| Revision as of 16:28, 2 November 2022 editSelfstudier (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers41,282 edits →Sources not credible: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:37, 2 November 2022 edit undoIskandar323 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,732 edits →Sources not credible: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| ::::I'm just surprised why you seem to have personal interest in this matter. I edited the article in good faith and pointed to facts. But you make it seem like a personal attack: {{tq| please don't insult the intelligence of other editors}} <-- This was never my intention. Now that it seem you have personal interest in this article. I will take my time to check the article very well and make adjustments where appropriate with facts. ] (]) 16:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC) | ::::I'm just surprised why you seem to have personal interest in this matter. I edited the article in good faith and pointed to facts. But you make it seem like a personal attack: {{tq| please don't insult the intelligence of other editors}} <-- This was never my intention. Now that it seem you have personal interest in this article. I will take my time to check the article very well and make adjustments where appropriate with facts. ] (]) 16:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Facts are good, personal opinions are irrelevant. ] (]) 16:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC) | :::::Facts are good, personal opinions are irrelevant. ] (]) 16:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC) | ||
| :::There are half a dozen reliable sources supporting the attribution of 'right-wing' for this advocacy organization. This talk page thread is highly frivolous tme-wasting. ] (]) 16:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:37, 2 November 2022
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the StandWithUs article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | Organizations C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Sources not credible
Remove source 2 Clearly this is not the voice of reason and bias.
https://twitter.com/_pem_pem/status/1391096357138669574?t=WkXtaggCHsKoigkBBLVi6Q&s=19
https://twitter.com/_pem_pem/status/1392587380113170440?t=ldPRa3Lyje3OFXv21Q1xTA&s=19
https://twitter.com/_pem_pem/status/1391097323305021447?t=0b5iKRXS4jQx8oOMtJSJGA&s=19
https://twitter.com/_pem_pem/status/1025059788466601986?t=RQRuouWKb1Gg7YASsO-ocQ&s=19
StandWithUs denies right-wing, such in the case of David Miller and other attempts. Hohnes88 (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- There are 4 sources supporting right wing and twitter is not a source. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier: It appears you have personal interest on this article, maybe a bias even? I genuinely created the Controversy section with subjections of General and Criticism. Using right-wing in the lead is racial profiling and Antisemitism, the very concept that the subject of the article seems to be against. I checked the sources and most are self published opinions of journalists, like in the case of the Forward Article. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact as per WP:RSEDITORIAL. That was why I created a controversy section for that phrase. Besides, they are articles where the subject of this article denied being right-wing, as such makes the statement controversial.MesutOzula (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- This has been discussed ad nauseum, please check the archives. If you wish to assert that all or any of the given sources are not RS then you may make that case at WP:RSN.
Using right-wing in the lead is racial profiling and Antisemitism
<-- This is garbage, please don't insult the intelligence of other editors. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)- I'm just surprised why you seem to have personal interest in this matter. I edited the article in good faith and pointed to facts. But you make it seem like a personal attack:
please don't insult the intelligence of other editors
<-- This was never my intention. Now that it seem you have personal interest in this article. I will take my time to check the article very well and make adjustments where appropriate with facts. MesutOzula (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)- Facts are good, personal opinions are irrelevant. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just surprised why you seem to have personal interest in this matter. I edited the article in good faith and pointed to facts. But you make it seem like a personal attack:
- There are half a dozen reliable sources supporting the attribution of 'right-wing' for this advocacy organization. This talk page thread is highly frivolous tme-wasting. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- This has been discussed ad nauseum, please check the archives. If you wish to assert that all or any of the given sources are not RS then you may make that case at WP:RSN.
- @Selfstudier: It appears you have personal interest on this article, maybe a bias even? I genuinely created the Controversy section with subjections of General and Criticism. Using right-wing in the lead is racial profiling and Antisemitism, the very concept that the subject of the article seems to be against. I checked the sources and most are self published opinions of journalists, like in the case of the Forward Article. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact as per WP:RSEDITORIAL. That was why I created a controversy section for that phrase. Besides, they are articles where the subject of this article denied being right-wing, as such makes the statement controversial.MesutOzula (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)