedia allow the truth about the New York Times' Holocaust coverage?" FrontPage Mag [7] Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-19/In the news

Dani Ishai Behan, Feb 17, 2017. "Wikipedia’s Jewish Problem: Pervasive, Systemic Antisemitism" Times of Israel. [8] This links to ethnic slurs Talk and questionable views of Jewish identity.

Hava Mendelle. Feb 17, 2024. "Wikipedia: how safe is crowdsourcing the truth?" The Spectator Australia. [9] "Take the following examples, an article on Flat Earth and an article on the Weaponisation of antisemitism. The Flat Earth article created in 2001 has a total number of 5,511 edits with 650-page watchers (usually administrators who monitor page stability). Whereas the article on the Weaponisation of antisemitism created in December 2023 has a total of 196 edits and fewer than 30-page watchers. The former reads more neutral and factual where whereas the latter reads like an argumentative essay. The problem here is that with millions of articles on any given topic, the majority of people are likely to read smaller articles as fact regardless of any increased bias or lack of impartiality.

(yesterday) Ohad Merlin, Nov 3, 2024. "Wikipedia in Arabic: A hotbed for bigotry, misinformation, and bias - investigative report" Jerusalem Post. [10] -- Mostly about anti-Israel bias, but leads with anti-Jewish example. ProfGray (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Use of source on anti-Jewish editing on Eugenics

Re: This sentence in our article's current version:

• For example, in 2005, editors removed an anti-Jewish section of the Eugenics article after in-depth Wikipedia talk page conversations with a suspected sock puppet account from Stormfront.

In reviewing sources, I noticed that De Vera (2020) is a master's thesis, not a doctoral dissertation as cited. Corrected the error. Added a thorough quote from De Vera:

The suspected sock account, under the username Harkenbane, added a section called “Jewish eugenics” and removed a separate section with the justification, “This section perpetuated the myth that eugenics and Nazi Germany are strongly linked, and has been edited for historical accuracy.”[78] Another editor, Fastfission, was alarmed by these unsolicited or discussed revisions and reverted them immediately, noting that all claims made in the article about Nazi Germany are backed with citations to credible sources. Fastfission wrote wrote, “[I] suspect very much the motivations of this user; the entire edit smacks a very nasty sort of revisionism and denial.”[79] A third editor, SlimVirgin, agreed and speculated that Harkenbane may have been a sock puppet account from a fringe website. This prompted Harkenbane to respond, who dismissed all of their accusations and instead doubled down on their claim that Nazi Germany and eugenics was not connection, calling it an “urban legend.”[80]

I checked the Wiki source for the 78-80 footnotes, which is Talk:Eugenics/Archive_1#Reverted changes, "myth". The Harkenbane March 2, 2005 edit also checks out, it adds a section that mentions "Jewish eugenics" though the subheading is "Contemporary backlash." As @Butterscotch Beluga pointed out, WP:RS guidelines state: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Still, for the RS guideline: "Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply." Should an exception be made in this instance?

• One advantage is that the article's sentence is arguably verified by De Vera's footnote to the Talk page and the Harkenbane edit perm link. If need be, the links can be put in an accompanying note.
• An advantage may be that this incident helps the reader understand the 2005 neo-Nazi campaign, discussed earlier in our article, without overstating the case.
• A disadvantage is that de Vera's 2020 thesis is not cited afaik, so inclusion would be an exception to the guideline.

Thoughts? Has anyone seen another account of the anti-Jewish editing of the Eugenics article? ProfGray (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

RS decision on ADL regarding antisemitism

For this Wikipedia and antisemitism article, a highly relevant part of the RS decision about ADL deals with their reliability on antisemitism, excluding Israel and Zionism. We have various options, using the primary source (WP) or reliable secondary sources:

1. Full quote from the Perennial sources list: "The ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned, and the reliability is a case-by-case matter. There is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL as antisemitic should be attributed. The ADL has also demonstrated a habit of conflating criticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism."
2. Quote the first line of the statement above.
3. Mention or define the status of "No consensus," such as: "The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context." (Per WP:RSP)
4. Quote from the archived "close" of the consensus: "There was insufficient argumentation against the ADL's reliability regarding antisemitism in other contexts; much of the opposition in that regard focused on subjective disagreements as to how far the taint of the Israel-related general unreliability should spread. The ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned. We remind editors that source reliability is always a case-by-case matter. RSN's purpose is to answer the general case. The reliability of a given statement by a source, for a given statement in a Wikipedia article, must always be decided by that article's editors."
5. Quote and summarize secondary sources that mentions the antisemitism (excluding Israel and Zionism) part of the decision. While most sources came out before the June 21 close (i.e., JTA-1, The Independent, New Arab News, CNN, The Forward, The Hill.), but after the close there's this:

• Jewish Journal: "Wikipedia editors have designated the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as only being a reliable source “on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned, and the reliability is a case-by-case matter.” and "The remaining two parts were closed all at once on June 21 with the conclusion that “the ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned.”" also quoting from the close: "“While the second part in theory encompassed all ADL coverage of antisemitism, much of the discussion focused, explicitly or implicitly, on that intersection. There was insufficient argumentation against the ADL’s reliability regarding antisemitism in other contexts; much of the opposition in that regard focused on subjective disagreements as to how far the taint of the Israel-related general unreliability should spread.” The closers reminded “editors that source reliability is always a case-by-case matter.”
• Washington Post reported: "[WMF said:] “Several media reports have incorrectly implied that the ADL is no longer considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. The ADL remains a generally reliable source on Wikipedia, outside of the topic of the Israel/Palestine conflict,” per the Wikimedia statement."
• JTA-2 (June 27) stated: "Editors had also debated whether the ADL was reliable on antisemitism, and the vast majority said the group could not be trusted because of how it conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. An uninvolved editor tasked with evaluating the community’s will ultimately opted for a nuanced decision, declaring that the ADL “can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned.”
• Haaretz (June 25): "Furthermore, in what amounted to an almost unanimous consent, numerous Wikipedia editors expressed their view that the ADL should also be excluded from being cited as a factual source on antisemitism. Their belief is that the ADL has been functioning predominantly as a pro-Israel advocacy group that frequently categorizes valid criticisms of Israel as antisemitic." IMO this may be correct about the discussion, but not the close.

Proposal is that the article be clear about WP's decision for ADL on antisemitism, excluding Israel & Zionism, with at least two elements: (A) "ADL can roughly be taken as reliable" as quoted by JTA-2 or Jewish Journal, and (B) a caveat, such as "case-by-case" (JJ) and/or in-text attribution required (WP:RSP). In addition, since the lead sentence describes the status options, would it be good to include the assigned status, which is "marginally reliable...etc" (aka "No consensus")? Thanks to @SashiRolls for prodding me to see the differing sources and wording. ProfGray (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is about WP and ADL not about WP and AS. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Since antisemitism is named in almost every quote (#1, #4, JJ, JTA-2, Haaretz), and the proposal, what aspect of the above is not about WP and AS? Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The only relevant info to this article is that ADL was categorized by Wikipedia as MREL (WP:ADLAS) in respect of AS. That's it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Isn't my entire comment, and proposal, exactly about how to we should write up that ADL was categorized by Wikipedia as MREL (WP:ADLAS) in respect of AS or did I accidentally include some other aspect?ProfGray (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Anti Zionism?

Given that anti zionism has its own article here, maybe we also need one about Wikipedia and anti-zionism. Anti Zionism and anti-semitism aren't one and the same thing. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, there many solid sources about Wikipedia's handling of antisemitism. Are there any reliable sources that significantly cover anti-Zionism on Wikipedia? Fwiw, if there are such sources, I'd be willing to work on such an article (or section of an existing article). ProfGray (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There was the piratewires article. Would it be easier to make wikipedia and anti zionism a subsection of this article? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Not really, it would belong in the existing article, Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which would be worth checking out. Anti-Zionism is not a (necessary) subset of antisemitism, but it does fit readily as an I-P topic. ProfGray (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

ok great! thanks for your counsel :) MaskedSinger (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source for this. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Anti Zionism and anti-semitism If we can have the current title then that title is also possible. Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, that title is possible, though arguments from precedent (and disputed precedent) tend to be less effective than those based directly on WP policy, such as WP:AND. Also, perhaps this title is off-topic to a thread dealing with Wikipedia and a subtopic. ProfGray (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

WJC

I have removed the claim that the WJC accused en.wp of antisemitism, since they never use the word (in relation to WP) in their report. In the article cited only Manuel Valls uses the term and as such the erroneous claim about the language used in the report would need to be credited to him by name. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up WJC on the Talk page. While the WJC report mostly speaks of Wikipedia having an anti-Israel bias, WBC also addressed anti-Jewish aspects as follows (bold added):

1. WJC named its press conference that released the report as "Navigating the New Terrain of Antisemitism." Leon Saltiel, UN rep for WJC, gave opening remarks focused on antisemitism. The press conference and his opening remarks focused on "antisemitism," as is clear from the first minute. See https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/events/navigating-the-new-terrain-of-antisemitism
2. Here's how the WJC report ends the section on significance of Wikipedia (p.4): "It is precisely this immense popularity and the fact that Wikipedia is perceived as a reliable and objective source of knowledge—as opposed to knowledge marked as based on personal opinion—that raises the question of whether Wikipedia maintains neutrality and eliminates bias. In the Israeli and Jewish context, this question is of great importance, especially in light of centuries of antisemitism and manifestations of hatred and bias against Jews and Israel since the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023."
3. WJC has a section on bias in Holocaust articles, unrelated to anti-Israel concerns (p.8). This includes: "Wikipedia's entries on Jewish subjects, particularly those related to Polish–Jewish history surrounding World War II, perpetuate and reinforce damaging stereotypes and misconceptions (Grabowski and Klein, 2023)."
4. This WJC statement deals with intersection of Israel (or Palestine) and antisemitism: "The entry presents a one-sided and biased view of the historical development of Israel. For instance, it overlooks the presence of Jewish communities in Israel for centuries before the establishment of the state. Furthermore, it fails to acknowledge Palestinian hostilities against Jews and massacres prior to the state establishment."
5. WJC chose to present the report with a keynote by the former French Prime Minister, whose remarks were focused mostly on (what he names as) antisemitism. WJC provided a transcript here https://wjc-org-website.s3.amazonaws.com/horizon/assets/5yDIiZgO/manuel-valls-speech-190324-en.pdf
6. The WJC report also has a section against "Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany." While it does not use "antisemitism" in this section, WJC is a strong advocate of the POV that such comparisons antisemitic, e.g., <WJC> Antisemitism defined: Why drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to the Nazis is antisemitic

Rightly or wrongly, WJC framed its report on Wikipedia in terms of antisemitism, not just anti-Israel bias. While this article ("WP and antisemitism") deserves careful writing about WJC's approach, would folks be willing to have the antisemitic aspects restored to the article in some manner? Otherwise, were the WJC response to Wikipedia only about anti-Israel bias, then it should be removed entirely, right? @SashiRolls:cc'ed. ProfGray (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If the report does not allege that Wikipedia engages in antisemitism by using the word, this entry cannot translate "dog whistles". If you wish to say that Valls presented the report as discussing AS that would not be inaccurate. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)