Talk:Antoinette Lattouf

Controversy
The section regarding Lattouf's sacking by ABC seems to be ignoring essential facts, specifically Lattouf's gas the Jews denialism and other controversial social media claims, and her refusal to restrain herself to impartial content. After reposting another anti-Israel Human Rights Watch post she was sacked. And while this piece claims LfI lobbief Ita Buttrose for her removal, according to the ABC itself Buttrose was not involved in Lattouf's sacking. Note most of Lattouf's controversial claims e.g. accusing Israeli soldiers of using rape as a weapon of war, but not Hamas, or that the "Israeli military machine … is driven by bloodthirsty, extremist men who want to justify the ongoing annihilation of Palestinians" occurred before her brief ABC employment. 124.169.195.12 (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Some reliable links to the “ specifically Lattouf's gas the Jews denialism and other controversial social media claims, and her refusal to restrain herself to impartial content.” would be a great start.
 * Also, this article is accurate to say the ABC was lobbied for her removal, because that’s what the source says. Whether that was the sole cause of her removal is disputed, and this article doesn’t specifically say that the lobbying was the only cause. It also accurately states the ABC’s and Lattouf’s positions on her sacking. I don’t really see a problem here so far, happy to be convinced otherwise though. GraziePrego (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "After reposting another anti-Israel Human Rights Watch post"
 * So your POV is that Human Rights Watch (she could have added Amnesty International and B'tselem) is anti-Israel because it documents the facts of what Israel does, and the justifications given for those policies by its politicians? Have you read the documents she alludes to? Have you double-checked their facts by clicking on the links HRW provides to verify that their documentation is authentic? I.e.,
 * "Since October 7, high-ranking Israeli officials – including Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Energy Minister Israel Katz – have made public statements expressing their aim to deprive civilians in Gaza of food, water, and fuel.Israel: Starvation Used as Weapon of War in Gaza and Israel Weaponizing Starvation 18 December 2023."
 * The job of NGOs is to take note of abuses of human rights wherever they occur. The aim of politicians is to gloss over or spin abuses occurring during their watch. The practice of newspapers appears to be to lend weight to abuses in countries beyond the sphere of Western political alliances, and underplay the same when the alleged culprits are 'friends'. In this they fall short of the requirement to report news without fear or favour.
 * What do you mean by 'impartial content'? Apparently you think that any news critical of another country's behaviour cannot, ipso facto be mentioned by the ABC. Well, all mainstream newspapers diligently report news that has critical content. They do this whether the country concerned is the USA, Australia, Iran, China, Russia, the Ukraine, Nauru, etc., etc. Do you think an exception is to be made of news regarding Israel alone? Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You should place the tag against the part of the bio you dispute.
 * You are not able to edit in the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That includes "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace". See Arab-Israeli conflict. Burrobert (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the restriction you raise in the second dot point, does that mean the “factual accuracy is disputed” tag should be removed from the article until it’s disputed by an extended confirmed user? GraziePrego (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If the disputed tag relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict then it should be removed unless a qualified editor also disputes the text. The placement of the tag makes it impossible to determine the text that is disputed, however the comments above from the editor who placed the tag indicate that it does relate solely to the A-I conflict. Burrobert (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Tags should be added or removed based on their merits, there is no such thing as an editor being "qualified" to add tags based on their edit count. However in this case I agree that the tag isn't really appropriate - if the IP editor feels that information is lacking about Lattouf's posts, they're welcome to add it with the relevant sourcing. The article is not currently protected. ITBF (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My interpretation is that the A-I restrictions apply to material related to the Arab-Israeli conflict in all articles (protected or not). In order for an editor to add a tag disputing text related to the A-I conflict, that editor must meet the criteria set out in the A-I guidelines to which I linked above. We can, of course, seek advice from the Village pump. Burrobert (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Independent Australia
"The ABC had published two articles on the same HRW report" This was removed on the grounds that Independent Australian is not RS for a BLP. The text remove has nothing to do with any biographical details concerning Lattouf so the edit summary is inadequate as a policy explanation for removal. Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell there has been no formal assessment made on IA's reliability. There was an informal discussion in 2020 which only involved a few editors.(See "RFC: Independent Australia" - it was not a formal RfC). Anyway the statement from IA is uncontroversial and easily verified by searching the ABC website. The ABC articles which have mentioned the HRW report are, , . Burrobert (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * For this BLP article, we need reliable sources. The Guardian, the Australian Broadcasting Commission, The Sydney Morning Herald. Good sources, widely accepted


 * Independent Australia is not a reliable source for this purpose. If IA presents some material, then surely we should be able to find the same content in sources that Wikipedia accepts as reliable. If we cannot find the same material in any other place, then perhaps we should not be using a partisan political blog as a source for an article on a living person? WP:BLP is taken seriously here. --Pete (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the argument. IA has not been assessed by the Wikipedia community. We are using IA for an factual statement which has been verified in the links above. What is the problem? Burrobert (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an editorial, which generally shouldn't be used for statements of fact WP:RSEDITORIAL. The author takes a very explicit stance on Lattouf and the ABC which is further indication that we shouldn't be using it as a source. I can't really see instances where Independent Australia would be suitable as a source on Wikipedia - looking at their homepage, editorial or blog-style posts seem to make up a majority of their content, and their "news" articles seem to have a particular slant or be pushing conspiracy theories. ITBF (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of generalities. In this case we are dealing with a specific verifiable fact. As stated in the policy you quoted, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis". This one seems fairly clear cut. Burrobert (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Independent Australia is not a reliable source - for the reasons mentioned above - in exactly the same way that InfoWars run by Alex Jones is not an outlet with high standards of reliability, integrity, or honesty. They push political agendas and have some commentary value but we cannot use them, especially as sourcing for biographies of actual living people, where Jimbo has laid down the law in no uncertain terms.
 * If something in IA is significant enough to be used in a biographical article then it will also be reported in media outlets where we may trust the editorial standards to deliver reliable, fact-checked, balanced reporting. Use those sources instead. They deal in "specific verifiable facts" that are uncontaminated by opinion and selective accuracy. I can highly recommend The Guardian as a left-leaning outlet able to deliver an independent view on this subject, at least in their news articles. --Pete (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Reductio ad Alex Jones followed by an authoritarian "wait 'til I tell Jimbo" threat?? Jimmy is "a respected senior community member and representative, a source of institutional knowledge, and the holder of the Founder's seat on the 12-seat Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees". However, I don't believe he has offered his opinion on IA. Maybe one day the Wikipedia community will assess its reliability. Burrobert (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)