Talk:StandWithUs

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)
 * 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)
 * There are half a dozen reliable sources supporting the attribution of 'right-wing' for this advocacy organization. This talk page thread is highly frivolous time-wasting. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The opening paragraph reads as an ad against the organization, please remove "pro-occupation" you can also see that other organizationsp don't get the same treatment. Aipac [|Zionist_Organization_of_America] [|J Street] If Not Now So clearly this is something out of the ordinary and very misleading when in fact StandWithUs is an education non-partisan organization. MtTamlady (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No, it claims to be non-partisan. That is not what the bulk of reliable sources describe it as. Provide an independent source for "educational non-partisan organization". Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We go by RS, what SWU calls itself is irrelevant although we do note that. As has been noted many tiimes before, either contest the RS or bring independent RS that specifically contradict the RS (and you will need at least six). Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Selfstudier, clearly many people have an interest in this article, and just today it has been changed tremendously, so the description from this morning looks nothing like now, my point is there needs to be consistency. Like in the case of the occupation claim, this can be discussed in the main article and not in the lead as it already is. Also, views, criticism, and controversies sections repeat the same claims over and over again. MtTamlady (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't changed by myself, except back to the long standing version before improper amendments were made to the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Rights as Weapons: Instruments of Conflict, Tools of Power from Princeton Press describes StandWithUs as nongovermental group supporter of Israel. And also London School of Economics stating pro-Israel advocacy organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MtTamlady (talk • contribs) MtTamlady (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We already know that, so I don't see your point. Just because they don't say "right wing" doesn't mean they are not right wing. Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the government part in the lead. MtTamlady (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a point derived from the article body (Views section). You can add those there as additional refs if you like. Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Completely understand and all clear on sources, just because there are senior editors here, thought of requesting some help to clean up the lead to make it short and just leave all the other information in the sub-sections. MtTamlady (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed 'pro-occupation', not because it isn't supported by reliable sources, but because there may not be enough examples to make it due weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You still haven’t answered my question about any relationship with this organisation. Doug Weller  talk 18:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Undue in the lead?
Please remove "StandWithUs has worked closely with the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs to promote Brand Israel" from the lead as it does not belong in the lead as the description for the org. OzMulik (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why? That an organization claiming to be neutral worked closely with the Israeli MoFA to push propaganda is notable. Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Many organizations work with the MFA but this is one thing that happened a decade ago that does not represent the organization. No problem for it to be in the article, but not in lead.
 * The source pointing to this at the moment doesn't substantiate that sentence.
 * StandWithUs and the Israeli Consulate had sponsored four leaders of Israeli lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) organizations to visit the Pacific Northwest in a speaking tour called “Rainbow Generations: Building New LGBTQ Pride and Inclusion in Israel,” so that they could “share the innovative work they are doing in Israel, learn from counterparts in the U.S., and build relationships for future collaboration.”
 * What could be wrong with inclusion, pride, and collaboration? The government backing of this tour indicates that it was actually part of the cynical government campaign called “Brand Israel,” a public relations program launched in 2005 to combat the growing success of the BDS movement. OzMulik (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If BDS was being funded by Palestine I have the feeling I would never hear the end of it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The Case Against Free Speech: The First Amendment, Fascism, and the Future of Dissent
Could anyone with access to The Case Against Free Speech: The First Amendment, Fascism, and the Future of Dissent by P. E. Moskowitz share what is on page 249? It is cited twice in the article. Mooonswimmer 21:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Idk why it says page 249, it is page 75/6 in my copy and the same material that comes up in the given Google url, describing SWU as a right wing pro-Israel group amongst other commentary:
 * "Right-wing pro-Israel groups, along with other right-wing groups, have descended onto college campuses as part of a larger strategy of intellectual domination: by funding student groups, fellows, events, and increasingly professorships and entire programs at colleges, conservatives are attempting to build an intellectual ecosystem friendly to their ideas. Students influenced by these groups go on to produce scholarship, write for news outlets, and become paid experts on television. This is not a secret mission, but something stated with pride by many of these organizations. On its website, StandWithUs, for example, used to proclaim that it has "a sizeable team of campus professionals and lay leaders who are dedicated to supporting students’ efforts to promote and defend Israel amid the virulent anti-Israel movement." But often the techniques used by these groups go beyond simple education or activist training into something more akin to harassment." Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Does it say anything about SWU "suppressing free speech"? Mooonswimmer 15:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not directly that I can see. Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Disrupting Jewish Voice for Peace Meeting (2010)
Should this subsection in the "Campaigns and activities" section be kept? The disruption was not organized by SWU, and the protesters "stressed" that they acted as individuals and not as part of an organized SWU action.

JWeekly source:
 * Dr. Michael Harris, a leader with SF Voice for Israel/StandWithUs, said the disruption of a JVP meeting was something he and his colleagues had never done before, but chose to do “because they were having this celebration of heckling Netanyahu. Since [JVP] decided [heckling] was acceptable political discourse, we decided to do the same thing.”
 * He stressed that he and his nine fellow protesters acted as individuals and not as part of an organized Stand With Us action.

JTA source:
 * Michael Harris, a leader with San Francisco Voice for Israel/StandWithUs, said the disruption of a Jewish Voice for Peace meeting was something he and his colleagues had never done before, but chose to do so “because they were having this celebration of heckling Netanyahu. Since they decided this was acceptable political discourse, we decided to do the same thing."
 * Harris said that he and his nine fellow protesters acted as individuals and not as part of an organized StandWithUs action. Mooonswimmer 15:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The sources state that Harris, a leader with SF Voice for Israel/StandWithUs, and his group innovated by disrupting a jvp meeting. They were there representing StandWithUs, and therefore it is fair to associate it with the movement. One doesn't need an official handout claiming responsibility and SWU 'educates' those who come within its training to actively intervene on campus and elsewhere. They cannopt distance themselves from what their trainees do.Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "They were there representing StandWithUs, and therefore it is fair to associate it with the movement." What source substantiates this? The disruptors emphasized that they were not acting as part of an organized StandWithUs action. Including the incident in the "Campaigns and activities" subsection makes it seem as if it were a substantial disruption effort coordinated by SWU, when that doesn't seem to be the case. But perhaps we'll need a few more opinions. Mooonswimmer 18:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't really know much about this, I would say that if SWU continued to maintain relations with the SWU members involved, didn't cancel their membership, censure them, etc then for all practical purposes they represented SWU. The persons appear to include significant members of SWU. Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Switch “Zionist advocacy” to “Israel advocacy” or “Israel Education?”
StandWithUs claims to be an Israel Education organization (see mission statement on StandWithUs website).

I think it would make more sense to either change “Zionist advocacy group” to “Israel education organization” or “Israel advocacy organization.” Tuvyaamiller (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)