Talk:AMCHA Initiative

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: 11Fox11 (talk · contribs · block log · spi · lta) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

This article has an established citation style using inline references. Please do not change this to Harvard style, as beyond being a cumbersome style used in a minority of Wikipedia pages, this makes discussing other changes difficult. 11Fox11 (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It is called shortened footnotes (sfn) and is unrelated to Harvard style referencing. Shortened footnotes are useful because they reduce syntax clutter when citing multiple pages or fragments from the same source. For example, citing three pages from a journal without sfns requires writing: page 5,^[1] page 10,^[2] and page 15.^[3] It makes the page code look very cluttered. Especially if links have been archived. Using sfn the same footnoting can be achieved like this: page 5,^[4] page 10,^[5] and page 15.^[6] In my edit messages I have clearly marked which edits pertain to footnoting so I'm not sure what your complaint is. It ought to be easier for you to review diffs with sfn syntax since the amount of syntactic clutter is reduced. ImTheIP (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Whatever it is called, it makes examining diffs much harder. Looking at this huge diff, I might think that {sfn|Barrows-Friedman|2013} is a respected author in a respected publication. However I need to scroll to a completely different part of the diff (snuggled in the middle of other huge changes) to figure out that this is actually an Electronic Intifada blog. The usual way, in most articles, is inline ref tags, that are much easier to examine in diffs. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You would use the search function in your browser and search for "Barrows" which would reveal that "Barrows, 2013" correspond to . Is that really so problematic? ImTheIP (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Which means that instead of looking at one place and scrolling down linearly through the diff, I need to jump back and forth in multiple browser windows to understand the actual sources used. No thank you. How about you try to add new content to this article using the established citation style here? 11Fox11 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Most of the better articles use sfn and there is no shortage of lesser articles using both so long as none of your refs are arbitrarily converted, there is nothing to complain about, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

In the recent edit war, some people mentioned the citation style. From a quick perusal of WP:CITEVAR, Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. Do you think there is a consensus to change the citation style? EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure. First, it was only me editing and I like shortened footnotes so 100% of "us" were in favor. Then 11Fox11 objected so the level of support dropped to 50%. But since Selfstudier has expressed support for shortened footnotes, we're back at 67% (2 out of 3), and that's consensus-ish? :) I think shortened footnotes is something once you get used to you never want to get back because it makes precise footnoting so much simpler and less cluttered. The version of the lead here is, I think, well-footnoted and accomplishing the same thing without shortened footnotes is very hard. I've never met anyone on Wikipedia who doesn't like shortened footnotes so I'm unsure what the proper procedure is here. Is an RFC needed? ImTheIP (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally I see no harm in having both but I would put the refs inline since a complaint has been made. There are only two at this point, right? Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

A complaint has been made, but I'm unsure of whether that prevents the use of shortened footnote referencing for new content. The policies are quite unclear imo. ImTheIP (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR. Please do not mess with the citation style in the article. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: 11Fox11 (talk · contribs · block log · spi · lta) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

At User:EdJohnston's suggestion, I restored the views section added by ImTheIP as it appears adequately sourced to reliable sources. User:Mirk Wolf and User:Worlduse, are you OK with this? 11Fox11 (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

User:11Fox11 Yes - sources are not blog sources, such as Mondoweiss, and it is sourced now to reliable sources (Note - Same for any blog - there are many allegations that are unfounded all around this conflict whichever lens, which is why it is so important to only use credible sources). I feel uneasy, however, with the language in this section (specifically "which has enjoyed some success on U.S. campuses"). If anyone defines BDS (pro or against) as "enjoyed success" on a Wikipedia platform as the language here suggests it's already a POV. The way it was written here now by User:ImTheIP implies that User:ImTheIP feels BDS is successful if it passes. It should be neutral and not POV. Also, looking at the org views to gauge if the section is up to date, it seems that the organization has shifted with respect to a definition of anti-Semitism and possible this section needs expanded. The organization did call for adoption of the State Department Definition in 2015 as sources note, but in 2017 seemed to start to modify this view (see page 17 of https://amchainitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Campus-Antisemitism-2017.pdf, note text "Although efforts are afoot to ensure that Jewish students are protected from anti-Zionist harassment by ensuring that a definition of antisemitism that includes anti-Zionism is used in interpreting federal and state antidiscrimination law, these efforts will take time, and they may or may not succeed. In the meantime, we believe there is an immediate, easy and equitable solution to the problem, that starts with urging university administrators to consider that peer-on-peer harassment is not only a form of identity-motivated discrimination"). And then this report in 2019 (see page 20 "An Alternative Approach..." of https://amchainitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Antisemitism-Report-2019.pdf and before, from page 17 to 20 for overview history) about the IHRA definition adoption seems to imply the org even further doesn't retain this view anymore (see especially text, "Given the extent of such pushback and its linkage to acts of anti-Zionist motivated harassment, it remains unclear how effective efforts to address Israel-related antisemitism using the IHRA definition and civil rights law will ultimately be... In the meantime, we would like to suggest an alternative approach to protecting Jewish students that does not depend on how one defines antisemitism or understands Jewish identity. As a result, it effectively neutralizes challenges to the IHRA definition from anti-Zionist individuals and groups that have impeded fair and adequate administrative responses to anti-Jewish harassment. Instead of seeking protection for individual Jewish students through their membership in a federally-protected identity group, our approach seeks protection for Jewish students as individuals, with the same rights as all other individuals, to be free from behaviors that seek to suppress or deny their self-expression, including expressions of belief and group identity...") Please weigh in. It's hard to tell an org's views exactly, especially if not consistent over time, but I do read it that these more recent "view" portrayals from the org seem to indicate a shift in the org's views, apparently first because adoption of a definition would take a long time (2017) and then in 2019, in response to pushback to a definition. More editor reviews would be great on this issue. I tried to find more sources about this org view online explaining more (possibly https://www.jns.org/opinion/a-new-approach-to-fighting-campus-anti-semitism/ or https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/402337-anti-zionist-attacks-on-campus-have-increased-yet-schools-arent-doing - explain recent views of org)? Also, on the note about sources, in the Criticism section of this entry, the Mondoweiss blog source, does not seem credible there. If Wikipedia starts claiming "criticism" from any organization [Note especially, "a group calling itself California Scholars for Academic Freedom" -- this is not comparable to the first criticism from the National Lawyers Guild which as been established for decades!], it will be a free for all of tit-for-tat on Wikipedia. Same with Palestine Legal criticism. First three criticisms, in contrast, seem like relevant criticisms to the entry. The criticism section in general though could be summarized, more concise, and similar in factual tone to the rest of the entry, as is usually done on Wikipedia (see comparable org criticism sections). Curious also for User:EdJohnston thoughts. Worlduse (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

My opinion on content is not an issue, since I am acting as an admin on this page. I thought the previous edit war involved mass reverts, and a better approach is to split the overall problem into sub-issues and try to get agreement on them individually. If not many reliable sources have commented on AMCHA then, in my view, we can get along without a lot of comments. Using blogs for comment seems unwise. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. It is not a blog but usually requires attribution ie According to Mondoweiss (blah).Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No, Mondoweiss is a blog. It may cover the news, but that doesn't make it a news website, and especially doesn't make it a reliable source. Especially as it's operated by an ADVOCACY organization as you noted. Plenty of bias in articles there! It would be great to have INDEPENDENT WP:RS of the page, given that User:Selfstudier, seems to make it his/her/their editing mission to repeat criticism throughout even though there is a criticism section (it's clear bias and messy organizational structure to repeat criticisms, especially adding the criticism under the Mission statement from random editors of an advocacy book, which has nothing to do with the Org's mission at all), and User:ImTheIP is determined to do the same and also making contentious allegations of a living person. User:EdJohnston I know you are the admin and stay clear of content, but is there a way to signal wider for independent reviews by established Wikipedia editors who edit a wide girth of topics? It would be great to have this page flagged and reviewed by UNBIASED editors all around and strip it down to legitimate sources and clear facts only to bring it up to Wikipedia standards, nothing more, nothing less.Worlduse (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Entry for Mondoweisss:

"Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization...." There is no such thing as a neutral source, all sources are biased. WP remedies this by representing a balance of sourcing, so go find some sources that contradict Mondoweiss instead of complaining about Mondoweiss. I removed the duplication you complained of, the criticism is also less lengthy. I agree with you that this article needs serious work, it is just self-serving propaganda at the moment.Selfstudier (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Mondoweiss is WP:UNDUE here also WP:ONUS for this source is not met --Shrike (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

AMCHA's campaign against Rabab Abdulhadi has been part of this article for a long time (I didn't add it, see ). It got an incredible amount of attention (thousands of sources) so the UNDUE claim doesn't fly. Mondoweiss is cited three times in the article so "MONDO" is not a great argument in favor of deleting whole sections of text. ImTheIP (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, just saying something is UNDUE does not make it undue, why is it undue? Your statement about ONUS doesn't make any sense either, if you are removing material and relying on ONUS for it's restoration then same thing, you need some good reason for removing it to begin with. You can't just say "I don't like it". I repeat, instead of complaining about Mondoweiss, bring alternative sources with a different view.Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If there is thousound of source then we don't need Partisan sources like Mondo.Go ahead add them --Shrike (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

That's backwards. You are saying it's undue but the only reason u give is "partisan" (in favor of who, exactly?), which is only your opinion. So you bring sources that are "partisan" for the other side (whoever you think that is) of the discussion if they exist, it's not our job to find them for you.Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Mondoweiss is a hyper partisan blog. If you can't find better sources, it shouldn't be included. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Your editing is disruptive, I suggest you cease and desist. All sources are biased, I don't care whether your personal opinion is that it's "hyper partisan", it is RS and not a blog. If you take this to the RS noticeboard and ask the question "Is Mondoweiss reliable for ...blah (statement), the answer will be yes with attribution.Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks. There is no consensus that Mondoweiss, published by an advocacy organization, is reliable. More to the point, as Shrike points out, it is UNDUE. Ask yourself the question of "Does the typical reader care that Mondoweiss said something?", the answer is no. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: 11Fox11 (talk · contribs · block log · spi · lta) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

@11Fox11: The text sourced to Jadaliyya read Abdulhadi defended herself by noting that on the trip they met with 198 individuals from 89 organizations and that dialogue with controversial figures was an important part of academia. If you had bothered to click on the link you would have seen that it was a statement written by Abdulhadi herself. Even if you don't think the source is reliable, it falls under WP:ABOUTSELF. Please revert. ImTheIP (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of continued mass reverting on the user's talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! It is very frustrating that one user can tear down weeks of work using very dubious explanations. ImTheIP (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

We should let admin decide if 1RR has been breached. It's good that at least you are cautious in this regard.Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF should comply with WP:UNDUE policy. --Shrike (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Besides being UNDUE as Shrike points out, this is a comprehensive ABOUTSELF criterion 2 fail as besides the context of Abdulhadi's denial she states she "met with 198 individuals from 89 organizations" and thus this involved a claim about 198 third parties. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a novel interpretation of the WP:ABOUTSELF rule! I'll ask for a clarification because I believe you are completely wrong here. ImTheIP (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Not novel at all. It also fails other WP:ABOUTSELF criteria (1 & 4), but is a blatant fail of 2. 11Fox11 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

So I think the applicable uppercase policy is WP:NOTLAW. You are using your personal, literal interpretation of Wikipedia policies to justify deleting large swathes of content. Despite me having asked you multiple times to kindly stop doing that and to discuss issues on this talk page. I think you should reconsider your behavior because I think it reflects poorly on you. ImTheIP (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the main point here is that you are introducing sources that are according to you: "questionable". Please stop this. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Clarification_of_article_2_in_ABOUTSELF, I wrote "For discussions sake we can assume that Jadaliyya is a questionable source." You must have misunderstood as I did not claim that Jadaliyya was a questionable source. ImTheIP (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: 11Fox11 (talk · contribs · block log · spi · lta) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Editor @11Fox11: has deleted my complaint on his talk page (as well as posting idle threats on my talk page) along with my ping to @EdJohnston: so I will ping the latter here and ask him whether at this point we should be looking at a sanction for 1R violations? Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I made a single series of edits, so there is no 1R violation here. I explained each of my edits in an edit summary and on the talk page. I suggest you cease pushing questionable partisan sources and commit yourself to use of neutral independent sources. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: 11Fox11 (talk · contribs · block log · spi · lta) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

This was reverted back in with the claim that "AK Press is a reputable publisher and the authors of the cited book are all well-known". However AK Press is a publisher of the radical left fringe, and is not reputable. The text somehow ties this statement to "the editors of the book", however it appears in a chapter authored by Rabab Abdulhadi herself, who has been denounced by AMCHA on several occasions. Well known is a stretch for Abdulhadi, though the cancellation of and event featuring a terrorist did receive some press. The source is questionable by itself, highly partisan and involved in the dispute, and UNDUE. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

11Fox11, you cannot unilaterally decide that a publisher is not a reliable source. If WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT then you have to seek a consensus for the publisher's blacklisting at RSN. You have emphasized the need to follow due process. Now it is your turn to do so. ImTheIP (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You have it backwards, you need to justify use of this: DUEness, reputation of publisher, and meeting Wikipedia policy. AK Press' about is full of red flags, such as: "AK Press is a worker-run collective that publishes and distributes radical books and other media to expand minds and change worlds". They describe their own work as radical (so far from neutral), and a "worker-run collective" lacks oversight. The book itself is a collection of first-hand testimonials by authors who have faced serious anti-Semitism allegations. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you have it backwards. If AK Press is as reliable as you say it is, then it should be a piece of cake for you to get it blacklisted on RSN. Until then, you cannot claim that the publisher's books are not reliable sources. ImTheIP (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS on those who want to retain the information or add it. Please follow the policy --Shrike (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS has nothing to do with whether a source is reliable or not. 11Fox11 cannot unilaterally decree that all books published by AK Press no longer are reliable sources. It doesn't work that way. ImTheIP (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The onus is on your two to show why prefaces by Cynthia McKinney and Richard Falk and well as content by tenured scholars (eg.Nadia Abu El-Haj) don't count in corroborating that this is RS. The only objection in I/P terms I see here is that the cited author has an Arab name, Rabab Abdulhadi, and we must not quote Arabs. I'm putting it back. The publishing venue is irrelevant when the contributors are important figures in the debate. The onus here is on those who doubt the obvious. Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, we should talk about this. First off , it is nocon in rsp, meaning in general it is neither reliable nor unreliable, there is no consensus about it. Statements from there should be attributed to them and the recent revert by Chefallen is correct in so far as reference is made to individuals rather than an organization. In other words, if Mondo critiques AMCHA we can use that if we attribute. If Mondo critiques living persons, then using Mondo is likely to lead to problems.Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Editors who remove material sourced to Mondoweiss by declaring in the edit summary that it is not RS are unfamiliar with the RSN evidence, or indifferent to it. The editor who removed it cited BLP re Tammi Rossman-Benjamin. The extremely offensive remarks she makes about Muslim foreign students/Palestinian activists border on racism in , for example, my view, but they should be paraphrased and attributed, not given in the body of the article as a quote. The source Mondoweiss is not known for falsifying material, and I note that the remover ignored other sources like the Algemeiner which are far less reliable than Mondoweiss, a discrimination in selective omission that makes the erasure itself look distinctly censorious.Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Right, I don't see Algemeiner in RSP which would suggest that it is less reliable than Mondoweiss.Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The source given for the first sentence, in both versions, has exactly 5 words on this organization. It isn't enough. Zero^talk 08:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

There is some inconsistency in the descriptions around, Stern has "the AMCHA Initiative, which advocates for pro-Israel students and faculty" but there are others different, emphasizing protection of Jewish students from antisemitism, very widely defined by AMCHA, or as anti-BDS and so on. It's hard to pin down but defending against antisemitism and at the same time making use of a wide definition of that including criticism of Israel seems to be about the size of it, it's just that finding it all in one source is a bit difficult.Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

violated its terms of used

Please change "used" to "use". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi all,

The article seems to be too long. Would it be better to rephrase and summarise the content more precisely? Steven1991 (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)