Talk:Mika Tosca

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024
Add a section labeled

Antisemitic Remarks.

An October 17, 2023 post on Instagram by Tosca stated “Israelis are pigs. Savages. Very very bad people. Irredeemable excrement…May they all rot in hell.” The post was removed the following day and Tosca issued an apology, however numerous groups condemned her statements including a change.org petition calling for her dismissal from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC). As of January 1, 2024,Tosca was no longer employed by the SAIC.

https://canarymission.org/professor/Mika_Tosca

https://www.dailywire.com/news/professor-who-called-israelis-pigs-and-irredeemable-excrement-no-longer-employed-school-confirms 162.234.10.182 (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * According to the list of repeatedly discussed sources: There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Beccaynr (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I continued reviewing sources, including the Canary Mission link - the About Us page for the organization does not provide much specific information about the group; their page about Tosca (linked above) states her X/Twitter handle is "@trans_icon_mika", which is an account that does not exist when I checked, and seems to be a different account naming format than her other social media that uses variations of her name, e.g. her private Instagram account "dr.mika".
 * However, I found a Sinclair Broadcast Group-produced National Desk report (Jan 4, 2024) (see e.g. previous talk page discussion about this source generally) that links to a Canary Mission Instagram post that states it is reproducing a post from the @trans_icon_mika X/Twitter account; the National Desk reports this is an announcement by Tosca that she will no longer be working at SAIC as of Jan 1.
 * Her official website (https://www.mikatosca.com/) currently states: "She is an Associate Professor at the SAIC." Her faculty profile at SAIC states "Error 403: Access Denied" and "We’re sorry, the page you're trying to access has restricted access." From my view, at this time, we do not appear to have the high-quality independent and reliable secondary coverage needed to develop encyclopedic content in accordance with policies such as the biographies of living persons policy and the neutral point of view policy. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024 (2)
I would like to add to Mika Tosca's Wiki Page that she accused Israelis of "being irredeemable excrement," "pigs" and "savages" and is no longer employed by the Art Institute of Chicago. This would fit best under "Career and Research" or a new section called "Controversies."

https://forward.com/fast-forward/575261/school-art-institute-chicago-antisemitism-lawsuit-israeli/?fbclid=IwAR2L76Ge_rUTsNrOcUThC8EgQSTilKLtfQSVey_5CTAEWN3HwshLOLP8_ew MSR1967 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is being repeatedly requested and rejected/reverted, so it's not uncontroversial and would need further discussion. You are not allowed to start or participate in such a discussion, though (WP:A/I/PIA). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

She no longer works at SAIC
This information is out of date about where she works. She was let go.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/professor-who-called-israelis-pigs-and-irredeemable-excrement-no-longer-employed-school-confirms

A spokesperson for the prestigious art school confirmed to The Daily Wire that Tosca is no longer employed, but declined to comment further on “personnel matters.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadees (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I know the Daily Wire is considered an unreliable source but if you search the faculty directory for the school she doesn't appear.

https://www.saic.edu/faculty-directory?search_api_fulltext=Mika%20Tosca&field_departments=All&field_employment_type=All
 * The article does not state she is currently employed at SAIC . The Forward mentions in a January 4, 2024 report focused mostly on another subject, "The college confirmed that Tosca is no longer employed there but would not say why." I think given the low-context reporting by The Forward, and the past discussions about WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT policies, there should likely be a discussion before a low-quality reference is added to this biography of a living person. For now, it appears verifiable that she no longer works at SAIC and unlikely to be challenged. Beccaynr (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Her career ends with SAIC.  It is kind of implied she works there currently.  How would you add a line saying she no longer works there? Hadees (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm hanging back a bit and waiting to see if better sources emerge. But a somewhat-widely reported incident that apparently resulted in separation from her job is something that past consensus has indicated should generally be included in articles. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I added this:. We'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ping @Aquillion, in case you want to comment on the sourcing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And that happened. IMO, the sources used are acceptable in context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I think your suggested addition seems brief, and nuetral, but I removed it because we do not seem to have consensus about the sourcing according to WP:BLP policy. The Algemeiner is discussed Talk:Mika_Tosca, and I questioned the depth and quality of The Forward above. Beccaynr (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no consensus atm, but I consider the sources acceptable for the content. For visibility, this is the removed version:
 * "In October 2023, during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, Tosca posted harsh anti-Israeli comments on social media. She apologized the following day, and SAIC called such views "hateful". By January 2024, she was no longer employed at SAIC. "
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I am essentially relying on WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPUNDEL for the removal, given the past discussions and the apparent need to have consensus not only about the content (which I think is good), but also the sources (which I do not think are sufficient at this time to support the content). I am not generally opposed to an addition of the content, but I think policy, including WP:NOTSCANDAL, emphasizes a focus on the sources, and for Tosca, unlike other academics (e.g. Russell J. Rickford), high-quality coverage appears limited. I think it is okay to wait, and to also see what happens at AfD. I also have a question about how WP:A/I/PIA restrictions may apply to an AfD discussion that I haven't had a chance to ask yet. Beccaynr (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And as a sourcing issue, the Times of Israel source is a reprint of the JTA source, which was published earlier with a less sensationalized title: Cornell professor apologizes for saying he was ‘exhilarated’ by Hamas attack, as campus Israel battles continue; the earlier source is better to use generally, and here, the title of the earlier source seems more specific and neutral. Beccaynr (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding to the above, I don't think this one has been talked about here:Komonews.com, . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We have discussed the Sinclair Broadcast Group/The National Desk sources at e.g. Talk:Mika_Tosca. Multiple local outlets owned by SBG will reprint the same National Desk content. Beccaynr (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but this is... exactly the same thing, right. We are, sometimes, a thorough people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, I have been considering sending this article to AfD, including on BLP-related grounds. The mostly poor-quality sources that have covered this incident seem to further reflect her lack of notability/the WP:NOT policy issues. Beccaynr (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On the question of whether the material should be included, the separation from SAIC brings me onto the side of inclusion, per past consensus on BLPN. (The doctrine of limited public figures is relevant.)  The mention should be brief; I thought what  put in was reasonable (even briefer would also be ok).  As usual, there's WP:NODEADLINE, and I don't have a problem with waiting for an AfD to play out.  If Tosca is watching this conversation, then I judge that a request from her for deletion would make it somewhat more likely as the outcome of a deletion discussion (if that is even what she wants); any of us would be happy to explain how to verify her identity etc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Recent sources: as discussed above, The Forward covers the comments and departure from SAIC, in conjunction with a lawsuit against SAIC. Hoodline also covers .  Jewish News Syndicate and the Chicago Tribune cover Tosca's remarks (in conjunction with the lawsuit), but do not name her .  There's also more coverage by The National Desk, which I discount but do not ignore completely. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Overall, I am concerned about how difficult it seems to accumulate multiple high-quality sources, and various challenges with most available sources. One of concerns with The Forward is the context, which is a lawsuit, i.e. allegations, in which partially-reproduced comments by Tosca are noted. Partially-reproduced quotes seem problematic because the lack of context seems to enhance the sensationalism contrary to BLP policy and seems to detract from the quality of the source.I am not familiar with Hoodline, but the wikilink is to Nextdoor, which appears to WP:UGC, and the source reproduces what appears to be Canary Mission/National Desk reporting discussed above that seem to assume the now-disabled "trans_icon_mika" X/Twitter account belongs to Tosca. I looked into this more, and found a different past Twitter account verifiably associated with Tosca (See ) "climategal84" that is also disabled. The JNS reproduces partial quotes and New York Post reporting. The Chicago Tribune not naming Tosca seems to help highlight the sourcing conundrum for this article, although the Instagram post seems to be reproduced in full and with more context. The developing lawsuit may become more WP:DUE in the SAIC article, but the litigation is still in early stages.As to the National Desk, this is an example of its recent reporting: "Rep. Rashida Tlaib named 'Antisemite of the Year' over Hamas terroist leader Ismail Haniyeh" (reprinted in KOMO) - this report is about the StopAntisemitism group that also promoted Tosca's Instagram comments, and according to the recent report "selected Rep. Tlaib above Hamas terrorist leader Ismail Haniyeh and influencer Gigi Hadid"; Tosca is also later mentioned as a previous focus of the StopAntisemitism group, with a partial quote of her comments. Beccaynr (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as The Forward goes, the comments by Tosca were in the lawsuit, as I understand, as was also discussed by sources including the Tribune. I do not find the reporting here particularly sensationalistic, and I do not think that they are taking Tosca out of context.  Hoodline is owned by Nextdoor, but is a news site; it appears from the little that I looked to have editorial control, with local reporters; I do not see cause for concern, and it does not appear to be WP:UGC.  The piece quotes both The National Desk and also the Tribune coverage.  I do not believe that our reliable source policies require that we blacklist any piece that quotes the NY Post or Sinclair, although we cannot use the NY Post directly and should use Sinclair only with caution.  Indeed, I observe that the NY Times has quoted the NY Post on occasion.  As I say, I discount The National Desk: I don't think we need them to get over the threshold of sources required in this instance. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * From my view, this is not about blacklisting a source generally - I think individualized reviews of various sources can be helpful for determining whether each seems usable to support contentious content in a BLP.In the meantime, perhaps we should first focus on the AfD. My general thought is my views on policies and guidelines have evolved with more experience as an editor - the first Tosca AfD was early in my experience, and I think my keep !vote reflects this. Some discussion on this talk page mentions lack of NPROF notability and borderline GNG, and now we seem to have a BLP/NOTSCANDAL issue, along with an WP:A/I/PIA aspect of those issues. Her academic career can perhaps be described as abruptly paused, so deletion for now, based on the at best borderline notability and the particularly contentious BLP/NOT issues may be warranted.There is also something about the recent torrent of low-quality coverage, often focused on the irrelevant aspect of her gender, which may further support deletion at this time - I don't think this kind of low-quality tabloid-style coverage necessarily supports considering her a limited public figure in the encyclopedic sense, but I am still thinking about this. There is some coverage in independent and reliable sources, but if we only use those sources to determine limited public figure status, perhaps we would not. Beccaynr (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If an afd happens, it happens. Article improvements can still happen, though of course an ongoing afd can discourage editors from putting in a lot of effort while it is ongoing. IMO, you considering starting an afd shouldn't be an issue for this content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about conservation of editor resources, because if there is consensus to delete this article, perhaps extended discussion and source analysis related to inclusion of something about recent events is moot (at least in this article). I was also considering my availability to start and participate in an AfD, and then learned today I am not able to start an AfD until at least later next week. In the meantime, I can add a few sources I found during my BEFORE search - I have conducted a fair amount of research to find sources to support inclusion of content related to recent events as well as other sources for a notability assessment.Also, the article no longer says Tosca is an associate professor at SAIC, and given the multiple CTOPS (BLP, GENSEX, A/I/PIA) that appear implicated by the recent events, caution seems particularly warranted in how we add content about the details. From my view, this may include further discussion at BLPN, or possibly an RfC, which is what informed my thinking about a possible order in which to pursue discussions to potentially more effectively manage editor time and resources. Beccaynr (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * RFC may be the way to go, but I'm still hoping for (at least) 2-3 more participants in this thread, which could get us into consensus territory without it. Possibly with a WP:RFCL closure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Then I will clarify my previous general comment about the proposed addition, because I anticipate being off-wiki for a bit in the near future. The JTA source by Andrew Lapin (Oct. 20, 2023) seems to be the most in-depth and reliable source available so far; it states the Instagram comment that "contained harsh anti-Israel sentiments" was shared "nine days after the massacre and in the midst of Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza, according to a screenshot shared by the New York Post." For WP:BLPSTYLE purposes, if there is inclusion, some further precision (and attribution of the JTA's phrase) may be helpful.Context of the timing may be important given the deluge of partisan and low-quality sources that abound online, many that seem to characterize Tosca as antisemitic, along with what appear to be allegations of antisemitism in a recently-filed lawsuit, e.g. as reported in The Forward - this source is proposed to be used as a reference for Tosca no longer working at SAIC, but would incorporate allegations of antisemitism into the article via the source. Beccaynr (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought you were going to nominate the article for AfD (meaning, say, this week), and paused to allow time for that to happen. It sounds like I was mistaken?  I am not certain, but I judge the most likely outcome of AfD to be keep or no consensus anyway: combining coverage of anti-Israeli remarks with previous coverage of activism looks to me like a credible pass of GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was planning to, because between a lack of NPROF, the substantially interview-based coverage before the recent events, and the largely low-quality BLP/GENSEX/A/I/PIA/NOTSCANDAL coverage, particularlarly if ECP protection is appled to the discussion, I thought consensus could form, not only about a lack of GNG, but also for the second prong of WP:N, specifically WP:DEL-REASON#14 (NOT policy). But then learned I am off-wiki for a few days soon for medical reasons, and in the meantime, I am spending a fair amount of time getting ready (I was waitlisted, so it was sudden news). Beccaynr (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fyi, I am going to pull the recently-added source with the allegations, but will leave the verifiable content about Tosca no longer being employed. I think it is too problematic from a BLP policy perspective to include a source that 1) includes allegations of antisemitism based on what the one high-quality independent and reliable source (JTA) we have describes as "anti-Israel" comments, 2) is based on allegations in a lawsuit that is in early stages. Tosca seems to be the subject of a high volume of low-quality websites and allegations (based on a cursory search online), and I think because it is not disputed that she is no longer working at SAIC, per WP:V, we do not need to include BLP-problematic content to support this content at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * StopAntisemitism is probably not good enough for a WP:BLP, but fwiw they have a WP-article: StopAntisemitism. Possibly everybody else knew that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Continues below at Talk:Mika_Tosca. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC on Antisemitism Allegations
Should this article have a category describing Mika Tosca's alleged antisemitism? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No in strongest possible terms, at least based on the sourcing provided above. The sources presented so far are not sufficient for a clearly WP:BLP-sensitive statement like this. --Aquillion (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment. We have an editor with 34 edits proposing an RfC related to an WP:A/I/PIA topic.  It's been already discussed extensively at a level lower than an RfC.  While new sources appear to be emerging, I think that the RfC may be premature.  Perhaps this should be speedily closed?  Pinging, who previously took administrative action here, and is familiar with the history. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, and sources
I want to summarize. Tosca left some dehumanizing comments against Israelis on instagram. Her job abruptly ended shortly thereafter. We have several pieces in well-established newspapers concerning the incidents, and naming Tosca by name. We also have a piece in Hoodline, which is local Chicago news. I believe that it shows signs of editorial oversight, and is probably comparable to the newspaper that a mid-sized town might've had 20 years ago.

Moreover, the incident (a professor at a major school using the kind of dehumanizing language that is unacceptable in polite society) was covered still more widely, and has been part of a national conversation on antisemitism on campus. Erwin Cherminsky wrote in brief about the incident (calling Tosca "a Chicago art professor") in a widely-syndicated LA Times OpEd; he discussed it at somewhat more length on NPR's On Point, also mentioned briefly on Anderson Cooper's show. (WP:RSOPINION applies, of course.) The Chicago Tribune also covered the incident in depth (without naming Tosca) in conjunction with a lawsuit against SAIC for an allegedly antisemitic environment; there was similar coverage from Jewish News Syndicate.

Now, the incident was also covered in Sinclair's The National Desk (probably only slightly better than Fox News, but OTOH Sinclair stations are the only television news available to many Americans) on two occasions. I think that this source contributes slightly to the case for inclusion in the article, but that we should avoid using it for sourcing. The incident was also covered by various other right-wing and tabloid sources, and for some reason by the Indian news media. Some of these sources seemed interested mainly in smearing a transgender activist. I think that we should ignore these sources as best as we can.

Setting aside The National Desk, we have at least five reliable, independent sources that name Tosca: an impeccable source, 3 well-established newspapers, and one new media local newspaper equivalent. This is over an an incident over which her employment (a main source of her notability) ended, and which was a subject of a national conversation. I think that this is something that we should absolutely cover briefly in the article at this point, and that to do otherwise is non-neutral whitewashing. I believe that established editor agrees. Established editor strongly disagrees. An example of possible language may be found at. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I did not realize that Chemerinsky had written the Op-Ed nor participated in the NPR piece - my view on this subject matter has been influenced by what I otherwise found. At this point, I think using the original JTA source (because the headline appears to more accurately reflect the contents, and to be less BLP-problematic), the WBUR/NPR source, which appears to be an in-depth discussion that is more than an individual opinion, and while I am still ambivalent about this, the Chicago Tribune to confirm Tosca no longer working at SAIC, could support a brief mention that I trust can be developed with BLP and NPOV policies in mind. From my view, this has been more complicated because of the multiple CTOPs and the various issues with sources; I appreciate your diligence in finding the Chemerinsky sources because I think these help establish further independent and reliable recognition of Tosca in sources that are distinct from other sources that have previously surfaced in this discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You believe correctly about me, and I consider the edit quite weird, leaving uncited text in a well-debated article, arguing WP:V and WP:BLP. If the ref is objectionable, then remove the content too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think problematic content in generally respected sources matters if that is not what it is being cited for. I think that The Foward is perfectly usable for the fact that she's no longer employed by the institute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In my comment above, I thanked Russ Woodroofe for finding more sources, agreed that inclusion of brief contentious content about recent events now seems reasonably supported, and proposed sources that seem best suited to support the content. There has been a lot of discussion and good-faith attempts to edit this article gradually and carefully, and that is also appreciated. Beccaynr (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I see an emerging consensus for inclusion, and restored the text of with some mild tweaking of sourcing and the addition of Hoodline.  I don't think we can include the sources that do not mention Tosca by name at this point, as WP:NOR applies to article space (but explicitly not to our discussion on a talk page).  I think that we are doing a good job of including mitigating circumstances (context, apology): are we missing anything? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think The Chicago Tribune in the context of the other sources is clearly discussing Tosca, so seems fine as a source supporting the fact that Tosca is no longer employed at SAIC, but I also understand if others disagree. Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed addition, re: best sources
There has been a lot of discussion, including about sources, several of which include brief coverage and focus on CTOPS/GENSEX aspects of Tosca, such as The Algemeiner, while better sources, such as WBUR/NPR, have emerged. I suggest the following addition instead of what has recently been added : I think it is beneficial to aim to avoid over-citing, to attribute the close-paraphrase, and to use the most reputable, high-quality sources available for this contentious content. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * On your change here:, current version at the time I'm writing, I find both versions acceptable. You inserted the wbur-source, which doesn't mention Tosca by name, but I'm ok with that in this context, it's extensive (comparatively) RS-coverage and the risk they're actually talking about someone else is nil. The Hoodline-source you removed does mention Tosca by name, which argues in its favor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I also think the WBUR source, placed with the JTA source, has sufficient information to identify Tosca, and I think it is one of the most in-depth sources available about this event. I have some concerns about The Hoodline, which may be similar to Patch (RSN, 2019), and also seems excessive because we have The Forward covering Tosca no longer working at SAIC. If another source seems necessary for this fact, I think the Chicago Tribune is better than hyperlocal coverage. Overall, I think the Cherminsky-based coverage Russ Woodroofe found demonstrates the sustained, high-quality, independent, reliable, secondary sourcing we need to support inclusion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Knowledge production, at least in the Wikipedia sense, is part collaboration and part combat." - Stephen Harrison Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the On Point source (which was NPR, and not just WBUR -- I believe it appeared on every NPR station that carried the show) is significant, I think that it probably impermissible WP:OR to use it in article space here, even though it is obvious that it discusses Tosca. I agree that Patch is a low-quality source; Hoodline shows significantly more signs of the kind of editorial control that we look for in reliable sources.  But if you don't like Hoodline, then I think it might be more ok to use the Tribune source than the NPR source -- still bordering on WP:OR, but moving from "Chicago art professor" to SAIC professor who was fired for specific comments makes this seem a bit better to me.  Dropping Algemeiner is fine as far as I'm concerned.  I think it would be ok to source this in the article to JTA and The Forward (and possibly the Tribune).  All that said, I am content to take a light hand here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Technically I agree with your point, but the "Chicago art professor who said "x", "y" and "z"" situation makes me want to cry WP:COMMONSENSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The WBUR/NPR source is more specific than "Chicago art professor" - Cherminsky quotes some of her original Instagram post, and then another participant states "the professor in Chicago at the Art Institute of Chicago School that you mentioned" and quotes her apology at length. It is this level of detail, combined with the JTA source, that seems to make the WBUR/NPR source usable. Beccaynr (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify my comment above about the Chicago Tribune - I retained The Forward in my revision, because there appears to be consensus to use this source, which specifically identifies Tosca; so when I said "another" source, to be more clear, I should have said "additional" source (Chicago Tribune instead of The Hoodline) - from my view, this is about whether to use an additional source, and if so, which source.Also, I think the WBUR/NPR citation can be fixed, and this source seems particularly helpful because it demonstrates sustained high-quality reliable secondary coverage in a way other sources do not - one aspect of this coverage that I think favors inclusion of this source is how it seems to address some of the particularly contentious aspects directly and in-depth, without issues that seem to have been problems in other sources (e.g. sensationalism, minimal context, irrelevant focus on gender, etc). Beccaynr (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that strongly against the NPR source, if everyone else is for it. It is true that it is very clearly about the same incident, is high profile, and quotes enough of the post to clearly identify Tosca.  I think it would be good to include something from local news (either Hoodline or the Tribune), and also that it is good to keep at least 2 independent sources that mention Tosca by name (currently, JTA and The Forward). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)