User talk:Jimbo Wales

The ADL is "generally unreliable"
Due to a new RSN discussion (I just became aware of it), the Anti-Defamation League, one of the oldest and most prominent civil rights organizations, has been declared "generally unreliable" on Israel/Palestine issues. The ADL issued a statement saying this was the result of a ”campaign to delegitimize the ADL” and that editors opposing the ban “provided point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made, but apparently facts no longer matter.” This is being disseminated on the JTA, and is starting to be picked up by Israeli and Jewish newspapers. A pretty strong statement by the ADL, which tends to be fairly circumspect, and not exactly a ribbon in the hair of Wikipedia or the Foundation. Coretheapple (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In that discussion - which I didn't take part in and am therefore reading for the first time - I certainly do not see "point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made". This is ironic because that suggests that they have responded to a survey that found their output to contain significant misleading claims, with a statement that is ... well, misleading at best. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatever. It would be interesting to see if the ADL uses its formidable resources (which I believe exceed the WMF's) into an effort to demonstrate that Wikipedia is the "generally unreliable" source. We shall see. What is the emoticon for "popcorn"? Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * not like people already think wikipedia isn't an unreliable source. ltb d l (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a possibility. But in the end, like every single other political hot-button issue, if people are told things that they want to believe, they will believe them, regardless of whether those things are factual. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They can start with General disclaimer, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and WP:RSPWP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * CNN staff article: "Wikipedia now labels the top Jewish civil rights group as an unreliable source," so it has emerged from the "Jewish news" silo I mentioned earlier. However we all will be delighted to know that this is viewed as a slam on ADL's reputation, not Wikipedia's. Coretheapple (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * From that CNN article: “ADL’s leadership has taken a much more aggressive stance than most academic researchers in blurring the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism,” said James Loeffler, professor of modern Jewish history at John Hopkins University. “It’s clear from reading the Wikipedia editors’ conversation that they are heavily influenced by the ADL leadership’s comments.”  starship  .paint  (RUN) 01:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've read that article, also JTA, The Independent and The Forward. There seems to be some agreement among these that "The WP-hivemind may be on to something." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there will be more exposure, and of course the question will be whether one "likes" the ADL or "dislikes" it. If you are in the former camp you will not like what Wikipedia did.  If you dislike the ADL you will be happy. That's where this stacks up. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope that attitude, which I agree is inevitable in many parts of the media, stays far away from our discussions of the issue. Liking or not liking, agreeing or disagreeing, is really a terrible way for anyone to decide whether a source is reliable, and not the way that Wikipedians approach it.Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, that's not my point exactly. Whatever we do in this area is read by the outside world, and this strikes me as a reputational self-goal. It may be fabulous, we may adore it, we may think it is the cat's pajamas, but that is what it is. Do we (as individual editors) care? We should not. But I think it is worthy of note. To me it's a bit reminiscent of how paid editing became an issue despite all Is being dotted and all Ts crossed. I recall engaging in quite a bit of argumentation over that, until I realized that I was dealing with a reputational self-goal. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I believe you are beginning to take this matter quite personally and are ignoring the fact that the consensus was reached with the aim of creating a better encyclopedia rather than pushing a specific point of view. Additionally, Wikipedia always faces challenges from many powerful entities like the Chinese and Russian governments. The criticism from the ADL doesn't make much difference in that regard. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I come to Jimbo's talk page every ten years or so. Please be good enough to let me do so this decade without personal remarks. Thanks in advance. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Every ten years or so" is a bit of an exaggeration... you've edited it twice as much as any other page, a full five percent (!) of your edits. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I come to Jimbo's talk page far too frequently, twice as much as any other page, a full five percent of my edits. Please be good enough to let me do so without making personal remarks. Thanks in advance. Coretheapple (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The root cause is Wikipedia's over-generalization regarding sources. For wp:ver purposes, the standard needs to be context-specific: "expertise and objectivity with respect to the text which cited it"  And a part of the over-generalization process is to pick a source that you don't like, find and highlight misstatements (which all sources make) which then opens them up to a political/"I don't like them"  pseudo-vote and deprecation. The second issue is that the same standard/deprecation then excludes them from wp:weight considerations. With major sources excluded, this skews wp:weight-based content. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In this instance, hostile, partisan sources that are recognized as reliable by the project were used to show unreliability. "Oh my goodness, The Nation thinks the ADL is unreliable!" What a shocker. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The systemic problem is that the system allows an overgeneralization (usable wiki-wide) to come out of such a politicized process. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The politicization of the process is the problem. Perhaps it is inevitable, but to simply circle the wagons and say "golly the community reached a consensus and all is right with the world" ignores reality. There is an outside world out there. The outside world doesn't see a "community." It sees the same few people on both sides, with the side having more numbers winning. That is the "community" that outsiders see and they are not imagining it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to politely ask you to walk peacefully away from this discussion, as you are effectively labeling the Wikimedia community as "detached from the outside world" in your latest message. I see this as a very counterproductive characterization. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being polite. Courtesy is important in this hurly-burly world. Coretheapple (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that in Coretheapple's post; those are your words. Including the context, IMO it was an assessment of how the community collectively operates on political matters. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are reading into Coretheapple's words things that do not actually appear to be there, in a seemingly unproductive manner; and having already accused them of "taking the matter quite personally" I'd suggest perhaps considering taking your own advice about disengaging from the discussion. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There might be some issues regarding over-generalization, but I'm not sure this is one of them. The close specifically mentioned "unreliability on the topic". WP:RS/P differentiates reliability per topic, such as the Fox News concern being related to politics and science, a detail that has been specifically mentioned in some of the news pieces posted here. CMD (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Some more comments: The Hill, NewsMax. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those types of human issues are inevitable, so that's like saying that gravity is a cause of most airplane crashes. Most issues arise from multiple causes and we need to focus on the causes that we can change. In this case the noted systemic problem, a system which is too easily co-opted, and follows and amplifies those human shortcomings. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * North8000, indeed during the COI and paid editing wars, which wasted massive amounts of my time some years back, co-opting is precisely what happened. Fortunately the Foundation stepped in on paid editing, though of course COI editing has continued and difficult to address. Ultimately I gave up on it because it was a hopeless situation and one that did not affect me personally, but was rather an issue of Wikipedia reputation and integrity. Coretheapple (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I will have to call something out here: NewsMax is deprecated on Wikipedia for pushing quackery. So, maybe it's not a good idea to link to them here.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since WP-readers will see and form opinions based on them and others, I think it's fair to mention them in this context too. WP articles will link NewsMax if the context is right, and I see no reason not linking them on this talkpage because quackery. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Er, WP articles will not link NewsMax, because it's deprecated for a good reason (i.e. its output couldn't be trusted to be true, and much of it was deliberately false). So I don't see any reason to link it here either. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Newsmax article in question contains an interview of ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt by Greta Van Susteren, and it's interesting for a number of reasons, among them by being an example of how non-Wikipedians are often quite understandably flummoxed by how Wikipedia works. He shows little grasp of Wikipedia editorial processes, and he excudes confidence in the decision being overturned that is of course misplaced. He says that the ADL was trying to "understand" what was going on. Good luck with that. Coretheapple (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One article that links newsmax is the article about newsmax. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Linking to Newsmax was perfectly OK and it's appreciated. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All media outlets (with, perhaps, the partial exception of those with a legal duty for impartiality) display publication bias.Some of the commentary at the RSN, and here, seems to mix up this bias with unreliability. That is, tending to publish only content that supports one side or another of a position is a bias, but it doesn't mean that content is not reliable. However, I think it is pretty clear from reading the whole RSN discussion and checking linked evidence (and other unlinked material) that there needs to be caution in citing the ADL for the time being. It's a vain hope, but anyone working in the mainstream media who did the same thing - read and considered the whole discussion - would probably conclude this was a robust, thoughtful discussion with a supportable and correct conclusion. MarcGarver (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any community consensus about the value of ratings such as the bias estimates published by organisations like AllSides? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My concern is on how media and outsiders misleadingly characterize our consensus process. The Hill cited a tweet in which the user claimed that the consensus was reached "democratically",[//x.com/rafaelshimunov/status/1803173184767688928] not much different from calling the process a "vote".[//www.jta.org/2024/06/18/united-states/adl-faces-wikipedia-ban-over-reliability-concerns-on-israel-antisemitism] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And now Greenblatt on MSNBC straight out labeling our consensus process a "blackbox". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 12:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dead link. "This video isn't available anymore" error msg. I'd like to see the full video but if he calls it a "black box," that of course is absurd (everything is public). What's interesting to me about this MSNBC and Newsmas exposure is that the ADL is gearing up for a PR offensive, as I think it's reasonable to expect that the ongoing discussion in RSN will be adverse to ADL as well. Coretheapple (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * YT link fixed. Greenblatt's "blackbox" remark at 1:16 -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * An even more interesting interview. Generally sympathetic comments by the MSNBC people, and in it, Greenblatt says he's going to "explain to the leaders of Wikipedia" why this decision is wrong. Greenblatt, I think, knows perfectly well that Wikipedia has no "leaders," that the "leaders" are the so-called "community," and what I assume he is doing here is beginning a PR offensive aimed not at Wikipedia but the general public, and unless I miss my guess the ADL's aim will be to discredit Wikipedia. Reliability is an existential issue for the ADL. Coretheapple (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ironically, as pointed out by another editor in a parallel discussion to this, Greenblatt is the main part of the problem here. Prior to his statement in 2022 that any opposition to Israel was on the same antisemitic level as white supremacy, it was a pragmatic organisation. This is from January this year, but it's an interesting read. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Greenblatt has a personal stake in discrediting Wikipedia. The alternative is to accept that he has discredited the ADL! Coretheapple (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion the entire notion of "saints" and "sinners" in sourcing is ahistorical and erroneous. The "worst" publication may contain useful, factual information. The "best" publication can be wrong. What we are seeing with the current ADL leadership is political gamesmanship, a fairly obvious attempt to equate anti-Zionism with anti-semitism — which worked swell with the slandering of the UK Labour left a few years back, so there you go. Those obsessed with tarring sources as "unreliable" will play their own little games. Most of us have other things to do, fortunately. Carrite (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Some more commentary, The Forward: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Greenblatt is arguing that if you don’t have the leading organization in the world tracking anti-Semitism and our data on Wikipedia, anti-Semitism will continue to increase.' I.e. he is playing the card that the recent decision on wikipedia to consider his organization unreliable for the IP area will effectively contribute to the further rise of anti-Semitism. So 'a few editors' (COI: one of those he fingers is myself) will be directly responsible for any increment the ADL will observe about future surges in anti-Semitism. That is the sort of ballistic hyperbole which undermines the credibility of, not wikipedia, but its CEO. Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Immediately after the Wikipedia guidelines were shared, the ADL urged its supporters to petition the Wikipedia board to rescind the ruling, then dialed it back."
 * Does anyone know what "dialed it back" refers to? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "In its attack on the Anti-Defamation League, Wikipedia is “stripping the Jewish community of the right to defend itself from the hatred that targets our community,” 43 Jewish organizations wrote to the Wikimedia Foundation board in a letter on Monday." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Who is responsible for writing this hysterical tripe? By what title do they insinuate they represent all Jews? I for one have long privileged citing Jewish/Israeli/diaspora scholarship on the IP area articles, because it is the most historically informed data base for the history of that area. That the cutting edge of such scholarship shares little ground with the official view of the conflict means essentially that we have, not a conflict between wikipedia and Jewish communitarian organizations, but an infra-Jewish set of disputes as to how best understand Judaism and Israel. (The ADL has a long record of smearing exemplary Jewish scholars whose works have contradicted the standardized narrative. Tony Judt, to cite one of dozens) Expostulations like the above are creating a false antithesis between 'Jews' and 'wikipedia' that is both inflammatory and contrafactual.
 * Again, language like stripping the Jewish community of the right to defend itself' is inane in its speciousness. The right to self-defense is a constitutional one (except I would note, for Palestinians). The somewhat insidious implication here is that external organizations, having this perception, have a right to influence the way articles are written on wikipedia. Create such a precedent and any community could make the same representation, with the result that the random editors from all walks of life and professions who create wikipedia would have to take a back seat before a collective congeries of ethnic/national lobbies. Chaos.
 * To appeal to the board once more after the February negotiations and compromise ended in a fiasco of incompetent complaining against targeted individuals, means ARBCOM must become not the consensually elected representative of all editors but a tertium quid responsive only to sectarian outside pressures. I.e.this wonderful if often messy experiment in the democratic constitution of an encyclopedic and global data base would abandon its autonomy and very raison d'être. Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "If the Wikimedia Foundation were to order a reversal of the ADL’s downgrading, it would be equally staggering. The foundation does not intervene in editorial decisions by its community of editors, opting to trust the elaborate processes it has developed to seek consensus and resolve disputes. A reversal would in all likelihood garner a backlash from among the thousands of veteran editors, who are accustomed to autonomy and who have volunteered countless hours of their lives to run the online encyclopedia."
 * This journalist knows something about their topic, I like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. The various remarks made by the ADL apropos this tiff show their total lack of familiarity with how practical editing on wiki works. Any editor, whatever their POV, knows that they're lucky if half of what they contribute survives intact, that extenuating negotiations where both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine positions are the norm, and compromise commonplace. A further point is that the I/P conflict is, notoriously, perhaps the most intensely studied one in the modern era, with a technical bibliography running to thousands of academic monographs, books and articles. The expertise we can call on is immense, and we don't miss anything (except for polemics and politics) in maintaining our RS bar very high. Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What is this WhiteHatWiki? Pardon my ignorance. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing https://whitehatwiki.com/. See User:BC1278 and . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia will not be neutral in a heated ethnic dispute where one side greatly outnumbers the other. One side inevitably "wins" the battle for what's true through sheer force of numbers.  This is the problem with consensus: any such system can fall victim to a 51% attack. This is where some sort of expert moderation might be useful, but nobody has figured out how to implement such a thing. Jehochman Talk 02:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get the 'sheer force of numbers', or the contrafactual idea that one 'side' can always muster a majority. It is true that 99% of the scores and scores of sockpuppets that chronically marred the area and constituted improvised majorities in many critical resolutions came from just one partisan perspective, And by the way, for 20 years, the number of Palestinians editing this area has been close to zero. The last time I checked, 22 names mostly unfamiliar to me had registered as being of Palestinian ethnicity, but that was yonks ago.Nishidani (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I purposefully did not refer to either side in my comment because it applies equally well in both directions. Whoever musters the most participating accounts (real or fake) can swing the consensus to their liking. This remains a problem with Wikipedia and more research is needed to find new and effective approaches. Jehochman Talk 15:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Muster implies a musterer, which in turn suggests a coordinator ringing in people to turn up and vote or comment. I can vividly remember something like this suggested such a thing was going on quite often in the good old days (before 500/30 was introduced). These days regular editors on all 'sides' have virtually all the same pages bookmarked so there is nothing anomalous going on when a consensus based on numbers (not necessarily on cogent comments) emerges favouring one call over another. I'll confess that I've often found myself on the loosing 'side' in an edit disagreement, where I've thought the evidence for my view was quite strong and have been frustrated by the failure of other editors to step in and balance things. One can't rope them in. So, patience, one just has to accept that others with a similar view can't see the point, or are not interested in that page. Stiff cheddar.
 * The articles will always be somewhat 'conflicted', but that is not due to the vying for supremacy of various POV covens. It is in the nature of the conflict itself, which is irresolvable because the two POVs in the sources speak different languages. What is significant to one, is risible to the other. The ADF, an organization I have long admired (and said so, in the recent discussion on its utility) is eminently reliable when it deals with a minority in American society that is or has been subject to discrimination. It fails to see what critics note, that Jews in the US are a minority, like Afro-Americans, and require the defense and protection the ADL supplies but in the State of Israel, Jews are the dominant majority, and, in the settler extensions of the state over another population's territory, it is the Palestinians who are an abused and derided minority, since they lack civil rights (the parallels with Afro-American history, where Jewish progressives played a key role in mustering resistance to segregation, are striking). It follows that, were they coherent, they would not, as they insistently do, parallel antisemitism suffered by Jews in the United States, with the ostensible 'antisemitism' of 'anti-Zionists', whose general brief is to apply the same criteria the ADL uses to defend minority groups in the US to the Palestinians  which Israel's occupational discriminatory practices afflict. The different languages consist in (a) one side conflating Israelis with diaspora Jews in a single category, so that mutatis mutandis what applies to one applies to the other and (c) the other side insisting that the two are distinct, that the state of Israel is one thing (a nation-state to be adjudicated in terms of how history analyses any such entity regardless of the ethnicity) and the Jewish people another (where grasping their long and tragic plight as a minority subject to the torments of hate and prejudice as a victimized group within a zenophobic majority is fundamental to any reading of Jewish diasporic history). Apologies for the longueur, but I've had to read too many newspaper articles on this ADL contretemps that are vigorously thoughtless) Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Can anyone give the diff for an actual edit in Wikipedia where the ADL has been used as a source for false or misleading information? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not what it is about.  You pick a media that you don't like, find something where they said it wrong, and use that as a basis for a political vote to deprecate them. :-)  North8000 (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a personal attack, not responding to the merits of an observation but to the motives you impute to the editor you disagree with. Strike it out.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't interpret it as a personal attack on me. I think it was a criticism of how ADL was deprecated by some editors on Wikipedia.
 * Since you're here, can you offer the diff that I requested? Or can anyone else? Thanks again. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not 'by some editors' and, as far as I know, the ADL was not 'deprecated', which would be deprecable. The ADL'S reliability for the I/P was judged questionable by the majority of editors who participated in a RfC. Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Reinforcing what you already correctly surmised, I meant "you" generically and not you. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's right, @North8000. What can be done about it? Pecopteris (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well step one is recognition of the problem which comes from discussions like this. Next would to get rid of the whole concept of blanket deprecation of sources. As the RS noticeboard heading says, reliability is context specific.North8000 (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not going to happen, because there are plenty of deprecated sources that are on that list for a very good reason - which is that they provably print disinformation on a regular basis (note that this is not about the ADL, which was not deprecated). In the end, such sources are not being deprecated "because people don't like them", they are being deprecated because they are not reliable sources, and therefore should never be used. Look at the list of deprecated sources at RSP; there are Russian and Chinese disinformation sites, propaganda sites from multiple countries, fringe and conspiracy theory websites, user-generated sites and blogs, as well as so-called "news" websites which have been proved to either print false stories or at the very least have a poor record for fact-checking their copy. Why would we ever want to use any of those? Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ADL is not deprecated, usage notes have been added for it. And it seems like a pipe dream to imagine such a thing, would not be invented, if Wikipedia did not have it, already. Wikipedia uses and discusses sources regularly and is very concerned that the authors of Wikipedia, use sources responsibly. So, it functionally has to answer questions like, how do you use this advocacy organization. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was going to write blanket deprecation "only in the most severe cases", but figured that that post would get too long trying to define that. It would include clear-cut disinformation sources, probably about 1/4 of the current list. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alleged "news" sites that regularly and provably print false stories - a significant number of the deprecated sites at RSP - are disinformation sites. There's functionally no difference between them and a Chinese propaganda website. Blogs and UGC sites are not necessarily disinformation, but they have no fact-checking, so they're unreliable. Unless some of them are out-of-date now, I can't see a single red-marked site at RSP that should be anywhere near a Wikipedia article. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's looking like the Anti-defamation League has been defamed by some editors in Wikipedia. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * From the river to the sea was mentioned in a prior discussion. See this diff, in which the ADL is used for citations 17, 31, and 34 to establish that protestors and academics who use the phrase are antisemitic and/or agitating to destroy Israel. RAN1 (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, if a pro-Palestinian crowd uses that slogan they are antisemitic for the ADL. If a pro-Israel crowd chants its commonplacfe mirror form in Hebrew ("between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty"), the ADL doesn't take notice, because, presumably, it is pro-'Semitic' (and not a denial of the rights of half of the population of that area to have an independent state or parity of rights). Go figure.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * RAN1, Thanks. I looked at the cites 17, 31, and 34, which are the same ADL ref. In the diff that you provided, 17 is in the section Usage, where 31 and 34 are in the section Controversy and accusation of Anti-Semitism. The information that the ADL ref supports does not mention protestors and academics who use the phrase [From the river to the sea ].
 * "The phrase has been used to describe the desire to dismantle or remove the Jewish state.17, 18"
 * "The usage of the phrase denying Jewish self sovereignty is considered anti-Semitic.31"
 * "The usage of this phrase has the effect of making members of the Jewish community or people affiliated with Israel feel ostracized and unsafe.34"
 * 17, 31, 34
 * 18
 * Bob K31416 (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The containing sections discussed usage in protests and academia:


 * So the takeaway is like I said. Also, the ADL's view of the phrase changed between mid and late October, from a common pro-Palestinian demonstration chant that can be understood as a call for the dismantling of the Jewish state, to a hateful and antisemitic slogan that fundamentally denies Jewish self-determination. It looks misleading. RAN1 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To help anyone following this discussion, the first paragraph that RAN1 gave is the first paragraph of the section  Usage without refs indicated. The second paragraph that RAN1 gave is a combination of the first two paragraphs of the section  Controversy and accusation of Anti-Semitism without any refs indicated. And I think that's about all I have to say. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which only goes to show that the ADL is unreliable on the I/P conflict and should listen to not only its own community but to younger generations broadly who are left profoundly troubled when reading daily remarks like the following:-
 * "the number of dead and missing Palestinians now exceeds 38,000 and when the total number of casualties is well over 120,000 – the equivalent, in population terms, of 14 million Americans. [HTTPS://CARTERSCHOOL.GMU.EDU/PROFILES/RRUBENST Richard Rubenstein], Israel in Gaza: The Jewish Break with Zionism CounterPunch 2 July 2024"
 * To make the assumption that, behind a simple Palestinian slogan, there is some Nazi death chant directed at all Jews is, frankly obscene, when it could equally be construed to mean that all the inhabitants of that tragic land, historically known as Palestine, will only be free when both its peoples are liberated from the terrible violence, on both sides, instinct in the region for over a century, in large part because the very language used to discuss it is deeply contaminated by thoughtless clichés concocted to replaced informed analysis by dumbdown stereotyping, memes bruited about without a moment's reflection (i.e. if the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, the proposition applies to all other peoples, including even their Palestinian neighbours). My apologies to Mr Wales for this intrusion, my last here.Nishidani (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This topic area is so toxic. I wish we could ask all current participants to walk away and start afresh. Jehochman Talk 13:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is a fundamental problem with the way this topic area is handled. It's plain from the ADL mess that there is a systemic issue here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

As Columbo would say, just one more thing. What do you think the chances are that editors with the same political bent could take over Reliable sources/Perennial sources and fashion it towards their own ends? Bob K31416 (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Perennial sources is a digest of RSN determinations. I think your question is whether RSN discussions can be taken over, yes? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The General disclaimer makes no guarantee of the validity of the information in articles. Perhaps it should be extended to make no guarantee of the validity of judgements of whether a source is reliable or not. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This whole process seems more like virtue signalling because the ADL does not report on the Israel/Palestine conflict and AFAIK has no reporters there. None of the participants provided any examples of such reporting.

It would be helpful to have better guidelines for RSN discussions.

TFD (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead of the Wikipedia article on the Anti-defamation League has been transformed significantly since the Oct 7 attack. For example, the lead of the last version of the article before the Oct 7 attack began with,
 * "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith,[a] is an international Jewish non-governmental organization based in the United States that specializes in civil rights law and combats antisemitism and extremism.[4][5]"

Later in the lead it says that the ADL is a pro-Israel group.

Today the lead of the article begins with,
 * "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith,[a] is a New York–based international non-governmental organization and pro-Israel advocacy group[4][5][6][7] that was founded to combat antisemitism, bigotry and discrimination.[8]"

The implication is that the ADL is currently just a pro-Israel advocacy group and there is nothing in the rest of the lead to suggest otherwise. So we have a change in the characterization of the ADL from an organization that "specializes in civil rights law and combats antisemitism and extremism" and is also a pro-Israel group, to one that is just a "pro-Israel advocacy group." Along with the reduction of the reliable source standing, it's something to think about. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "Pro-Israel" was added in this edit, citing USA Today. However, the USA Today article cited by that editor is an article about the Wikipedia RS action, and quotes Wikipedia calling the ADL pro-Israel. So my reading of the edit is that it has Wikipedia citing Wikipedia for the "pro-Israel" language, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, this is a little confusing since I made a change in my message before I saw yours. A pro-Israel aspect about ADL was put in the article lead before the USA source was published. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, it was introduced in the diff I cited, which specifically mentions the USA Today article. In addition there is a tertiary source, Britannica, which says the ADL "strongly supports Israel," but I don't think that Wikipedia and a tertiary source are sufficient to say in Wikipedia's voice that this is a "pro-Israel advocacy group." More to the point, the timing of this change, after the ADL began waging its campaign, is poor optics. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bob K31416, Figureofnine: I removed that as WP:CIRCULAR and WP:UNDUE since you two didn't. RAN1 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting the problem I identified in the lead, viz. the implication that the ADL is currently just a pro-Israel advocacy group. The sentence now is,
 * "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith,[a] is a New York–based international non-governmental organization advocacy group[4][5][6] that was founded to combat antisemitism, bigotry and discrimination.[7]"
 * Bob K31416 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * RAN1, I didn't bother because I knew I'd be instantly reverted (as you were) so I felt it would be a waste of time. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  20:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix the problem a couple times and was reverted. My impression is that any further effort over there by me would take a lot of time and wouldn't get anywhere. That's what happens when articles are taken over by editors with the same political bent.
 * My last attempt was changing from this,
 * The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith,[a] is a New York–based international non-governmental organization and pro-Israel advocacy group[4][5][6][7][8] that was founded to combat antisemitism, bigotry and discrimination.[9]
 * to this,
 * The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith,[a] is a New York–based international non-governmental organization[4][5][6] that was founded to combat antisemitism, bigotry and discrimination,[7] and is also a pro-Israel advocacy group.[8][9]
 * Notice it kept the part about pro-Israel and moved it within the sentence. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 11:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW (and a pet peeve of mine that I've been trying to work to correct) is that there is no requirement to overload the first sentence of any article with all relevant points. In this case, I would split the sentence and even considering doing what the current lede does now, not mention the pro-Israel angle until later in the lede, as that is more about the perception that it is pro-Israel rather than a principle that it was founded for (advocacy against antisemitism).
 * (Also, there is zero reason to include the fact that WP has made it an unreliable source in the lede. We're not that important to be that self-acknowledging) M asem (t) 12:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you guys are interested in revising the lead, please move to talk:Anti-Defamation League. I am not sure why we are continuing this on Jimbo's talk page. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This labeling effort, which is ongoing, has ratcheted up since the Wikipedia brouhaha. Rather than bending over backwards to be fair to an angry article subject, it's as if we're doubling down. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Re Wikimedia Foundation statement on volunteer processes on reliable sources by Wikimedia Foundation•26 June 2024 — At the end is the statement, "This entire process of content moderation by Wikipedia volunteers is open, transparent, and publicly available on an article’s history and talk pages." I don't think that's necessarily true. Wikipedia editors can discuss editing through private communication channels outside of Wikipedia. These discussions can include the possibility of forming alliances by editors and making plans to gain power over editors who act individually and only use the transparent communication channels in Wikipedia. For RfCs, there's the possibility that such an alliance can have some of their members act as volunteer closers. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Canvassing is difficult to detect, and in the past pro-Israel operatives have been caught engaging in it. Neither side has clean hands. However, the possibility of canvassing has been raised in some of the coverage and it should be taken seriously. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitic rhetoric based around criticism of the Israeli government is still antisemitic. Such criticism that crosses into antisemitism is a frequent occurrence. Deprecating the ADL in such circumstances would make it more difficult to document such instances, if it weren't already next-to-impossible due to the dominance of numerous antisemitic editors on Wikipedia. And yes, if an editor is very active in editing articles on Jewish history (from thousands of years ago to today), Judeocidal organizations, antisemitism, the I/P conflict, and Jews around the world and throughout history, and the common factor is pushing a POV that suspiciously matches to "Jews=bad/fake/demonic", then I think it's safe to assume that that editor is an antisemite. Such editors have essentially rewritten many such articles in recent years. At this point, if I want to read any article that relates to Jews without having a pile of antisemitic drivel show up, I have to go straight to the history and rewind to ~2018. The omnipresent hatred is obvious, and an extraordinarily unpleasant thing to see, even when just clicking through. Look, I'm in Toronto, where antisemitic hate crimes outnumber all hate crimes against all other groups combined, something which isn't particularly atypical in many places. We live in a world where antisemitism is rampant in practically every country everywhere, I get it. I don't expect Wikipedia to be 100% safe all the time. But to let antisemitism become the dominant force in a lot of areas? That's a real failure. The Wikipedia community can do better. (Arguing with antisemites is a deeply unpleasant experience all around, so I'm not going to attempt that. I hope things improve, but I'm not going to be able to involve myself in any such efforts.) --Yair rand (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that the presence of antisemitism on Wikipedia has been a factor in keeping me away from the project for a while, I suppose I should weigh in here.
 * I agree that editing these articles and engaging with editors on these talk pages, when it is clear that they sympathize with Hamas, can be a deeply unpleasant experience, such as to drive away editors who simply don't want to deal with that kind of thing. I've sought to determine the extent of permissible anti-Israel rhetoric on Talk pages. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * responded proactively and that's appreciated. Yair, to your general point, I think it's fair to say that a good many editors and simply readers come away from the I/P pages with the view that they are extremely biased, and upon examining the processes involved might even conclude that the Wikipedia is predisposed by armies of anti-Israel editors to produce such outcomes. For instance, articles proclaiming in Wikipedia's voice that Israel is a genocidal Nazi-like country that commits "massacres" willy-nilly, while Hamas only "allegedly" commits acts that are widely documented. Whether that is "antisemitic" or not is a question of labeling and not really necessary to reach that conclusion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You should definitely boldly edit any article that says in Wikivoice that Israel is a "genocidal Nazi-like country". Or just list the articles here and someone will be along to help very quickly. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And I will be boldly reverted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are the "massacres" since Oct. 7. Hope someone will be along quickly. Nuseirat refugee camp massacre, Tel al-Sultan massacre, Flour massacre, Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Per Talk:Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre, recently closed, I'm fairly certain that nothing will be done quickly about the title of that article, if the title is what you are referring to. However, Talk:2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation is still ongoing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk:Tel_al-Sultan_massacre is also ongoing, so probably not quickly there, either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Such move requests are common in both directions, and I have yet to see one that de-"massacred" an article title in this subject area, notwithstanding WP:POVTITLE. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  17:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hopefully we'll get swift action so that Gaza genocide, accusing Israel of genocide in Wikipedia's voice, is made consistent with Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, in which genocide against Israelis is an allegaiton. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Per Talk:Gaza_genocide, I don't think you'll get swift action on that article-title either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was referencing Black Kite's suggestion a short time ago that I list articles in which Israel is treated as a Nazi-like state, and his comment that in reaction to such a listing "someone will be along to help very quickly." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Mind you the latter speaks to allegations on both sides. A stand-alone Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis was subject to Articles for deletion/Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis, which resulted ultimately in redirect to Second Holocaust. This is a sampling of how Israel is treated as a Nazi-like state, and how allegations of genocide against Israel are presented as facts in Wikipedia's voice while that is not consistently done to the other major party in the conflict. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO, seeing article titles as "Wikipedia's voice" is, well, not necessarily correct per WP:COMMONNAME etc, but I see your point. WP has articles like Mask of Agamemnon and Priam's Treasure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This all stems from Yair's comment above, which I think should be taken seriously and I think it would be helpful for us to do so. My feeling is that he is making some good points. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Striking out "Nazi-like" as it's simply not necessary to use such verbiage in this context. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons POTY
Don't let that project die! ArionStar (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * we have 6 months left... ltb d l (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Context: lack of support for Wikimedia Commons
Here's the context: For many years POTY has run on an obscure, poorly documented set of scripts. It seems like everyone who dares take the project on winds up getting burned out for one reason or another. That has happened yet again. We've cut it close a few times over the years, having the contest at the very end of the year (nearly two years after some of the candidates were promoted to FP), and ltbdl is correct that we still have some months left before panic is necessary.

But... it's emblematic of the state of technology over at Commons. POTY is a program that gets a large part of our community excited to participate, attracts voters from a vast range of projects, inevitably attracts some amount of press attention, and motivates users to contribute their own photos... and it's a terrible system which burns out users who volunteer their time to make it happen.

Fun fact: the WMF's annual plan includes nothing set aside for Commons in 2024-2025. Following concerns expressed over that fact, a discussion on Commons seems to suggest that the WMF does not view Commons as worth investment because it does not sufficiently achieve certain metrics the WMF holds as most important (that's my perhaps uncharitable interpretation, of course).

As I said in that thread, I can empathize with the fact that the Commons community (not unlike the Wikipedia community) is not an easy one to serve, but it is the second biggest Wikimedia community and the largest free media repository in the world -- one built on software whose clumsiness as a media management system has been partly alleviated by a patchwork of scripts, bots, and gadgets developed and maintained by users who inevitably burn out, leaving broken tools that disrupt basic systems. And why shouldn't they burn out? Commons has a big userbase, but far less technical expertise than enwp or Wikidata, putting a lot of burden on a small number of volunteers with inadequate help from the foundation. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "the WMF's annual plan includes nothing set aside for Commons in 2024-2025." Seriously? Words fail (as does the WMF). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Randy, given that the annual plan is currently in drafting stage, it is melodramatic and unproductive to say that the WMF has failed here. Now's the time to positively get involved helping to adjust the plan to make sure things don't get lost in the shuffle.  Also see: https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_and_Technology_Advisory_Council/Proposal --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you drop a link to the scripts, if available? Might be able to recruit technical volunteers if some info on the scripts is provided. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the most recent version is here (and see also Lego's POTY-Stuff). Courtesy ping to, who did a lot of work to set this up and run the last two of these. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think your link is not the latest version because it says the last edit was 3 years ago. I think the most recent version is this one. @, any help would be very appreciated. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

In early 2022, the WMF CEO explicitly acknowledged the sorry state of Commons and our community's needs featured prominently in the 2022-2023 annual plan. The Commons community followed this up with an open letter, with 468 signatures to-date encouraging further investment and outlining some specific needs/concerns. Looked like a promising future for Commons!

Based on all that enthusiasm going right up to the top, we got ... [checks notes] ... some changes to the questions and style/flow of the upload wizard.

Don't get me wrong -- those changes to the upload wizard are welcome, but... that's it? There are rumors of a possible logo detection tool sometime in the future, too, which will be nice, but color me underwhelmed. The last big development project, Structured Data on Commons, which began how many years ago, is still just partially done. But now it's time to turn away from Commons with a "mission complete"?

I do not think I could be confused with the chronic anti-WMF crowd around here, and I have a lot of empathy for the social and technical challenges foundation staff have to deal with when engaging with the community, but I continue to be amazed at how little the foundation cares about Commons. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I am more radical on the issue: I propose a total blackout on Commons images until the situation is resolved. ArionStar (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, that'd be extremely immature, premature, and unproductive. It's not even a helpful starting point for dialogue as it sets up an "us versus them" battleground mentality that is completely at odds with the facts on the ground.  How about I propose you do something even more radical: get involved in the annual planning process.  Not as easy as grandstanding, but far more rewarding!  Also see: https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_and_Technology_Advisory_Council/Proposal --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You know, with all the ideas ready for funding, including the Commons ideas mentioned above, maybe it's about time that the WMF gave the projects 20 million or so to do with what they want (, what would the total cost be for what Commons regulars asked for?). These projects and ideas would have to be presented, discussed, and voted upon (for instance, I've often opined for more funding for regional conferences, such as the North American Wikimedia Conference which, Santa willing, should have at least one full sit-down evening dinner with entertainment and events in addition to more scholarships). The presentation of functional ideas would lend to a debate of what is best for the readers, the projects, and for their communities - Wikimedia's volunteer base. 20 million, a number picked out of thin air, would be a good start. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not the right person to ask about the cost of software. What you're describing sounds a bit like a proposal that's gotten some support in the past: to allocate a minimum amount or percentage of money to the Community Wishlist (formerly known as the Community Wishlist). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks for the Wishlist comment. Has the WMF adequately funded the most agreed-upon ideas at the Wishlist? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Take it as a given that I think that commons is crucial to our movement and should be well-funded. For me, looking at things from the perspective of process, what I'd like to have is a better understanding of is the mismatch between desired funding and the actual funding in the annual plan, and a thoughtful and kind (assume good faith) look at the process.  For those reading along casually, note that the 2024-2025 annual plan is currently in draft stage and so this discussion should not be about recriminations about why something wasn't done, it should be proactive and positive: what can be added, how can it be defined.  Now is the right time for people to do this.  Also see: https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_and_Technology_Advisory_Council/Proposal
 * If I had a magic wand I could wave, I'd love to see all of commons software rewritten from the ground up to support the work flows that are important there, rather than using a hodgepodge of community-maintained workaround scripts and tools that are hard to maintain. But, I don't have a magic wand, and I am not personally knowledgeable enough to know how to get from here to there effectively.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I already use a good part of my free time to contribute to edits in the "Wiki Universe" (including taking FPs for POTY);
 * Well, you're the creator of it all, so you've some power to delegate… Just don't let the contest die… ArionStar (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As a regular voter and lover of the competition, all I know is there should be a dedicated support system with updated software moving forward. I had no idea how shaky of a foundation this competition has been standing on for years and I doubt most wikimedians do either. It's disappointing to learn that it hasn't been given enough attention considering how popular it is. Personally, such a beloved competition should have been among the top priorities if not the top priority for the people in charge. I do hope that all these discussions will bring about some significant change regardless of if there will be POTY this year or not. Would be awful if we are having the same issue by this time next year! •Shawnqual• 📚  • 💭 00:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Interwiki
On the French Wikipedia, experienced editors were very helpful, and have corrected my spelling mistakes; admins were also very helpful, and defended WP:V information as a matter of principle. On the other hand, on the German and Dutch Wikipedias, people are very jealous about their own languge and do not tolerate even minor language errors. In my experience at the German Wikipedia, those editors don't even rely upon WP:RS very much, but upon their own musings about what the articles should say. An editor reverted my edits based upon multiple WP:RS by five professors, two doctors in theology, and a WP:V mention of many newspapers from many countries, simply because she think she knows better, and I would be according to her a Man of Mission. I.e. they don't listen to WP:RS, they revert based upon gut feelings. I was threatened with a ban simply because of mentioning multiple WP:RS and because of mentioning the policy WP:OR (which they apparently don't abide by, even if they have it in their own language). Why write verifiable statements when they could claim consensus advancing made-up statements? About Abd-ru-shin they wrote Some of his readers consider him to be the Messiah which is not WP:V in any WP:RS (I'm not denying it's true, it just does not appear in any reliable source). "He claimed to be the Son of man (Christianity)" or "he claimed to be the Messiah" or "he claimed to be the true Christ" are WP:V in several WP:RS, but the insiders of de.wiki don't care about that. At the Dutch Wikipedia an edit based upon mainstream scientific research by Paul J. Wright (academic) and Debby Herbenick (doi: 10.1007/s10508-022-02406-4) was reverted claiming racist POV. While for a mainstream professor in the US being a racist amounts to being toast.

Half-way between a verifiable statement and an unverifiable statement is an unverifiable statement. On the German Wikipedia it's WP:CONSENSUS acting against WP:RS and WP:V. They don't really need WP:RS, they just have their "true prejudices" which they abide by. You see, the sources don't really matter, since the editors decide by Diktat what the sources should have said. And they threaten with the ban hammer just because they don't like what WP:RS say.

So, yeah, cultists get to whitewash articles about their own cult because calling a spade a spade is an absolute, and only a Sith deals in absolutes. Happily, we don't have such policy at en.wiki. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Links: de:Wikipedia:Fragen von Neulingen and https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pornografie&diff=63718366&oldid=63718095 tgeorgescu (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Um, unless I'm missing something, this is not an improvement... &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's what they claim. But that phrase was the stable version of the article for years. And now they have decided to ignore what WP:RS do say. You may read all the WP:RS at Abd-ru-shin (I have added two more WP:RS after the de.wiki dispute). tgeorgescu (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The phrase Er war ein selbsternannter Messias got removed in April 2024, but search it in the history of the article, it stayed for a lot of years therein, uncontested by anyone. And claiming that Bernhardt did not claim to be the Son of Man / the Messiah is a big absurdity. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but length of time something has remained in an article should never be justification for its continued inclusion. That large quote: what's the use of it? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This guy, Bernhardt, stated he is the Son of Man who brings The True Word of God&trade; so that the few can get redeemed and the Kingdom of God may come on Earth. In Bernhardt's opinion, Jesus Christ was a loser, while he himself (Bernhardt) is the winner. So, yes, his cultists waited from an imminent Apocalypse, which never came till today. tgeorgescu (talk)
 * And the quote in German is Bernhardt's own writing which discloses overtly he is the awaited Son of Man which brings the Doomsday Judgment. As some people have said, even Mein Kampf is WP:RS for Hitler's views. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is the translation of that large German quote:
 * "EPILOGUE

Abdruschin has now completed His Message to mankind. In him has arisen

IMANUEL,

the Envoy of God, the Son of Man, whose coming to judge and to save those who have not cut themselves adrift from salvation, was foretold by Jesus the Son of God in corroboration of the prophecies of the prophets of old. He carries the insignias of His high Office: the living Cross of the Truth radiating from Him and the Divine Dove above Him, the same in-signias as were borne by the Son of God.

Awaken, oh man! For your spirit is asleep!"

- Abdruschin


 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, we have five professors, two doctors in theology, a mention of many newspapers, and we have his own book, which all make the same point: he declared he is the Messiah. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't you realize what they are doing? They are trying to re-frame a clear-cut, multiply attested, objective historical fact as a merely subjective opinion. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are cultist denialists at work, who go banana when Wikipedia exposes their cherished secret beliefs (which have been known to scholars for more than 90 years). tgeorgescu (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And yup, I had the same problem at the French Wikipedia, the difference being that French admins were firmly on my side, see fr:Wikipédia:Requête aux administrateurs/2020/Semaine 35, and again they sided with me in 2021. At French Wikipedia I got red-carpet treatment, while at the German Wikipedia I was treated deplorably by an ex-admin who was there supposedly to help newbies. Why do the people at de.wiki advocate denialism and sheer absurdity? tgeorgescu (talk)  12:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pardon my intrusion, but I don't think you can generalize about treatment at the French and German Wikipedia's. Here on the English Wikipedia, I've been treated everything from super hospitable and helpful to fiercely nasty and hostile. YoPienso (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. However, language egoism is a broadly shared characteristic of de.wiki and nl.wiki, even if the editors are not nasty: they're not mean, but they are language purists. And the editor who threatened me with indeffing is an ex-admin of de.wiki, having made 265 thousand edits on all projects, so she should have known better. More than that: the discussion we had was in a very public section of de.wiki, and no other editor came to my defense.
 * So, yes, I got where she is coming from when she told me I have to write in German, instead of English. I could then foresee the end of the debate. It was the polite way of telling me to shut up, since my opinion does not matter anyway.
 * Being mean is a matter of intent, being a language purist is a matter of habitus (sociology). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The French admins could see clearly the difference between the mistakes of a rookie and real malice (maiming the article). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like a German Wikipedia content dispute. Are you sure a WMF board member and English Wikipedians are the best target audience for this? – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I was told that if I pursue the dispute at de.wiki, I will get indeffed there. The broader point: at de.wiki there is mutiny against WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. So, let me be very clear: the mutiny is not against me, but against their own WP:PAGs.
 * So, yes, I don't speak German, but I can see perfectly well that they disrespect reliable sources and dodge their own policies and guidelines.
 * It seems a big absurdity to claim that whitewashing this apocalyptic cult leader improves the article, and reverting the whitewashing is not an improvement.
 * I called Bernhardt "a doomsday cult leader", because that's what WP:RS are saying.
 * Don't push your own opinions, respect what WP:RS are saying, don't whitewash your guru, play by the rules&mdash;is this too much to ask? You might wonder why a person having made 265 thousand edits lacks WP:CIR to understand this. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm more wondering if you don't speak German how/why are you involving yourself in disputes at de.wp. DeCausa (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, it's true I don't understand German, but my edits to the article were to the point and grammatically correct. And, previously, my edits were the stable version for many years. The fact that I don't speak German does not give them leeway to break their own WP:RULES with impunity. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it's possible that not understanding the language might result communication problems with your fellow editors there? DeCausa (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me say it bluntly: it is definitely not a miscommunication problem, it is in fact an endorsing whitewashing problem. They try to make an objective historical fact look like subjective opinion. And I don't speak or write grammatically correct French, either, but that did not prevent me from winning the disputes at French Wikipedia.
 * The problem is this: some people have WP:V information based upon multiple, mainstream WP:RS, while cult apologists seek to maim WP:V information based upon multiple, mainstream WP:RS.
 * The person having 265 thousand edits sided with the cult apologist because he knows German and I don't. While I have WP:V information based upon multiple, mainstream WP:RS. And the cult apologist seeks to maim it.
 * The problem is: de.wiki editors who have WP:CIR don't care about that article. So the cultists prevail.
 * Do you trust a schizophrenic editor (me) who does not know German, or you trust a cultist who knows German? The answer is: don't judge by the appearances, but do read the sources and respect what those say. Some people do know what they're talking about, while others are pissed off by that. Either one is tolerant with cultists who whitewash the article, or one is tolerant with foreigners who know what they are talking about. That's an either-or choice.
 * At least I don't make absurd and puerile demands to hide facts publicly known for more than 90 years. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The way you argue here as well, very much makes me think there IS a communication problem. Knowing when to back off, when to go slow, when not to barge into a place and when to NOT argue are very much also elements to communication. Even if you are right, it is not always about being right. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 16:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's talk page is for complaints of last resort, and here we may freely speak our minds. Again: I don't write well in either French or German, but French admins showed me the red carpet, while at German Wikipedia I was treated deplorably.
 * I can assure you that at German Wikipedia I was extremely polite and I did not lambaste anyone (well, except speaking of cultists without saying who they are).
 * At German Wikipedia I did not call her names, nor accused her of anything wrong. Well, unless Abd-ru-shin is her guru, but I have no way to know that for sure, and I did not claim he is her guru.
 * That is, she bullied me, I did not bully her at German Wikipedia. I mean: it's not done to WP:THREATEN someone with indeffing just because of answering politely. If I had edit-warred or wreaked havoc, I would understand why she calls for my indeffing. But there is no excuse for doing it without provocation. Using the indeffing trump card just because she does not like WP:NPOV is not done. And I'm not speaking just about myself: it creates a bad precedent for cultists who want to whitewash de.wiki articles. So, yes, at this talk page I am very combative, while at German Wikipedia I was meek. I'm not in attack mode without a good reason.
 * And this is not a matter wherein mainstream WP:RS are at odds with each other. The mainstream WP:RS are pretty unanimous that Abd-ru-shin was a cult leader and he declared he is the awaited Messiah, or the Son of Man, or the biblical Immanuel, or the true Christ, or whatever pompous religious title he fancied for himself.
 * I noticed a problem at German Wikipedia. The fact that I don't know German does not imply that the problem isn't real. I took a course on Aristotelian logic and a course on modern logic. So I see through paralogisms. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether you realize this but this page has >4000 page watchers. So each time you edit it, it not only generates a fresh notification for Jimbo, but also appears on a large number of watchlists. So may I suggest that you take your time (in your userspace or offwiki) to formulate your responses instead of making a stream of fiddling edits to this page? IMO that will also help your complaint to be taken more seriously. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * She seems to imply that I'm guilty of a big transgression, but she never made clear what that transgression might be. Not speaking German is not a transgression, it is just a fact of life. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * huh? ltb d l (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't threaten anyone with indeffing if you don't think they committed a big transgression. So, that's why I think she kind of accuses me of committing a big transgression. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * no, who is "she"? ltb d l (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The German ex-admin I had a discussion with at the link mentioned above. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would not say that Calvache and Junior is a reliable source. It is cult apologetics. But I did not remove it from the article since I do not seek unnecessary quarrels. And in a curveball way, it confirms that Abd-ru-shin has removed the Epilogue from his later editions. So, without wanting to do so, it corroborates the mainstream WP:RS.
 * Allowing cultists to whitewash our articles means smashing WP:PAGs with a sledgehammer. That's why I am so angry about this matter. So don't play hide and seek with facts publicly known for more than 90 years just because it could offend some cultists. It's WP:V to University of California Press and to Cambridge University Press, so no one can hide such information from Wikipedia.
 * If he wanted to retract his claim, Abd-ru-shin could have published a notification saying "I was wrong. I am not the Messiah. I am not the true Christ. I am not the Son of Man. I'm not the one who brings the Doomsday Judgment. I'm not establishing the Kingdom of God."&mdash;but he did none of that. Because after he print-published the claim that he is the biblical Immanuel, who brings the Word of God and heralds the Final Judgment, no one could take him seriously if he denied that he called himself the biblical Immanuel. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This keeps showing up on my watchlist, so let me try to summarize things from my perspective. It sounds like you went onto German Wikipedia, got in a content dispute, did not achieve consensus for your changes, spoke English instead of German, and bothered your interlocutors there, so they gave you a warning that if disruptive behavior continued you could be blocked. So you then came to a highly watched talk page on English Wikipedia and wrote 13,000 characters about how German Wikipedia is corrupt because of this one content dispute where you did not achieve consensus. You have also stated I don't speak German, and are a newer user on German Wikipedia (112 edits).
 * With this set of facts, it is a bit hard to take your side here. To a third party such as myself, this just seems like a content dispute that has been escalated way too far. Have you considered de-escalation? – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I don't feel like editing de.wiki, since it can be used against me.
 * And, again, this is not about me. It is about giving leeway to cultists to whitewash articles. So, my point is not that I have lost a dispute. My point is that this creates a bad precedent for de.wiki. Why would such an experienced editor side with the whitewashing? In my mind that makes absolutely no sense. It is patently absurd.
 * The remarks about language purists, also, have nothing to do with losing that dispute. They are part of the larger experience of editing at de.wiki and nl.wiki. And, yup, I did have some successes at de.wiki and nl.wiki despite my poor command of these languages (successes meaning getting my edits part of the stable versions for many years). And in an odd way, my edits are still part of de:Oskar Ernst Bernhardt. Because I have WP:CITED those WP:RS, nobody else cited WP:IS inside that article. There were some German WP:RS mentioned by name, but they were not used in the article (as references). And I would not call the "Refutation" stuff WP:IS, since it is cult apologetics.
 * Again, my edits at German Wikipedia were pretty restrained. I did not edit war, I did not cuss people. I did not even plead my case ad nauseam.
 * At ro.wiki, there are many posts in English at our Village Pump and at our WP:ANI. Nobody seems to be bothered very much by guests from other wikis who use English. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Non-english posts here often get reverted outside of user pages. Having looked at the thread you linked to and the article you edited, I agree with Novem Linguae. You seem to be making quite wild and sweeping statements about German Wikipedia based on a quite minor incident. You made an edit there in which you inserted a largish quote with no context and, in addition, to the statement that this person's followers saw him as the messiah you added that he also self-claimed to be the messiah. The editor who reverted you seems to have objected to the bulky quote. That's not unreasonable. I don't see anything to suggest a cult conspiracy to keep it out. Pursuing the issue in English on one of their Boards with a WALLOFTEXT list of citations wasn't going to get you very far and didn't address the point made to you as far as I can see. You were called a "Man on a Mission" which sounds like their equivalent of WP:RGW. To be honest, that's how it looks. I'm not really sure what you were doing on German Wikipedia in the first place if you don't speak the language. I suggest you put this behind you and focus on English and Romanian WP if those are the languages you speak. DeCausa (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, this can be closed. With the observation that WP:RGW means being against WP:NPOV, while being for WP:NPOV isn't WP:RGW. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, this can be closed. With the observation that WP:RGW means being against WP:NPOV, while being for WP:NPOV isn't WP:RGW. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)