Talk:Mondoweiss

Template tag: Primary/self-published sources

Added the template tags for primary and self-published sources since half the sources of the article are from Mondoweiss, or interviews/op-eds by Philip Weiss. Needs to be improved. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this still the case? Please explain. Looking through, all the self-published monodweiss sources I saw were either purely informational or proper responses by allegations reported in other sources. (Links to author pages of publications that publish the author are standard in BLPs and hardly a misuse of primary sources.) And of course there are more links below to be added.

In fact I only see ONE misuse, which was just added, i.e.: In 2011, Philip Weiss reported that the liberal blog Daily Kos had "acted to ban commenters from linking to Mondoweiss" on grounds of "anti-semitism." Weiss denied the charge and defended "talking about the large Jewish presence in the American establishment and the importance of Jewish money in the political process." Reference: My Response To The Daily Kos Smear on Monodweiss.

Wouldn't you agree it should be removed?? If not, what is an improper use? And should we feel free to list Mondoweiss's views on a variety of positions using nothing by their website to establish "notability"?? CarolMooreDC 22:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

At this point the only self-published source under contention is Lozowick. Are there any others? CarolMooreDC 00:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

removing the response but keeping the smear

The very idea that one can include a smear against several living people as "Jew-baiters" but remove the response from those living people is absurd and lacks anything resembling a justification. nableezy - 21:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Then remove Smith's charge. This page is about Mondoweiss, not about Stephen Walt, Glenn Greenwald, and Andrew Sullivan. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Or how about, "On July 21, 2010, journalist Lee Smith in Tablet Magazine suggested that Phil Weiss and others were part of an 'anti-Israel blogosphere.'" Then we won't dilute the page with responses to Smith that have nothing to do with Mondoweiss. Thanks for your input. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I would accept full removal of the smear article. But if the smear article is included at all then per WP:NPOV we are obliged to include the significant responses to the smear that have been published in RS. Dlv999 (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

i don't have time to check this right now, but i thought that while this page is not about these people, their names/s redirected to this article. sorry if i was mistaken. Soosim (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As article is only about Weiss I agree with Plot Spoiler sugestion that we should remove the others.If Weiss responded to the allegation it should be included too.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, if a smear against Weiss is relevant to the article then we are obliged by our core neutrality to include significant viewpoints published in RS defending Weiss against the smear. The Walt article specifically mentions Weiss and his blogging, so you are going to have a hard time trying to defend the position that the Smith smear against Weiss is relevant but the Walt defense of Weiss against the smear is not. Dlv999 (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe but Walt blog is not WP:RS and it WP:UNDUE to include him.And the Weiss response already included so I don't see any WP:NPOV problem.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your second excuse for deleting this material in violation of NPOV is even more ridiculous than the first. Stephen Walt is a professor of international affairs at Harvard University. He has published extensively on the Israel lobby, he was also included in the Lee Smith smear. He is probably the best source you could find for a response to the smear. the blog was published by Foreign Policy, a distinguished, mainstream publication. Dlv999 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This is unreal. And doesn't the redirect go this article anyway is, besides being unreal, nonsensical. Walt writes even though he accuses me and my fellow bloggers of being anti-Semites. He is talking about Weiss. This is an ubelievably poor attempt at using Wikipedia to slander a living person. Behavior that should result not in a topic ban but a site ban. I am going to restore the material, and if another user feels that they can edit-war to remove relevant material directly related to the slur that they insist on retaining that user will find themselves at AE. nableezy - 19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You're really acting hysterical for no good reason. You're the one that's been topic banned more than all of us -- due to your behavior. So take a chill pill. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Try me, see what happens. You have removed responses written in reliable sources to an attack on a living person. If you think that is behavior that AE will look kindly upon you can find out for yourself by removing it once more. nableezy - 19:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your battleground mentality is really out of control. Nobody is saying that a response to Smith's comments should be not be included. This is a matter of WP:Undue. Please stop with your threats and try to work constructively. You and others have been warned about crying wolf at AE before. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And edit-warring to include an accusation that somebody is a Jew-baiter but removing a response to that is constructive now? Again, I will be restoring Walt, and the portion in the lower section. If you, or anybody else, thinks that edit-warring to remove long-standing material so that you can slur a living person and remove the response that person will find themselves at AE. nableezy - 20:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There already a response by Weiss, Walt blog is not WP:RS and thus WP:UNDUE for this page.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats a response? Look he called me a Jew-baiter? Thats what you think a response is? Besides being terribly written, your edit made zero improvement. And Walt's blog. Do you have any idea what Foreign Policy is? Do you know who Walt is? Would you care to even attempt to provide a rationale for the hysterically absurd line that Walt blog is not WP:RS? nableezy - 20:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike, I am also interested to see you explain how a Harvard professor of International affairs, (published by Foreign Policy) who has published, and is extensively cited on the topic of the Israel lobby, is not an RS to respond to a smear based on the Israel lobby. He is probably the perfect source for such a response, if you will not accept him you would not accept anyone. Also given that you have abandoned your first excuse for deleting this material, it seems that the important thing is that it is deleted, and you are just scratching around looking for an excuse that will stick. Dlv999 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I wont be restoring the maxblumenthal bit, but Walt is going back in, as will Wright and Fallows. If Smith's slur is relevant, then the response is relevant. If you would like to explain how WEIGHT allows for the inclusion of a wholly unsupported charged against a living person as a Jew-baiter but also requires that any response besides "oh look he called me a Jew-baiter" should be removed you are more than welcome to do so. As it stands, this is long-standing material (added last August, at the same time the slur was first included), and youll need more than a vague wave to an acronym to remove it. nableezy - 21:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ive restored the material. It is in direct response to the charge that you apparently think merits inclusion on this page. If you want to discuss the issue in an attempt to gain consensus for your bold edit, by all means. But just randomly saying oh this policy and this policy arent satisfied when there is zero basis, much less even an attempt at a justification, for the objection or indecipherable edit summaries about redirects is not an excuse to edit war to remove long-standing material sourced to reliable sources. nableezy - 00:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, "long-standing material" isn't a policy either, but I digress. The whole Armin Rosen episode is still undue and needs condensing. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are condensing material, it has to be done in a way that is consistent with WP:NPOV. Deleting significant viewpoints and reliable sources all from one side of the debate is not going to fly. NPOV states that we represent views "published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources "

Regarding the Rosen episode, what we have in terms of RS is one article smearing Kane and Mondoweiss and two defending Kane against the smear (all published in Atlantic). So it is fairly easy to establish that the relative prevalence of the viewpoints is 2:1 and that is how we should weight the section.

Alex Kane, Adam Horowitz, and Philip Weiss all write for the Mondoweiss which is the topic of the article, so difficult to argue their views are not significant here. Dlv999 (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources may be used for good reasons - like countering smears. CarolMooreDC 03:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Adam Horowitz merged per AfD

Bio has been merged. Now let's not look for excuses to remove any mention of him Also, I hope we won't hear this absurd argument that supporting the statement that someone has written for a publication by linking to either the publications' listings of their writings or to one or two specific articles in the publication is a misuse of primary sources. CarolMooreDC 03:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems WP:Undue. There should just be one section regarding the creators. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And who cares what other publications he's written articles for? Wikipedia is not a list. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And these two sentences are misrepresentation and WP:Puff: "In addition to Mondoweiss, Horowitz writes for The Nation, Alternet, The Huffington Post, and The Hill.com.[7][10] Horowitz' work on Mondoweiss has been noted by the New York Times." He doesn't write for those publications, he has had articles published on those sites. And Mackey is just a blog within the NYT websites. Hardly worth a mention. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that if you are doing founders you should do both; so get busy writing the Weiss section.

Also, it is accurate to say Horowitz writes for any site that has a profile; or just say has written for such and such and include refs. If that is policy, I have a long list of writers whose articles I can start cleaning up. :::Removing NYTimes not a big deal since there are so many nuggests from Secondary Sources for Mondoweiss to put into the article now. Hope you'll help with adding such positive and educational material. :-) That's how you get a good reputation as an NPOV editor. (I always find positive things to add to articles of interest that are WP:Undue with negative criticism.) CarolMooreDC 04:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

More secondary sources

If someone wants to add them. (News searching likely publications and "Mondoweiss" can bring up things not brought up by a regular news search)

• Vanity Fair quotes Mondoweiss on ADL overstepping on WTC Mosque [Later note:used]
• CounterPunch refers to article published in mondoweiss; mention of content on Israel lobby
• Gulf News quotes Weiss/Monoweiss on Hagel nomination [[Later note:actually predicts what they would say and comes pretty close]
• WRMEA Abzourek article on Mondoweiss [Later note:used]
• (saw a couple more WRMEA articles mentioning)
• Highbeam has a bunch of articles, some look high quality; here's just a few from the top:

• Weiss in American Conservative on how created Mondoweiss
• Tablet alleges AP picked up a story by Monoweiss [Later note:used ]; plus more WRMEA; other criticial articles
• Arab News on media and Israel-Palestine mentions [Later note:used]
• Intelligencer Journal mentions funny story [Later note:used]

• Questia has a bunch, several of which duplicates of Highbeam.

So get busy! CarolMooreDC

Attempts to introduce Self-published blog

Can editors attempting to add a self-published source making a claim about a third party please familiarize yourselves with the relevant policy: WP:SELFPUBLISH. Dlv999 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed the part where it says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." ALso, there are lots of other self published in the article that you inexplicably failed to remove in your revert. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that the source in question is "an established expert on the topic of the article [Mondoweiss]" Dlv999 (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The guy is an Israeli government employee just being insulting on a personal blog. Would it be ok if he was an employee of any other government? Come on - do we have to take this to WP:RSN?? CarolMooreDC 05:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

carolmoore - why do so many of your comments end with "take this to RSN" or ANI or whatever? really? and to answer your question, if "the guy" (who has a name and is actually a bona fide somebody) worked for some other gov't, i have doubts that this would be an issue. his relevance to mondoweiss is very specific as it relates to his role in said gov't and his perception of mondoweiss' role in that field (as it relates to 'history'). pretty clear. Soosim (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's about as clear as mud. Please provide evidence that the source in question is "an established expert on the topic of the article [Mondoweiss]". Without such evidence the self-published smear needs to be removed as a matter of urgency. Dlv999 (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Soosim, in this case the burden of proof is on you to get WP:BLPN NPOV editors to say that a self-published smear (and from a biased source like the employee of a govt being criticized) is OK per WP:BLP. Our only duty is to keep removing it until that time. CarolMooreDC 13:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You guys are cherry picking to remove one primary source in an article full of primary sources. Please explain why that is or I'll assume you're just POV-pushing. As for his reliability on the subject matter, he is the author of Right to Exist: a Moral Defense of Israel's Wars published by an imprint of Random House. Clearly a reliable source for the subject matter (what I can't say for the other primary sources you refuse to consistently remove from the article). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

First, there are secondary resources not yet in the article, some listed above, more that might be for Mondoweiss instead of/as well as Weiss himself are at his article here.

Second, above I asked Plot Spoiler which primary sources he had a problem with. He didn't answer. Some things like bio material and minor factoid material usually isn't a big deal to use, and there's a lot of that. And it's a proper use of a primary source to respond to an attack, which happens a couple times here. So it's not really clear what you think IS the improper use of a primary source.

I just removed something that had been tagged as a primary source for a couple weeks.

Please be specific about the problems you see in this article.

It looks like "Mondoweiss" only published once in Salon and Weiss hasn't published since 2012, so maybe that's some self-published material that could be removed. CarolMooreDC 23:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Carol, your behavior seems to indicate that you are more interested in defending the site from "smears" than building a neutral encyclopedia. You can't just remove criticism from a relevant source just because you don't like it. I think it should stay. By the way, since when is 'Mondoweiss' a field of study, in which one needs to be an "expert" to be considered a RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.84.230.43 (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your commentary about other editors motivations is inappropriate and you should strike it out. Our policy states that self published blog material is generally unacceptable. The policy says that a self published source may be considered reliable when "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article". The topic of this article is Mondoweiss. What evidence is there that Yaacov Lozowick is an expert in this topic? For instance has he ever been published by reliable third-party publications discussing the topic of this article: Monoweiss? Brewcrew has suggested that his publication of a book (Right to Exist: a Moral Defense of Israel's Wars) makes him an expert, but this is not the case. The book was published 2 years before Mondoweiss was established so he cannot possibly have discussed the topic of this article in that book. Dlv999 (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

dlv - it says "generally unacceptable". not always. and it doesn't matter when the book was published - it goes to his expertise in what his comments were referring to. oh, and thank you so much carolmoore for answering my question about why do so many of your comments end with "take this to RSN" or ANI or whatever? i loved your answer! Soosim (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The book was published two years prior to the establishment of Mondoweiss (the topic of this article). Therefore the book cannot possibly discuss the topic of this article (Mondoweiss). Therefore the book cannot possibly be used as evidence that Yaacov Lozowick is an "an established expert on the topic of the article" (Mondoweiss). You could not use the book as a source for this article, because it does not mention the topic (i.e it would be SYNTH), so you cannot use the book as evidence that the author is an expert on the topic of the article. The very narrow criteria where self-published material may be appropriate was never meant to allow the inclusion of claims such as "a vipers nest of anti-semites" against third parties, by someone who has never had a word published by reliable third-party publications on the topic of the article. Dlv999 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My problem is more that he's employed as a defacto publicist for a nation state (archiving what makes it look good and burying what doesn't??, as many state archivists would do). His private self-published blog is being used to protect that state from criticism. He maybe an expert in defending that nation state, but that doesn't make his self-published rants WP:RS.

As for going to noticeboards, considering that I-P articles usually are edited by people with a bit of a POV, rather than waste time on back and forths, it's best to go to a noticeboard where one has a chance of getting an NPOV opinion from an NPOV editor, which can cut down debate time significantly. In this case, the burden of proof is on the person who wants to put in self-published smears from a govt employee, so go to WP:BLPN.

Still waiting to hear what the other self-published problems are so I can try to correct them if necessary, or explain them if not. CarolMooreDC 17:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard

here. Note that I added this new point which realized as I wrote the BLP note. Others can add other concerns about the entry of course.

From BLPN: He (Lozowick ) doesn’t mention in the article quoted what a search of Mondoweiss shows: that he has been criticized on the site by a contributor here or that he has posted on Mondoweiss and gotten into debates with/been criticized by contributors. So I think there’s definitely personal animus motivating his posting. Which makes his self-published attack even less WP:RS, especially for WP:BLP.

So that's the story. CarolMooreDC 00:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, I reverted it as you cannot use blogs for BLP information. Per WP:BLP & WP:SPS Do not restore it or it will be removed again per BLP policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mondoweiss is a blog. HaleakalAri (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

darkness - ari has a point. and carol correctly pointed out that phillip wrote about lozowick. so lozowick is not coming in from out of the blue. he is responding. very easy now to put in phillip's comments and lozowick's response. okie dokie? Soosim (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do a BLP. No names are mentioned. Just like the criticism of the New York Times does not trigger any BLP issues for columnists working for the New York Times. Please cease wikilawyering. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Names are mentioned. Here is a quote The site offers six or ten posts a day. Weiss writes often, Horowitz rarely (he apparently runs their Twitter account which I don't follow). There's a clutch of other regular writers, and a larger group of people who will appear there occasionally; some of them run their own sites or publish elsewhere and are cross-posted at Mondoweiss. Upper lima 65 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The edit at issue does not include anything about a BLP. If the linked article concerns a BLP that it is not something that falls within out BLP parameters--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC).

Replies:

• Weiss didn't write about Lozowick, someone else did, and I assume it was approved by an editor. If someone put it in the Lozowick article I have a feeling you all would object.
• I don't know if Lozowick choose to respond to that, but the bottom line point is: does any WP:RS secondary source think the comment, or the interchange between Lozowick and anyone on Mondoweiss is notable enough to write about? That's the main comment at WP:BLPN. If they do, then it can be put in the article.
• Not to mention what part of "vipers' nest of antisemites" quoted, which is also the name of the article, is NOT a personal attack on Weiss, Horowitz, et al? As [[Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29|WP:RS:Self-published sources says:" "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."
• Plus I see another unreliable source self published blog has been entered: http://warped-mirror.com/2012/04/11/defending-gunter-grass-at-972/
• Do not remove tags during discussion. CarolMooreDC 22:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Lozowick

I have removed Lozowick. There is clearly no consensus for including this nor any evidence that secondary sources care about it at this stage (much like there was no consensus for this edit). This is meant to be an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I see an obvious sockpuppet reverted and vandalized the talk page with the kind of policy focused integrity and honor I've come to expect. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis who's been back to deleting me last few days. Guess his talking to by whomsoever for making death threats vs. Chuck Hagel only chilled him for a few weeks. CarolMooreDC 16:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thought as much. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

User:HaleakalAri has put this information in again diff here and I will report him to edit warring if he doesn't take it out. Elder of Ziyon blog is an anonymous blog and I don't believe those are ever WP:RS for anything; being mentioned by advocacy groups or a couple WP:Rs doesn't change that. This Times of Israel article has enough info specifically about Mondoweiss to be useable, if not WP:Undue. CarolMooreDC 18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Since it's a 1RR violation in WP:ARBPIA they will be blocked if they don't self-revert, probably for 48 hours, maybe 24.

• revert 1 2013-02-22T18:35:07
• revert 2 2013-02-23T17:57:36

Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion

This article seems like a mere self-promotion article for their blog. Just because a few reporters from other news sources discuss the blog, doesn't make it a valid news website. Furthermore, we don't need ANOTHER article to bicker over on the Israel/Palestinian issue, I think there's already plenty to edit and go around SimplesC (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll second SimplesC's motion. Mondoweiss is nothing more than a glorified blog with a biased agenda and somewhat of a cult following. HaleakalAri (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess Wikipedia:Notability (web) is the appropriate guideline to decide whether it should be nominated for deletion. Whether a random person on the internet thinks it is "a glorified blog with a biased agenda and somewhat of a cult following" doesn't appear to be part of the decision procedure, so there is no point writing things like that here. That's what blogs are for. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As per usual the pro-Zionist members seek to delete an article about a very relevant and notworthy anti-Zionist blog by moral and compassionate members of the Jewish American community. What else is new? Wikipedia should have better guidelines against the Zionists cliques that infect it. 86.162.151.94 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article is "notworthy": there is a space missing between the two words. Mondoweiss misrepresents itself when its editors call it "news-centric", and "a news website". It is exclusively a propaganda vehicle for its anti-Israel bias; it is not just "anti-Zionist". Its choice of "news" is highly selective, chosen entirely to cast Israel (not "Zionism", Zionism is used as a metaphor for Israel) in the very worst possible light. Moreover, despite its self-label as being concerned with "covering American policy ... in the [ME] ..." it is almost entirely devoted to the aforementioned, far narrower, biased selection of items relating to Israel. The items selected are not reported as "news website" items should be presumed to be, but as propaganda pieces: real news items, even "dog bites man", can have context and more than one side (man, known abuser of animals, kicked dog, then dog bit man). Mondoweiss knows no such distinctions. Thus, the Wikipedia article serves as a promo piece for Mondoweiss, and not an accurate description. Rightcoaster (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

New unreliable source tags

OK, I just notice that User:HaleakalAri did in fact put in here some "unreliable source" tags. He'll have to explain them since I think we've discussed them all as OK uses of primary. I am soon going to remove the Salon republishing Mondoweiss paragraph that looks like it was a non-notable flash in the pan.

Please explain what part of the below these sourcings represent: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

CarolMooreDC 22:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hearing no response from the person who put the tags on, someone who does have a bit of a history of disruption, I'll remove them. CarolMooreDC 17:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

quick on the draw. details to follow. and patience is a virtue. Soosim (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

On Feb 10 I asked you about this issue oat Template tag: Primary/self-published sources top of current talk page. On the 22nd I asked User:HaleakalAri whose edits look highly disruptive to me. More than enough time. CarolMooreDC 17:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable source

How is Just World Books RS? It appears to be a one woman band which does print on demand. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Just World Books is a publisher, not a specific source (the book is the source). It certainly does NOT do "print on demand" (the books take months of bloody hard work to bring to fruition), but rather selects authors with relevant experience who can provide an antidote to the systemic bias in the (esp U.S.) mainstream media. Nor is it any longer a "one-woman band". There is no reason to doubt that Just World Books does the same fact checking, etc, that would be expected of any serious publisher, and I certainly trust Cobban more than I would many other people.

--NSH001 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is just a reference showing a book exists. Even if the book WAS self-published, it doesn't stop it from being mentioned here, especially if it's listed on Amazon. The tag goes with all the other disruptive ones. Take it to WP:RSN if you want other opinions. CarolMooreDC 17:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Journalism/Views/Opinion/Stance sections in many blog articles

Gosh, I guess User:Plot Spoiler has never read an article about blogs before. Please check out some articles under Category:Alternative journalism organizations, Category:American political websites, Category:American political blogs. Most of them have a section which lists various views/journalistic exposes/etc. that have been notable enough to be mentioned in WP:RS. Salon.com, Vanity Fair, Tablet Magazine, Intelligencer Journal (a local newspaper) are all considered WP:RS for the kind of material is presented.

Now maybe you got confused by the section title "journalism" - just first thing that came to my head. But looking at some others I can see that perhaps other alternatives are Jihad Watch's "Impact and stances" or Little Green Footballs' "Recurring themes" or Power Line's "Political positions" or Red State's "content" or .. well, that's a good start. AGF that you did not know this, I'll put it back with a title that might be more to your liking, like: "Views". CarolMooreDC 06:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"Journalism" was a misleading an inaccurate title. It was just a rehash of the reception part of the article. Additionally, it so drastically failed POV since it stated the POV of Mondoweiss as fact - "After the American Jewish Committee accused Jewish intellectuals who did not 'toe the party line on Israel' of being 'self-haters'". Please try to maintain a modicum of neutrality and encyclopedic quality. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

So your suggestion is new title and more NPOV wording, or put it all in reception (with more NPOV wording, and I haven't checked if it reflects source so not opining on whether it's POV or not)? Unclear. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 02:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I moved Kamiya info down, though I do think the reception comments and content comments can be separated into the two different sections. Others' opinions on that welcome.

I retitled the section "Content". I've found a bunch of stuff at a news archive search and have just started adding more WP:RS on notable content that will give readers an idea of what in the world the publication writes about, which is typical for lots of articles about publications.

I added links to Mondoweiss articles discussed by others, also a fairly standard practice at Wikipedia. CarolMooreDC 06:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Political alignment

There is obviously quite some history to this article and some quite serious disputes have occurred. But on a minor note, it would be an improvement if an RS could be found for the "Political alignment" field. Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

You mean besides the self-description of progressive on his "about" page that is used as a ref? Or do you mean "progressive Jewish" is a religious not a political view? Not clear. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The first. Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

Section on Comments

Can someone please explain why this keeps disappearing. Comments are an integral part of Mondoweiss and the Mondoweiss community. Is there a requirement for wiki-editors to declare a conflict? Carol Moore has certainly been a commenter on Mondoweiss. Is it a problem for her to determine the neutrality of edits here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.211.44 (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It is being removed because it doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policies. It's original research, blog-like commentary by anonymous IPs. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on content published by reliable sources. It isn't a blogging site for advocates. The content being added is also blatant POV pushing. Read WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Compliance with those policies is mandatory. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

First, this is an obvious violation of policy so POV doesn't matter. Second, there are a lot of Carol Moore's out there posting on all sorts of topics, so when you are doing your opposition research, make sure you got the right one. Third, opposition research and outing are frowned upon, though in the case of AnonIPs there's not much to do but block them and they can always find another IP. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Revert, why

CiF watch is a blog, I think. Certainly looks crappy to me and not RS. But yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com is certainly a blog, so that fails on SPS and BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Revert, because

CiF watch is not a blog, but a media watchdog site with multiple contributors (see: http://cifwatch.com/cif-contributors/). Yaacov Lozowick is an established expert in both Jewish and general Mid-Eastern history, political science and philosophy, along with being a widely published academic. Thus, according to wikipedia's policies, he "may be considered reliable". As far as the other half-dozen or so sources I added, I'm pretty sure none of them could be considered to potentially violate wikipedia policies.

And you started a new section why? The Lozowick source is self published, read BLP & BLPGROUP. Remove it or I shall revert you. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, that link is not to contributors for the CiFwatch sit, it is a list of people working for Comment in Free at the Guardian. So it is a blog, self revert all of your change now, or I will. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

1. From Wikipedia:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Please explain why Lozowick should be excluded in light of that.

2. All of my changes? That's quite extreme and I can't see how it makes sense. You have a problem with one or two of them, so all should be removed? Furthermore, yes, I linked to the wrong page about CiF Watch. Here is the correct one: http://cifwatch.com/managing-editor/ It is not a blog, and if you go through the first few pages, you'll notice a variety of different contributors. HaleakalAri (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

What all two of them? That is a SPS and violates BLP, are you gonna self revert or do I have to do it for you? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, from BLP "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs." Darkness Shines (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Two? As explained, there are well more than two sources added and changes made. If the only thing you want removed is CiF Watch, that's fine, I'll remove it for now. I don't think you're correct in it violating SPS policies though, so I'll ask for a neutral third party to weigh in on the issue.HaleakalAri (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:INDENT. Two people run CiFwatch, that is the two I meant. As you refused to revert the BLP violating crap out I have done so, be more careful with sources in the future. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There was no need to do a full revert again. I removed everything from CiF Watch and will try to clear things up when I have the time.HaleakalAri (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I have received no explanation of why this revision of the article; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mondoweiss&oldid=582288487 is problematic. If someone would like to go through the edits and contributions I made to the article there, and have an actual dialogue with me, I'd much appreciate it.HaleakalAri (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as I have received no response, I have made a more subdued modification (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mondoweiss&oldid=582921074), where any material that could even be considered SPS/BLP is not included (even though Adler and Lozowick are indeed experts in their respected fields, which are clearly connected to the content on Mondoweiss). Seeing as Darkness_Shines was also warned for the last disagreement (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN3#User:HaleakalAri_reported_by_User:Darkness_Shines_.28Result:_Warnings.29 & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HaleakalAri#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion), I would like some feedback and discussion, rather than knee-jerk full reversions. Thanks.HaleakalAri (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Just did a little clean-up. Again, no SPS/BLP and nothing that violates wikipedia policies. I have posted to the talk page. If you have a problem, please discuss it here rather than edit warring. Thanks.HaleakalAri (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And I just had to remove OR, were in this article you used as a source does it mention Stormfront? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

'Mondofront', is a clear allusion to that site. Again though, you removed everything, because you disagree with one thing. I will put it back without that comment, to avoid more edit warring. I ask kindly that you stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater.HaleakalAri (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Source added back without potential use of OR. I also like your idea of merging criticism, response and reception into a fairly cogent timeline. I think the article is pretty neutral now. See no need for further edits in regard to content and sources.HaleakalAri (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

untitled

"" Its founder describes himself as a progressive and anti-Zionist.[7]"" --

"anti-zionist" is NOT a "progressive Jewish" position. - Anti-zionist Jews are either Ultra-orthodox or Radical Left. Mondo-Lice IS RADICAL LEFT at best. - ` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.226.155 (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree-- some of the commenters are "radical left" but overall the content of the site isn't any particular alignment, besides being anti-Zionism and showing why they are. Of course, people such as yourself aren't really interested in how things are when you can slap sensationalist accusations around, isn't that so?

70.27.7.64 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Algemeiner

The unattributed Algemeiner post is just reporting the opinions of a non-notable fringe blog (the so-called "blogger Elder of Ziyon"). A fairly non-notable internet publication reporting the opinions of an even less notable fringe blog site is not a suitable source for wild BLP accusations against living people. Dlv999 (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The Algemeiner article is attributed to the Algemeiner staff, who are not anonymous (and edit the publication). Further, Algemeiner is in no way non-notable in the Israel-Palestine sphere, and far more established than Mondoweiss, rivaling Arab News in circulation and popularity. It has been around for much longer (since the 70s), and along with being a web-publication, it is also distributed in print format. It has seen a wider variety of contributors than Mondoweiss, and the content it publishes is relevant to the topic at hand. Lastly, the article in question merely mentions this 'fringe blog' you speak of, amongst original reporting and mainstream sources. HaleakalAri (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Even though the Algemeiner is a reliable source, we don't have to and should not make this article into a catalogue of every Algemeiner article that has critised Mondoweiss. Now HaleakalAri has not only inserted the two Algemeiner sources that was recently removed from the article, but also inserted a new one which means that the article currently mentions four different Algemeiner articles that has critised Mondoweiss. The last one is citing David Duke; I don't think Duke's opinion is notable for this article. Iselilja (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I simply reverted the deletion of a significant amount of material by you and another editor, then took care to remove the one source that was brought to my attention as being legitimately problematic (the post on Daily Kos). If I missed another that was brought to my attention, please let me know. Regardless, I don't think there is anything wrong with multiple sources from the Algemeiner which criticize Mondoweiss, as the reasoning behind such articles is sound and usually sourced thoroughly. I see them as valuable counterpoints to the laudatory sources on the page. When I first came upon this article some months ago, I noted that it read like an advertisement for Mondoweiss, and even met some hostility when designating the site as Anti-Zionist (despite there being myriad sources which support said designation, including from Mondoweiss editors and frequent contributors).

Personally, I don't believe the site itself merits a wikipedia article, but since there is one, I don't see why it shouldn't offer the reader a balanced perspective. The Israel-Palestine issue is rife with stubborn ideologues and permeated with bias and agit-prop from both sides of the spectrum (and at places in-between), so I think counterpoints, context and balance, are of chief importance when discussing issues related to it. As it stands, the sources which praise and the sources which condemn Mondoweiss are about even in number. If the handful of sources from the Algemeiner are troubling, maybe they can be moved to their own separate category or sub-category under the existing 'Reception' one.

As far as the praise from David Duke for frequent Mondoweiss contributor and sometimes editor, Blumenthal, it seems like a reasonable inclusion. He's a well-known figure in both politics and pop culture, and as some articles on wikipedia mention how certain groups & individuals associated with ethno-nationalism or right-leaning politics (particularly in Europe) are sympathetic to Israel and Zionism, I think it's reasonable to point out that shared views and sympathies exist between those on the right (like Duke) and Anti-Zionists who consider themselves on the left as well. After all, just like there are Zionists all over the political and ideological spectrum, there are Anti-Zionists all over the political and ideological spectrum. In regard to both camps, some are clearly on the right. The recent and popular narrative that Anti-Zionism is a leftist / progressive phenomenon, is false, and people who are unfamiliar with the histories of Zionism and Anti-Zionism, shouldn't be under the illusion that embracing one position or the other, means they are supporting a stance which can be clearly placed on either side of the political spectrum. HaleakalAri (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's obviously ridiculous to catalogue in a new passage every time Algemainer makes a claim that Mondoweiss is anti-Semitic. Contrary to AmirSurfLera's claims in the edit summary I didn't delete any content I simply consolidated the repeated claims by Algemeiner in one place. Dlv999 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Mondoweiss' antisemitic bias has been denounced not only by the Algemeiner Journal, but also JCPA, The Atlantic and others. Stop removing sourced content.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Putting all the claims made by Algemainer in one place rather than keep repeating them in passage after passage is not removing sourced content. Dlv999 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Your version deletes sources and information. For example, the fact that former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke praised Max Blumenthal, a frequent Mondoweiss contributor and sometimes editor.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

David Duke's opinion of Mondoweis contributor Alex Kane is not notable for this article. Dlv999 (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The fact that a KKK leader supports a notable Mondoweis contributor explains the accusations of antisemitism made by the Algemeiner Journal and others.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Intro POV/undue

I've removed the allegations of antisemitism from the intro paragraph. I think it's fine to discuss such allegations in the reception section, but having them right in the introduction - especially at the end of the concluding sentence - gives them undue weight.

From the sources cited, it looks like the allegations of antisemitism have primarily come from those who strongly disagree with the website's views on the Israel-Palestine conflict. If there were a broad mainstream consensus that Weiss were antisemitic (as is the case for example with David Irving) then discussing that in the intro would be appropriate, but this is certainly not the case here. Having such allegations in the intro and outside the context of the relevant debate gives undue weight and prejudices the article as a whole. -Helvetica (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"reception" section editing

I've made a couple edits to the "reception" section.

First, noting the discussion a couple sections above (in this talk page), I concur that undue weight was given to Algemeiner Journal. While it may be a notable source, and worthy of inclusion, this doesn't mean that every time they criticize Mondoweiss that it automatically deserves to be included. Indeed, if that publication were to publish a new article every month denouncing Mondoweiss as "antisemitic" then our article would rapidly become quite repetitive and cluttered!

For now I've just removed the following text, which clearly added nothing of substance to the article, but my sense is that more paring down is still needed:

A. Jay Adler, writing for The Algemeiner Journal, characterized Mondoweiss as "anti-Semitic" yet again

I've also done a bit of sorting of the section, with the second half devoted to criticisms and responses to criticisms. I added something of a mini-intro as well, to contextualize those criticisms. This sort of thing is important - especially when it comes to very sensitive issues like allegations of antisemitism. It needs to be made clear to readers whether such judgments are being made by a broad cross section of society or if they're primarily coming from those with opposing political views (in this case regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict). -Helvetica (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A delicate topic

Here are reliable sources of high quality, which quoted material from this website:

• "A reminder that anti-semitism has no place in debates over Israel: The consequences of a website that spouts anti-Semitism entering mainstream discourse on Israel and Palestine.". Armin Rosen. The Atlantic Monthly, Jul 14 2012 [1]

• "Site founder and editor Phil Weiss" wrote: "I can justly be accused of being a conspiracy theorist because I believe in the Israel lobby theory ... certainly my theory has an explanation of the rise and influence of the neocons. They don't have a class interest but an ideological-religious one."
• Jack Ross:"it was not the appeasement, but the internationalist hubris and bellicosity of Chamberlain which started World War II."
• "One winner of Mondoweiss' recent "New Yorker parody contest" was a bizarre entry in which former Israeli Prime Minister has a teary reunion with the ghost of his long-lost father: Adolf Hitler."

• Tobin, Jonathan S. "Anti-Semitic Hate for Kids … and Adults", Commentary, July 8, 2013.

• " In the course of a blog post alleging that Jewish settlers were infringing on the rights of Arab worshippers at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Mondoweiss editor and contributor Annie Robbins made the following claim in response to a comment from a reader who pointed out that the Tomb is an ancient site of Jewish worship that even predates the Holy Temples in Jerusalem:

allegedly. there’s no proof that was the location of some grand temple. maybe lots of jewish stuff retroactively lands itself right underneath islamic structures. did you ever think of that? jealous much?

"

These other sources may also be useful, although without direct quotations of Mondoweiss material, they are less informative.

• "Salon.com partners With purveyor of anti-semitic material Mondoweiss", The Algemeiner, Staff author, July 23, 2012. [2]
• "Against anti-Semitism, self-defense is no offense", Ben Cohen, Jewish News Service, [3]. July 21, 2014
• "Mondoweiss and anti-semitism dead?", M. J. Rosenberg, Tikkun Daily, [4] March 16, 2014.

I think the quotations from the first 2 sources should be used, to explain the issue, rather than just report labels.

Dear ODear ODear (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mondoweiss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130127183752/http://thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/15819 to http://thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/15819

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mondoweiss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127183752/http://thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/15819 to http://thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/15819

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There appears to be a disagreement in MOS:LEAD application, see revert. Currently, the lead does not sum up properly the content of this page. The lead consists of self-descriptions exclusively by the people behind this website. I do not see any issue with summarizing content already present on the page. Infinity Knight (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Another revert. The lead consists of self-descriptions exclusively by the people behind this website. Looks like WP:ADMASQ. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind getting rid of lead content quoting the people involved in this. But there's absolutely no way we're going to include -- in the lead -- the idea that it's a "hate site". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead consists of self-descriptions exclusively means that if quoting the people involved in this to be removed there will be nothing left. I personally do not have opinion whether or not this is a "hate site", however, it is reliable that David Bernstein, writing for The Washington Post, called the website a "hate site", see ref name="WP2015".Infinity Knight (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The revert was correct per WP:LEAD: it is not documented in the relevant section that Mondoweiss is, as David Bernstein asserts, a 'hate site', and, in any case, that kind of (hysterical) branding is a personal view, and decidedly fringe, since the several hostile comments listed there, most a decade old, nowhere document the claim with significant details about evidence that would buttress such a wild assertion. In a decade of daily reading, the best I for one can get from it is that its editor and contributors hate injustice. If that position can be spun as evidence it is a hate sight, the tetragrammaton's assistance would be dearly needed, and, as usual, not forthcoming. Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

David Bernstein writing for The Washington Post is not WP:FRINGE by definition since it is included in the page's content. The ref is from 2015, it provides "significant details about evidence". According to MOS:LEAD, the intro should sum up the page content. WP:ADMASQ is not allowed. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

David Bernstein is not an expert in the field of Israeli-Palestinian relations, anti-semitism, or any other relevant topic that makes his opinion worth mention much less inclusion in the lead. He is a conservative American lawyer, an expert in the field of America constitutional law, even if his views there are not exactly mainstream. But just because he is a law professor does not make his opinion relevant or reliable on all topics. The lead not including what you personally want it to include make it "advertising". nableezy - 19:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

David Bernstein credentials could be found on his page. What matters is that The Washington Post finds him worth including. The fact that "WP2015" ref is included, indicates that there is a consensus that his opinion is relevant.

On other hand, CERSC is listing Mondoweiss as their project. The other lead ref is a person behind this site. That's why WP:ADMASQ applies.Infinity Knight (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Very much not, that is covered by WP:NEWSBLOG, and as a non-expert in the topic writing an op-ed he is not a suitable source. Not everything a newspaper publishes without its own endorsement for accuracy by not publishing it in a blog section is a reliable source, sorry. nableezy - 14:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

By your logic Bernstein would accuse The Forward of being a hate site because it hosts Nathan Guttman's piece on the rising Orthodox influence over the Republican party, with a series of remarks that parallel quite closely Weiss's anecdotes, an article Weiss, in his reply links to. Bernstein's evidence that Mondoweiss is a hate site comes from his interpretation of Philip Weiss's putative outlook, not from what Mondoweiss publishes. His argument is Weiss is an anti-Semitic self-hating Jew ergo Mondoweiss is a vehicle for that. Bernstein therefore has no evidence about Mondoweiss, merely an inference from profound dislike, In any case, there are innumerable voices out there, and there's nothing distinctive about Bernstein's for inclusion in the lead. It would only mean we would have to pump up the ref with Weiss's replies etc.etc.etc. If some specialist in newspaper bias, properly trained to evaluate these things, comes up with a statistical analysis suggesting that, fine. Otherwise, nope.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Please kindly stop suggesting that I said or meant something that I do not actually say or mean. Also, please read the ref, because you're putting words in Bernstein's mouth, he said quite the opposite. WP:BLP applies. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't put words into your mouth. I read the ref: I've heard that kind of exchange thousands of time in infra-Jewish polemics. Bernstein argues about Weiss, not about Mondoweiss, and the inference I make from that, that his assertion that the venue is a hate site arises solely from his belief Weiss has problems with other Jews, is founded. If you want to show an organ is a hate site, you need to document a consistent pattern over time of its publishing hate stories. It's like making out a case against Rupert Murdock personally (not hard to do) and thereby saying the Times is unreliable. A million articles every week reply to any criticism of Israeli issues that the writer or site is tinged with, deepdyed with, thoroughly oozing or grazing close to the borders of anti-Semitism, hatred of Jews, etc.etc.etc. It is the standard reflex Pavlovian remark to make. Editors here read this nonsense day in day out, and have so for decades. So when it crops up, and is showcased, as here in the lead, it has to pass some elementary but stringent tests, apart from that of boredom and yawning.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Infinity Knight: you are pretty much alone here in (IMO) your rather extreme view that Mondoweiss is a hate-site, and that should be in the lead. So no: you do not get to set the agenda here, Huldra (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Bernstein was writing an opinion piece as part of a group of lawyers, the Volokh Conspiracy (who are no longer at WAPO, they moved to Reason). The article says that it is an update of a 2008 article. Nothing more than the opinion of a non specialist lawyer, not any sort of fact.Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Bernstein is an expert, a reliable source. Bernstein is not alone, The Atlantic states that "Mondoweiss often gives the appearance of an anti-Semitic enterprise" [5]. Using this rag's self description is not acceptable, reliable sources are key.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No he is not. He is not an expert in any relevant topic, he is a professor of American law. nableezy - 16:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Bernstein, as opposed to the rubbish we refer to in a rag like the Algemeiner, is entitled to his view. It happens to be outstandingly at variance with what numerous competent journalists of high profile say, who think what Weiss and co., are doing very important, e.g. James Wolcott, Michael Massing, Chris Hedges and J.J. Goldberg. The problem with calling the blogzine anti-Semitic, is that too many people of competence can't see any trace of that there. So he goes in, as representative of that viewpoint. No more.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The point is that per MOS:LEAD, the intro should summarize the content, using self-description exclusively is not an option. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

And per WP:WEIGHT quoting an op-ed by a non-expert is not an option. nableezy - 14:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bernstein content enjoys consensus, so not sure why people do argue against it. The question is how to sum it up in the intro. Or any other source not cited to the people behind this website. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Lol what? In what world does that enjoy consensus? nableezy - 03:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Bernstein is not going into the lead per consensus. This is simple arithmetic.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Only self references are going to the intro and I do not think that such a compulsive self referencing enjoys consensus. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, you gutted the original intro to the point of meaninglessness. There is no reason why this influential site should receive the absurd censorious hostility it has received. I've accommodated your whinge about Bernstein, within a broader context, in a lead that sums up the article faithfully. Drop it. Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm the one who gutted it, mostly. I'm not in favour of putting "hate site" in the lead. I'm not sure we need a summary of the descriptions at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Nomoskedasticity, no summary of the descriptions is needed in the intro.

@Nishidani:, you were already warned once about WP:BLP on this sppecific subject and now you include false statements about Bernstein in the intro? He said Is that because Weiss is anti-Semitic or is there some other motivation? Who cares. Just know that when you’re reading Mondoweiss, you’re reading a hate site. see the ref. So Bernstein clearly never said "antisemitic hate site" as you put it. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

If you had tried to be constructive, firstly you would have noted that there were two sources for 'anti-Semitic hate site'. Bernstein said it was a hate site, and Rosen said it 'trafficked in anti-semitism'. Evidently a simple adjustment to 'Critics, among them Bernstein, consider it either a hate site or anti-Semitic.' No. You had to brandish the bludgeon about BLP.

@Nomoskedasticity. Our interlocutor insisted Bernstein be in. He made a point about lead summary style. We have a section that therefore technically requires a lead sentence. Since that section is pro and con, I simply followed the protocol, and gave two views from either sides: the site is recommended as progressive and worth reading by the liberal Israeli newspaper. Two American supporters of Israel lambast it as full of hate or anti-Semitic.

I compromised with the cavaliere dell'infinito, only to get disgruntlement. I'm quite happy to suggest a compromise on your point too, but that means ignoring WP:LEAD. One could simply summarize what I wrote (itself a summary of the section on critical reactions, by replacing it with something like:'Mondoweiss has been hailed as an important source of information on Palestinians under occupation or dismissed as deeply hostile to Israel (and Jews?).' Something like that conforms to the stipulations that leads must summarize what the various sections outline. Perhaps, since for 20 years I personally see everything or everyone critical of Israel branded as anti-Semitic or hateful, I have lost the ability to be worried by the lame attempt at discrediting people or arguments on those grounds. What certainly cannot be permitted is the stripping down of the lead to 'Mondoweiss is a blog run by Philip Weiss', the bareboned knuckleheaded lead my edit was trying to fix. Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the two last sentences (The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has described it as 'a progressive Jewish website',[11] and Amira Hass cites it as a must-read website for those wanting to understand Israeli policy regarding Palestinians.[12] Its critics, among them David Bernstein, consider it a hate site). Seriously, the people calling it a "hate-site" is an absolute minority; "cherry-picking" and all that; Huldra (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That's fine by me, (as long as one retains the text with the Haaretz and Amira Hass material by shifting it down.) It still leaves the text open to a challenge as failing WP:Lede. I couldn't give a rodent's bottom either way really. Any reader with average intelligence must be able to see that something is wrong when Israeli newspapers can treat as an important website the very one a few outraged American go ballistic about for some putative odium. Or is the world even more seriously dumbdowned that even I might suspect?Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I compromised with the cavaliere dell'infinito is incorrect. The changes to the lead are not a result of an agreement. And please kindly stop with name-calling, this is inappropriate. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You are having serious reading problems. You said (a) the lead should summarize the text, in order to have Bernstein included. That got the thumbs down. I allowed you legway, and included Bernstein and for balance, Amira Hass. You complain that I misinterpreted Bernstein, misleading or overreading what I wrote since I was summarizing two opinions, not just Bernstein's. I made a compromise, you dislike it. But it remains a compromise. Thirdly, I didn't call you names. 1 alluded to the avatar in your handle. Quite sophisticated (Kierkegaard), really Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that in contrast to the attempt to smear what they do on Mondoweiss, the Anti-Defamation League limits itself to characterizing the webzine as 'anti-Israeli'.

The blog, which is quite popular in anti-Israel circles, is comprised of articles that feature a wide variety of anti-Israel themes, including claims of Israeli apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide, as well as accusations that the pro-Israel lobby retains excessive influence over U.S. foreign policy. Many of the articles written by Weiss on the site include opposition to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state and comparisons between the atrocities of the Holocaust and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Ron Unz: Controversial Writer and Funder of Anti-israel Activists Anti-Defamation League 20 January 2014

I.e., Mondoweiss is critical of behavior similar to apartheid in Israel (B'tselem/Human Rights Watch), of Israel as an ethnocracy (Oren Yiftachel), of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (doesn't need documentation), and of the undue influence of the pro-Israel lobby in US policy (Mearsheimer and Walt 2006/2007). One can reasonably adopt all of those positions without being either a fomentor of hate or anti-Semitic. Perhaps the ADL description could be used and the extremist opinions of Bernstein et al. dropped from the lead. Were Mondoweiss a hate site or anti-Semitic, the point would have been made without humming and haaring by the ADL, which merely considers it lamentably 'anti-Israeli' (whatever that means, see also hereNishidani (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Let me be crystal clear: your addition is not agreed, so I compromised with the cavaliere dell'infinito is quite wrong. You were already warned once about suggesting that I said or meant something that I do not actually say or mean here and here you come again? And hope this is the last time decorum is discussed, please kindly stop commenting on my reading or other abilities, like you do here. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking into my own crystal ball, I take that as an announcement you will be reverting my whole edit shortly, as you watch the clock for the 24 hr expiry to avoid a 1R violation. You are consistently here editwarring against the rough consensus, and have been consistently alone on the talk page. Now, let me in turn be crystal-clear. No one here, save yourself, has yet challenged what I wrote: Nomoskedasticity, and Huldra have simply stated that the last two sentences can be done without. They have not talked about the lead itself. So you have radically spun a objection to two lines, written to cater to your insistence the Bernstein rot be mentioned, as meaning the total elision of the rest of the lead I organized, an edit that has consistently tried to followed WP:Lede while listening carefully to what others are arguing. So, I'll take out the lines you, and Huldra and Nomo are dissatisfied with. I certainly shall retain the rest of the lead text, which is a correct summation of the body of the article. This nth compromise with the talk page 'concerns' still means that the section on criticism has not, as required been summed up. But I'm warning you here: persistently misreading what your interlocutors are saying, and acting unilaterally to revert everyone who disagrees with you, is a known symptom of intransigent WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT behavior, and sanctionable. Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Please kindly stop discussing me and concentrate on the content. Agree with Nomoskedasticity, no summary of the descriptions is needed in the intro. see here. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been discussing your edits and proposals on the assumption you write them. Correct me if I err. If you haven't an argument of substance in reply, don't waste my time trying to spin my attempts to communicate and find consensus as some personal attack. I once made a quip about a decade ago to Nomoskedasticity about the meaning of their name in classical Greek, and this was not taken offensively. To the contrary, the occasional aside relieves the boredom of editing here. This whole thread is an absurd exercise in not listening. Nomoskedasticity was opposed to mentioning "hate site" in the lead. So was Huldra, and Nableezy said likewise Bernstein had no place there. I'm not sure what NS means by 'I'm not sure we need a summary of the descriptions at all.' I don't take it as meaning there should be no description of anything in the lead, but just 'Mondoweiss is a blog run by Philip Weiss'. It would be nice if this could be clarified. If that is being argued, I would expect some explanation as to why this page is to be written in complete disregard for standard practice on lead composition. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that the lead as currently written fails to adequately reflect criticism of the site and is not NPOV. Coretheapple (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Gentle(wo)men. This is getting complicated. No one is actually suggesting concretely text, but from different angles, challenging this, or that, or everything. I'm trying to work out a fucking solution, taking into account what is said, often obliquely, here. I mean, we are supposed to actually build articles. So again, I asked for clarity.

• Infinity Knight desired to have negative criticism summed up in the lead (not mentioning that NPOV requires a balance between positive assessments and negative criticism.
• The consensus was that the material he wanted to showcase there, Bernstein, was inappropriate in the lead (Nomoskedasticity, Huldra, Nableezy,Selfstudier, myself vs IK and Geshem Bracha).
• IK and Geshem Bracha objected to self-description for the lead.
• That was resolved by sourcing the lead description to Goldberg and Adas's interview.
• IK then came back to insisting that per 'MOS:LEAD, the intro should summarize the content'.
• I met that by suggesting a compromise: since the reception lines up fairly equally positive responses and negative views, I wrote two lines summarizing both, adding Haaretz and Amira Hass, balanced by Bernstein and Rosen.
• Nomoskedasticity, Huldra and IK disliked these two lines, with the difference that IK objected to the whole lead as reformulated, at their request, seconded by Geshem Bracha, that the lead's description of Mondoweiss not be grounded in self-sourcing, but secondary sources. The lead is grounded in secondary sources, but IK is not satisfied at the attempt to cater to his request, and won't explain why.
• I removed the two lines in response to the majority view, while retaining the rest because (a) no technical objection has been raised to it and (b) it satisfies what IK and Bracha asked for.
• Coretheapple states that, as now written, the lead fails NPOV. In writing that it 'fails to adequately reflect criticism of the site, this comment must refer to the text eliminated in response to the consensus of Nomoskedasticity, Huldra, IK, Nableezy and Selfstudier that Bernstein, or mention of a hate site, shouldn'r be there.
• I removed this. What is not clear from Coretheapple's remark is whether he is arguing for criticism to be reflected in the lead, but not positive evaluations in balance (per NPOV), or whether my original compromise meets that objection by summarizing Bernstein and Rosen's negative remarks.

Encyclopedias can't get written by endless talk page elliptical opining. We have a problem, so we fix it. There are no indications in this thread of any alternatives being proposed to solve the issues. What we do have is confusion, backpeddling on demands which, if met, are rebuffed, etc. I suggest one attack the problem by proposing solutions or at least setting forth the minimal requirements for an adequate lead in a form that gets consensus.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Well talk page sentiment is how we get to consensus. I think the lead needs to show more balance as it is currently promotional. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Usually, argument, alternative suggestions for the text, etc., are the way we get things done, as I'm sure you know. I' m just waiting for editors to pitch in and provide suggestions. So far we have none, and those which I've made are either rejected abruptly or passed over in silence. I just looked at the Jerusalem Post,Ynet, Walla!, The Times of Israel articles. Most are self-descriptive in sourcing, and have lead language that is promotional. I don't think describing what the creator states is the aim of the webzine in question promotional. So, whaddabout some concrete ideas as to how to sum up the controversy section? Do we go for a brief synthetic:'it has been praised as an important outlet for alternative in formation on the I/P conflict and condemned as hostile to israel' or do we excerpt details that illustrate both negative and positive assessments? No one can agree, and thus we have a deadlock.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The next step would be to remove the changes that did not gain consensus and discuss new ideas. An agreed intro inline with MOS:LEAD could be nice. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

There has been no consensus on anything here, except to keep out mentioning it as a hate site. I made 3 compromise edits responding directly to your and Bracha's requests, and you have not tweaked them, but simply rejected them without any explanation as to their I inadequacy. So you have shown no desire to strive for consensus, and just gutting the lead, which is remodulated to fit your concerns, has no sense. Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec) There needs to be a reference to antisemitism as noted above per Infinity Knight and User:Geshem Bracha . It is in the article under "Reception," and needs to be reflected in the lead with appropriate weight and length. The lead needs to make reference to both the antisemitism and the blog's opposition to Israel's existence. Coretheapple (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

As my edits show, I have personally no objection to that. I had it in there, but everyone objected, even Infinity Knight (on the grounds Bernstein was misrepresented, when I was citing for it also another source). The only way forward is, for those who have an opinion, either to find a consensus not to include, or for those who want this mentioned to provide examples of the phrasing they desire, so that consensus can be achieved. I've done my part in trying to mediate. So those who are dissatisfied should start making concrete suggestions that could be implemented.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with a more bare bones lead, at least for the present, as there is a POV issue with the current one. Coretheapple (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

'Mondoweiss is a blog run by Philip Weiss, and has been criticized as anti-Semitic'? That is in short what your comments suggest as your ideal lead. If there is a POV problem with the current lead other than failing to mention anti-Semitism, tell me what you find requires fixing. I can't see any consensus for a bareboned lead, because that would fail WP:Lede, in ignoring much of the article.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: do you still believe your changes gained consensus? why do you restore the content without agreement? Infinity Knight (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

There have been 8 editors commenting here. Earlier there was, with lesser numbers, a rough consensus to exclude Bernstein. No other consensus, now that 8 are on board, has been formed. What has occurred is that every attempt made to mediate between the two or three parties meets a rejection. You were the one to complain that the lead must per the rules summarize the body of the article. You then contradicted yourself by reverting twice to a version you wrote which refuses to summarize the article. You are, in short, chopping and changing positions. So, rather than revert, make concrete proposals so we can vote on them.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

In any case, I would appreciate it if editors read Alan Wolfe's,At Home in Exile: Why Diaspora Is Good for the Jews, Beacon Press 2015 pp.119-122. It is the most insightful and level-headed analysis of Weiss covering the two central quotes from Bernstein et al., but placing them in a large historical context, the heritage of Elmer Berger, the parallel with Judith Butler and the split caused by Judaism's reach after universalism in the haskalah and Zionism's return to ethnic particularism. It's only 3 pages but definitely more illuminating than anything argued here.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: you added the content here and restored it here. Could you please point to the consensus to include? Infinity Knight (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed it, no consensus for this promotional material. This promotional material was previously also removed by Nomoskedasticity. Mondoweiss's self-descriptions, are not neutral or independent of Mondoweiss. If we are to quote Mondoweiss' self-description from secondary sources, we should describe it as secondary sources. This Indiania University Press book on page 73 writes "Mondoweiss has been exposed as a hate website on numerous occasions as its editor, contributing writers, and commentators routinely employ stereotypical antisemitic tropes".--Geshem Bracha (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

(1)Again, it is misleading to justify your blanket revert in terms of repeating what Nomoskedasticity did. That editor excerpted, from a completely different primitive lead, a (a) piece of self-sourced material about the site and (b) mention of it as a hate site. Nomo left in this (not self-sourced)

It is a part of the Center for Economic Research and Social Change.<ref>"Mondoweiss - Center for Economic Research and Social Change". cersc.org.

In the meantime, in response to what Infinity Knight, Nomoskedasticity and you complained off, 'self-sourcing' I fixed the problem by sourcing the lead's description to secondary sources. Ignoring the changes made to accommodate your objections, you now revert the new version, and erased even what Nomoskedasticity retained.

You now propose that we describe it per the opinion of a secondary source which claims Mondoweiss has been 'exposed as a hate website on numerous occasions as its editor, contributing writers, and commentators routinely employ stereotypical antisemitic tropes'. That is an opinion (no evidence given) expressed by an Israeli-American expert on intellectual property law, not a statement of fact, as your misapprehension suggests. Of course, it can go in the Reception area, as just one of many mindless assertions listed there which have RS authority.

In short you don't understand NPOV, don't look at what you are doing for its collateral damage. To illustrate

In the Reception section,I added the following:

(a) The Israel newspaper Haaretz has described it as 'a progressive Jewish website',(Editorial, 'Mock Funding Drive Launched to Send Bibi to Mandela Service,' Haaretz 10 December 2013)

(b) In 2018 Israeli journalist Amira Hass cited Mondoweiss as a must-read venue for those wanting to understand Israeli policy regarding Palestinians.( Amira Hass, 'The Websites You Must Visit to Understand Israel's Policy Toward Palestinians,' Haaretz 29 April 2018)

These two items were erased by Infinity Knight here under the pretext of taking out 'promotional' material in the lead. They didn't look, in short, at what they were reverting simultaneously in the other section. When I restored them (together with the lead), my edit summary specifically alerted editors to the fact that (2) 'The blanket revert also elided Amira Hass in the section on criticism, no reason given.')

You, Geshem Bracha again removed these two items with the edit summary ‘Promotional, no consensus)‘. I.e. you blindly followed Infinity Knight and wiped out additions which had nothing to do with the contested lead. You didn't examine what you were doing, you editwarred in lockstep with the equally disattentive Infinitùy Knight.

This is irrational. The ‘Promotional’ objection refers to the discussion re lead. The Reception section has not been discussed or challenged. If Haaretz and Amira Hass cannot be added to the Reception section because they are ‘promotional’ it would mean the objecting editors were they consistent instead of blindly editwarring by blanket reverts, would have had to take out the other 5 comments by Gary Kamiya, Michael Massing, James G. Abourezk, James Wolcott, and Arab News which are cited for their positive assessments.

So, both you and Infinity Knight owe the page an explanation for their muddling incoherence. Why did you both remove Haaretz and Amira Hass from the Reception section? I expect an answer before the Wimbleton final, or at the outermost limit, before the UEFA cup finale is played off at Wembley.Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"In 2013 Haaretz called Mondoweiss a "progressive Jewish website".[59]" is still in the article, so when you added that, it was duplicate content, rightly removed And So It (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for stumbling on this page among the 6,500,000+ wiki articles after registering a month ago and, toting up 27 edits, running here to justify part of Bracha’s edit (which he didn’t explain as duplicated content). You haven’t explained why in this edit Bracha removed mention of Amira Hass. So my request that its removal by both Bracha and IK be justified stands. Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not Bracha, so I don't feel the need to explain everything they do. I just pointed out you were sloppy in your edits, and that is why that one was removed. Take more care next time. And So It (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Sloppy editing means being unable to indent, and using a plural (sloppy edits) to refer to what you say is a single oversight. You are not a cyberpsychologist and therefore suggesting you know the reason Bracha removed that text because it was a reduplication (rather than missing its presence, for example) is silly, but the presumption you do know their unregistered motivations is one more suggestion you are acting as a meatpuppet. Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Sloppy editing includes a lot of things, and your insertion of duplicate material into the article is one of them. It shows you did not read the article carefully before adding it, and your belligerent attitude here shows you didn't even bother to reread it after it was removed to see if you can figure it out yourself. I don't claim to know what Bracha's motivation was, but as it is obvious that your edit was careless and sloppy, I offered up a possible reason. Whether or not that was his/her reason, it is good reason to keep it out of the article. Take more care next time, it is not that hard. And So It (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Bracha, Infinity Knight. Give the page the reason why both of you removed Amira Hass. So far, there has been no explanation of why that was removed, which you are both required to provide if requested. . .Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed here Infinity Knight (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

That is not the explanation requested . Burrobert stepped in to correct an obvious abuse. Who made the abusive edits? You and Bracha. I called on you both to explain why you were eliding Hass. As it stands, it looks now like if I add material you both will revert it. If someone else restores the same material, you leave it intact. Without an explanation, that means you are both edit-warring against a single editor, rather than evaluating the merits and demerits of proposals.Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: do you still believe your changes gained consensus? The reason was I agree that the lead as currently written fails to adequately reflect criticism of the site and is not NPOV. See Coretheapple here] Infinity Knight (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The content was added by Nishidani here and Nishidani restored it here. and again by Selfstudier here. @Selfstudier:, could you please point to the consensus to include? See WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

That's three. How many editors do you count who are explicitly opposed to that content? Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: See WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Could you please point to the consensus to include? Infinity Knight (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Point to a consensus to exclude. It looks as though you think nothing can be included without your personal agreement.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion of the material now included which generally seems not even in dispute. Does anybody actually challenge the material in the lead? Or are you just upset you arent able to include the most inflammatory attacks you can find. That said, the lead should include a line about its critics accusing it of an anti-Israel and even an anti-semitic bias. It should not include a direct quote from an editorial by a non expert. nableezy - 15:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

In the bottom section of the talk page I invited disagreement with the content before adding it and none was forthcoming. I agree that ONUS lies with those wishing to include but one cannot exclude simply on the basis of "Idontlikeit". We should have some sort of informative lead, we can discuss exactly what it should say.Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that Selfstudier's edit improved the article. The fact that we see only a procedural objection will not prevent progress of this sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Objectons were provided: the lead as currently written fails to adequately reflect criticism of the site and is not NPOV

And procedually:

• Per WP:BOLD the content was added by Nishidani here
• The content was disputed by several editors, for instance:

1. I agree that the lead as currently written fails to adequately reflect criticism of the site and is not NPOV. Coretheapple see here
2. Well talk page sentiment is how we get to consensus. I think the lead needs to show more balance as it is currently promotional. Coretheapple see here

• Per WP:BRD the content was removed: The next step would be to remove the changes that did not gain consensus and discuss new ideas. An agreed intro inline with MOS:LEAD could be nice. Infinity Knight here, revert
• Nishidani restored the content with the following edit commennt: Blanket reverting without any talk page discussion of the merits or demerits is not acceptable (2) The blanket revert also elided Amira Hass in the section on criticism, no reason given. here, this also might be relevant User_talk:Nishidani#Reminder:_Edit_summaries
• WP:ONUS, Nishidani was requested to point to the consensus to include, twice 1 2
• The disputed content as removed again I removed it, no consensus for this promotional material. This promotional material was previously also removed by Nomoskedasticity. Mondoweiss's self-descriptions, are not neutral or independent of Mondoweiss. If we are to quote Mondoweiss' self-description from secondary sources, we should describe it as secondary sources. This Indiania University Press book on page 73 writes "Mondoweiss has been exposed as a hate website on numerous occasions as its editor, contributing writers, and commentators routinely employ stereotypical antisemitic tropes".--Geshem Bracha here
• Nishidani opens a new talk page section Talk:Mondoweiss#The_right_to_edit. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it. WP:TALKNO
• Nishidani starts to discuss his intro change in the unrelated Talk:Mondoweiss#Infobox_template section. This is the third concurrent section Nishidani is discussing his change.
• Being aware of this discussion, Selfstudier in Talk:Mondoweiss#Infobox_template comments Well then, objectors can provide some reasons now, can they not? In default of same, the text can go in by default. User:Selfstudier here and restores the disputed content, later claiming consensus in this section.

No, a disputed content can *NOT* go in by default. This is how a disputed content is being pushed into the page without WP:CONSENSUS Editors should read WP:ONUS Infinity Knight (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I have made several proposals each in creative response to 'concerns' on the talk page, That is called consensus-building. I strove to meet objections by tinkering and revising various proposals. I also raised queries, which you and Bracha systematically ignored, and swept past, reverting in the meantime, in silence. The provisory solution we have now in the lead addresses half if the issue you raised. You opened this thread saying that MOS:LEAD requires the article's section content to be summarized. The content consists of descriptions of Mondoweiss, and criticism -positive and negative. Since there was no consensus on how to include a summary of the criticism section, I split the problem into two, and provided 3 alternatives summarizing the less controversial content: (a) describing what Mondoweiss is (b) leaving the criticism section out since no one agrees on how that should be alluded to. The first requirement of MOS:LEAD was therefore satisfied by consensus, as the numbers shows. This news text was endorsed by User:Selfstudier, User:Nomoskedasticity; User:Nishidani, User:Nableezy, Burrobert, and is opposed, uniquely, by you.5/1 means consensus. It stays. Note that when I posted 3 options, neither you nor Bracha deigned to respond. In the absence of a challenge, the version selected, supported by 5 editors, stays. Blame yourself for refusing to even consider a solution there.

Now, instead of whinging about things that are included after a clear and reasoned consensus-forming process, the proper step to take is for you to roll up your sleeves and make some practical proposals that would satisfy the requirement that we also include a summary of the appraisel/criticism section for the lead. I made two suggestions, to meet your, Bracha's and Coretheapple's complaint about a much earlier, different lead - and these were ignored, met with silence, or reverted. The lead we have is modulated to meet that concern's point that self-description be avoided. It is a compromise.

Clearly, therefore, if you dislike everything I write as unsausagefactory, put some meat into an alternative solution, and then see if it gets the same incontrovertible consensus the first part of the lead has secured. Articles aren't written by omission but by constructive additions, so instead of haranguing the talk page with endless challenges, let the page know what you propose. You tried it once - showcasing Bernstein's hostile remark while ignoring positive evaluations (required per WP:NPOV). All you need do is look at the 'Responses' section and come up with a brief synthesis of the pro-and-con evaluations and (b) précis them neutrally in a way that gets approval from the majority of editors here.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Consensus does not consist of editors deleting material and crying ONUS. There needs to be some valid reasoning for deletion. Rather than rehash all that led to here, write a new section with specific reasoned objection to the lead as it currently stands and with constructive suggestions for remedy of supposed deficiencies.Selfstudier (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: No need to repeat ourselves infinitely. Several editors rejected the disputed content. Point to a consensus to exclude here is not how WP:ONUS works. If you, or any other fellow editor, wish to include the disputed content, WP:RFC is the appropriiate venue per WP:DR. And kindly, to avoid misrepresention of other people, be precise in quoting others. When referencing other people's contributions or edits, use "diffs.", see WP:TALKNO Infinity Knight (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, there is a clear consensus to have some form of meaningful lead with the current lead being the latest iteration. And once again, you are refusing to engage in constructive discussion other than to argue no consensus/ONUS. In such case, it is yourself that needs to initiate an RFC and we will see how those arguments fly in that case.Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The objections by User:Coretheapple here and User:Geshem Bracha here were not addressed. WP:RFC is the appropriiate venue per WP:DR. And please read WP:ONUS, no need to repeat ourselves infinitely... Infinity Knight (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

And yet you continue to repeat yourself, to no useful purpose.Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Please kindly stop discussing me and concentrate on the content. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I made the new section I mentioned below. Kindly stop alleging that people are repeating themselves and then complaining when it is pointed out that you are doing precisely that.Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

So this is the fourth (!) concurrent section now discussing the same change. This is inappropriate. I am going to remove the disputed content, per WP:ONUS. (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The content is being addressed in the last section and will form the basis of any RFC required.Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice. This and that also might be relevant. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The second one being my notice to you on your talk page about your disruptive editing, quite right, very relevant. Glad you have taken note of it although blanking your talk page won't help.Selfstudier (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: crying ONUS here is wrong since ONUS is the policy governing this bazaar. Not accepting Wikipedia rules would be disruptive, for instance. You said The last section ... will form the basis of any RFC required here, How is the progress? Infinity Knight (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: You said It is obvious to me that Selfstudier's edit improved the article. here Could you explain why? Infinity Knight (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You might reflect that, when one editor consistently through these threads, turns a blind eye to every question put their way, it looks presumptuous to query others and expect a reply. If you set an example by explaining why you think your single opinion is cogent on the talk page and cite it to revert an established consensus, and do so persuasively, people might be more disposed to clarify even further what has otherwise been exhaustively clarified in response to what has the appearance, so far, of non-collaborative stonewalling.Nishidani (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: It is hard to follow what you are saying. Use "diffs.", see here. Regarding a compromise, see here. Point to a consensus to exclude here is still incorrect, so this is still unanswered. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If you can't remember what was asked of you, on this page, reread it and note you haven't replied. Editors are under no obligation to waste their time if an interlocutor fails to listen.Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting Infinity Knight (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a venue for social chatting, with quips like 'interesting'. Take a leaf out of your own book. You ask, for example, Nomoskedasticity to explain himself. Well, explain why you think what he says, or I remark, 'interesting'. Otherwise it's just meaningless 'I'm here guys' bloat. We work here, we don't hang out.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity input is welcome because of Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#ONUS:_procedural_question discussion. Regarding content AMEU and CERSC sources are not suitable for the intro: both are hardly WP:RS and include self descriptions. CERSC actually redirects to Mondoweiss.

Golderg source is acceptable, but mispresented:

• webzine not found in the source
• general-interest blog is discussed in the following context:

  His obsessive focus on Israel has come at the expense of a successful career as a magazine journalist. Harvard-educated, he got his start writing for the New Republic and later contributed features to New York, and the New York Times Magazine and wrote a column for the New York Observer. Initially he launched Mondoweiss as a general-interest blog on the New York Observer website. When he started to focus on Israel, his editor warned him that he was becoming a crank.

• Golderg also discusses the idea of hate:

  Not surprisingly, some Jew-haters see Weiss as a native informer, telling the plain truth about the Zionist octopus. “Philip Weiss is a unique American Jewish voice—a Jew without all the usual rationalizations and blind spots–at least most of them,” Kevin MacDonald, a leading anti-Semitic theorist, wrote last May. MacDonald has bandied the idea of taxes on Jews and quotas against them in order to “achieve parity between Jews and other ethnic groups.

  Weiss isn’t responsible for his fans, of course. But when he wrote about McDonald’s embrace, there was something notably equivocal in his rejection of a figure who most American journalists and thinkers would find beneath contempt. “I find a lot of what MacDonald has said elsewhere bracing and bold,” he wrote. “He is alive to important sociological trends that few people are talking about out loud.” Only then did he call him out for his open racism and disdain for Jewish suffering.”

Hope it helps, Infinity Knight (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If you have changed your list of objections to something other than those detailed in the last section of this talk page, you need to make that clear in that section and not this one.Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If you have a proposal to make, make it. The consensus has okayed the lead in its present form. The above suggests you want additions made, so to repeat what I've asked for several times, give us your proposed text, for discussion. Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the lead as currently written fails to adequately reflect criticism of the site and is not NPOV.
— User:Coretheapple
— 14:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec) There needs to be a reference to antisemitism as noted above per Infinity Knight and User:Geshem Bracha . It is in the article under "Reception," and needs to be reflected in the lead with appropriate weight and length. The lead needs to make reference to both the antisemitism and the blog's opposition to Israel's existence.
— User:Coretheapple
— 18:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with a more bare bones lead, at least for the present, as there is a POV issue with the current one.
— User:Coretheapple
— 19:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Unsigned, in the wrong section, ignoring as tendentious.Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Idem. It is also pointless. I respect the quoted editor, but we have consensus on this, and this has be rehashed frequently. No comment therefore.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, according to ONUS: procedural question, WP:NOTVOTE applies. I agree with Blueboar's interpretation: A lot depends on the reasons given for the various opinions. I have seen five well reasoned, policy based arguments in opposition to an addition out-weigh ten poorly reasoned “I just like it” arguments for inclusion… If no further comments, I will request an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close this discussion. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This "discussion" was closed a while ago. To repeat, you need to be in the last section of this talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The right to edit

I for one have some 50 odd pages of material downloaded regarding Mondoweiss. The article is pathetic, and needs revision. Every addition save one minute annotation has been systematically reverted out by two edit-warriors, so what are the conditions for doing serious work towards making this something that might begin to fit the minimal requirements for an encyclopedic article? Do I need two minders at every step? Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

If you believe there is an edit war going on, I suggest you take it to the edit warring noticeboard. Generally, review by fellow editors improves the quality though. Infinity Knight (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Quality is not achieved by gutting articles. All we have so far is erasures of existing or proposed text combined with no significant proposals. Compromises between disagreeing parties - I have made three - have been rejected without serious discussion. This is edit-warring, as is the practice of entertaining two diametrically opposed views simultaneously. You began by citing LEAD:MOS, insisting the article was flawed by failing to duly sum up the sections, and, as tentative proposals were made to fix that per WP:LEAD, you rejected them by, with Bracha, systematically emptying all attempts to expand the lead with succinct section summaries. You wanted Bernstein in the lead: when I addressed that concern by mediating, with Bernstein alluded to, but balanced per NPOV with a positive appraisel, that too was chucked out. In short your POV skirt was flared: you would add Bernstein in per WP:LEAD, but erase attempts to balance that per WP:NPOV if a parallel reference to a positive view was added in compliance with the same lead policy. There has been no consensus for inclusion or exclusion, - only an approach that included hostility and excluded approval and the assumption now remains that nothing without consensus can be included in the stripped down text, which means, editing the article is now effectively banned unless you and Bracha consent to the content. Congratulations. I haven't time to waste denouncing appalling behavior at boards. I just note it on talk pages. Nishidani (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, the edit warring issue should be discussed at the edit warring noticeboard and not here where this page's content is discussed. There are plenty of things that should not be discussed on talk pages, see WP:TALKNO. To sum it up: sometimes content disagreements arise among fellow editors, it is not the end of the world. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't and I agree there are appropriate ways to deal with it, including an RFC if needs be. "teaming" is not an appropriate way.Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox template

The page uses {{Infobox newspaper}}. Any objection using {{Infobox website}}? See an example.

Mondoweiss

Type of site	news blog
Available in	English
Founded	2006
Headquarters	United States
Founder(s)	Philip Weiss
Key people	Philip Weiss Adam Horowitz
Employees	XYZ
URL	mondoweiss.net

Please share your thoughts. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I object to making changes you propose when you are not engaging (let alone engaging reasonably) with direct requests two sections above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, can respect that definitely. Thank you for reaching out through though. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC) edited 21:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Reaching out through what? Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my error, Nishidani. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The word 'blog' is a false description of what many sources now call more appropriately a website/webzine. It is like +972 magazine. On any day they have articles by 14 different correspondents, two of them Palestinian journalsists directly reporting (not 'blogging' ) from the West bank and the Gaza Strip. It is a structured organization, with chief editors and paid contributors. The only reason for blog remaining there is to give the idea of it being an outlet for personal views, and render it thereby seemingly untenable as a reliable source. I don't quite agree with his specific view when Alan Wolfe, who has some good criticism of Weiss, calls it the most influential website challenging America's reflexive pro-Zionist policies, and does so in a scholarly book, that should be duly noted. When people of the stature of Judith Butler (plus dozens) publish there, it is no longer a 'blog'. And of course, because of your editwarring, nothing of this can be noted.Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree that usage of the word blog (here) is intended dismissively. I also tend to agree that rather than being a blog of the usual variety, this is something more that cannot be so lightly dismissed. What we need is a sourced form of words for a proper lead. So let's look into that.Selfstudier (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Comparing with Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (Camera) is interesting, afaics CAMERA is a sort of Mondoweiss in reverse with diametrically opposite opinions, in fact Mondoweiss seems relatively mild in comparison but look at the write up that CAMERA has here on WP.Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If one in sisted on blog one could write:

Mondoweiss is a citizen-journalist based blog reflecting a diverse network of the Palestinian movement.(Divinity Bridget O'Connor-De Losrios, The strategic use of The Face of Apartheid: examining Mondoweiss blog activists’ claimsmaking and protest activities over the Scarlett Johansson and SodaStream controversy, University of Iowa Doctoral Thesis 2016 p.3).

Deferring to a second moment the question of how to sum up in the lòead the appraisel/criticism section, if website/webzine were preferred one could write:

Mondoweiss is a webzine co-edited by journalists Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz, which, according to political scientist and sociologist Alan Wolfe, is dedicated to drawing attention to the case for anti-Zionism.(Alan Wolfe, At Home in Exile: Why Diaspora Is Good for the Jews, Beacon Press 2015 ISBN 978-0-807-08618-6 pp.119,122)

I originally suggested

Mondoweiss' is a webzine that began as a general-interest blog on the New York Observer website written by Philip Weiss ,(Michelle Goldberg, Idiosyncratic and influential anti-Zionist blogger Philip Weiss has a complicated relationship with Israel, American Jewry, and himself,’ (Tablet 20 January 2011), Weiss described the blog’s purpose as one of covering American foreign policy in the Middle East from a 'progressive Jewish perspective’.(Jane Adas. ‘Interview with Jane Adas,' AMEU vol. 43, No.1 January-March 2010 p.12 ) It defines its aims as fostering greater fairness for Palestinians in American foreign policy, and providing an alternative identity among American Jews to Zionist ideology, which he regards as antithetical to American liberalism.("Mondoweiss - Center for Economic Research and Social Change". cersc.org.)

The last (a) uses secondary sources to overcome the criticism that self-description (allowed on the wiki pages of many Israeli newspapers) is unacceptable. The reasons why this compromise was rejected were never given.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Well then, objectors can provide some reasons now, can they not? Absent same, the text can go in by default. Citizen journalism is a thing.Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's start over

Infinity Knight claims (MOS Lead section above) the following objections are not addressed:

Objection 1 (Coretheapple) "There needs to be a reference to antisemitism as noted above per Infinity Knight and Geshem Bracha . It is in the article under "Reception," and needs to be reflected in the lead with appropriate weight and length. The lead needs to make reference to both the antisemitism and the blog's opposition to Israel's existence." Nableezy has already agreed there should be something about this, so the only question is the wording, right?

Objection 2 (Geshem Bracha) Complaint that material is promotional, which material in the current lead is promotional? Then an argument based on a single text for the extraordinary claim that MW is a hate site. Extraordinary claims need exceptional sourcing not from a book on alleged antisemitism on university campus consisting of a bunch of student essays.Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I tried to address Coretheapple's concern, reflecting also those of IK and Bracha, i.e.

There needs to be a reference to antisemitism as noted above per Infinity Knight and User:Geshem Bracha It is in the article under "Reception," and needs to be reflected in the lead with appropriate weight and length. The lead needs to make reference to both the antisemitism and the blog's opposition to Israel's existence.

by filling that lacuna here. I.e.

Its critics, among them David Bernstein consider it an antisemitic hate site.

Nota bene. I included material which the majority of editors, myself included (Nomoskedasticity, Nableezy, Nishidani, Huldra, Selfstudier), thought inappropriate (certainly in the way it has been phrased, and devoid as it was of a balancing statement from critics who think it no such thing), as a compromise.

Infinity Knight immediately threw out the baby with the bathwater in this revert, erasing not only first para of the lead proposed but also the part which met his, Bracha and Coretheapple's request, the part precisely which Infinity Knight has militated to have included, i.e.,’ Its critics, among them David Bernstein consider it an antisemitic hate site.’.

So Infinity Knight can't have it both ways. Erasing material he otherwise insists on including. Go figure.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Infinity Knight, is the above sentence sufficient to deal with objection 1? If you agree we can add it.Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, since the slight numerical majority objected to that kind of sentence, IK's acceptance is not sufficient. He must obtain a confirming majority for its inclusion. Unfortunately that is the consequence of his precipitous and incautious removal of it in the first place. As I noted above, a negative lead summary sentence or two cannot go in without a balancing sentence or two of positive evaluation,rigorously per WP:NPOV. That is why I asked IK to provide a new formulation summarizing the reception criticism. Once they have done that, we can see what the consensus is.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

On reflection we have mixed together objection 1 and 2, the antisemitism aspect needs to be separated from the hate site part. So for objection 1, we need something like:

"Critics such as David Bernstein (source) consider the site antisemitic." Selfstudier (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

We can deal with any necessary balancing independently of this aspect, OK? One thing at a time.Selfstudier (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead as it stands has consensus,- Bracha's point is resolved, so that para should not be the focus of this thread. What the thread must address is Coretheapple's point, reflecting IF's remarks on MOS:LEAD. As per NPOV, anti-Semitic accusations cannot be mentioned in isolation. Infinity Knight or whoever, not me, must come up with a proposal containing not only matter like that, but also the balancing material (Haaretz/Hass/Wolfe or whoever. So let's wait for that proposal from IK. Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting but we ought to try and make some progress, I don't want to spend my life on this page, lol.Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Idem. Looking back over all of the thread, numerous attempts have been made to meet IK's objections. They were all consistently rejected. So progress must begin by IK making a concrete proposal. Anything I say is vetoed at sight, so the ball's in their court. We don't want here that infinite cunctatorial objectionism which marred the P enclave discussion, and led to a ban for sheer recalcitrant WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT behaviour.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT behaviour such as, now, this where the edit summary 'see talk', decoded, means 'see my minority view, disputed by a majority of 5 editors.' Do that again, and you will be reported for repeatedly edit warring against consensus, esp. because you also fail to respond to every request to actually collaborate, by offering proposals, for improving the text you dislike.Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, clear cut disruption and I have posted a note on the editor's talk page to that effect.Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• This discussion seems to be stale, but I've been off-wiki. I believe that the NPOV issue I stated earlier remains. Coretheapple (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yep, WP:ADMASQ. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Best redirect link to Center for Economic Research and Social Change?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Socialist_Organization#International_Socialist_Review/Haymarket/Center_for_Economic_Research_and_Social_Change BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, CERSC is a 501 non profit and then Mondoweiss, Haymarket are publishing related akas for that "official" name. I think "part of" is not quite the correct phrasing, sponsored by would be better and I don't think it should be a redirect to any of the "sponsored" projects at all. (StandWithUs/Creative Community for Peace is a similar set up with the 501 being called Israel Emergency Alliance in that case. Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)