Talk:Miloon Kothari

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because I rewrote the page! --Psykotik (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you simply added more copyrighted content from a second page. Please write the article in your own words. Thank you. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hope this is better. Will add more material at a further stage. Psykotik (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miloon Kothari. 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/20160214200234/http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/events/miloon-kothari.html to http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/events/miloon-kothari.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Antisemite
This UN employee is an antisemite, the same way many other UN employees are; there is an audio of him being interviewed where he openly asserts that the "Jewish lobby" have major control over social media. 2A02:C7C:6677:A00:6485:43BD:1C91:967 (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * By writing such accusations, you disqualify yourself and your various edits in the article. First, Mr. Kothari is supported by the UN bodies in the current affair, then it is not because some pro-Israeli extremist papers (clearly unreliable sources) say that he is anti-Semitic that he really is. Kimdome (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you, or do you not, have the courage to repeat "Mr." Kothari's insinuations of a shadowy "Jewish lobby" in front of a Jew's face? 2001:1C01:4402:200:C92A:4F76:72C6:BEF1 (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How would I "repeat" something Khotari didn't say? And you really believe that there are no pressure groups, of various orientations, on social networks? Then why in this case do some speak of "Pallywood"? Would you have the courage to tell it in front of the face of a Palestinian ? Kimdome (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you, or do you not, have the courage to repeat "Mr." Kothari's insinuations of a shadowy "Jewish lobby" in front of a Jew's face? 2001:1C01:4402:200:510:A3EC:5EC2:C21E (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's almost totally pointless to parse words with people making bad-faith smears here, but his usage of the phrase "social media" in the interview almost certainly refers to organizations posting on social media, rather than to a conspiracy theory about Jews controlling social media. Wikipedia doesn't need to give a gratuitously generous interpretation to anyone, but I am not sure what purpose of public knowledge is served by inserting phrasing that wasn't used, other than attacking a UN official who is critical of Israel. 2600:4040:2951:DF00:659E:C688:28CB:ABD5 (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Mondoweiss
Hi, Accusations of anti-Semitism come from a very small number of individuals (Taylor etc.), and have mostly been taken up by unreliable extremist sources. Kothari is supported by its UN instances. In this context, a paragraph containing in its title the word "anti-Semitism" seems excessive to me, even if it is surrounded by conditional precautions. I'm not even sure that this incident, which very quickly came down, should be reported in a wikipedia article. Cheers, Kimdome (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Antisemitic comments
Since every single UN rapporteur or UN staff or UN comittee member working on Israel is accused of anti-semitism, I changed the title to something more relevant. Didn't change the text, though. --Malaga345 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Issue of Mondoweiss Part 2
As Mondoweiss is only to be used with extreme caution (if at all) for BLP, and this are two of the most problematic use cases (I/P, Antisemitism).

However, as MW is clearly significant for this article, a full deletion would require an exceptional bar which may not be met.

Suggested solution: Keep: Anything that can be covered by aboutself about Kothari Delete: Everything about other LP FortunateSons (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I would vote for a full Mondoweiss deletion. Mondoweiss is not an informative source but rather a lobby, therefore shouldn't be taken seriously. We don't know who support them, how many journalists (if any? seems like there are 3 people writers only) take part in the project. It's only one opinion, not supported by mainstream medias. Since 2022, wikipedia users report this part as being problematic. It's very partial and politically motivated. We should remove it as Wikipedia is meant to share non-partisan information (as much as possible). Malaga345 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. There seem to be a few editors, it’s possible that they write as well. As the closure is currently being reviewed, we can’t currently do much anyway. FortunateSons (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)