Content deleted Content added
DanielRigal (talk | contribs) →Zionist smears - Role as Commentator: There is something here but we are overblowing it badly. |
|||
Line 92:
:::::::The criticisms of her come from reliable sources. If you think they should be removed then you need to actively demonstrate why - so far all we have is your belief that they are smears. These criticisms ''happened'', even if you don't personally agree with them. That makes them valid for inclusion.
:::::::Also note that we're not saying she's an antisemite in [[WP:WIKIVOICE|wikivoice]], we're saying this is what she's been accused of. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>]])''</sup> 14:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:I've just had a quick look at it. It is reasonable to cover these matters but the coverage is grossly overblown and written in POV terms. The first two of those four paragraphs are about a single matter and are referenced only to a single article in a local newspaper. The second two paragraphs are about a second single matter and referenced only to the JC. That's not great either. To be clear, I have no problem with Jewish, or even Israeli, sources being used here but the JC is a [[WP:PARTISAN]] source and furthermore it is currently embroiled in scandal over its reporting. (I don't mean to overstate this. It sounds far more likely that they got tricked into publishing misinformation than that they did it deliberately.) We need more and better sources here. I propose cutting it down to two fairly short paragraphs, at the maximum, wit one paragraph per incident and at least two sources on each. If we can't find a non-partisan source for the stuff about the tweets then we should remove it. If we can then that source should guide our coverage more than the JC, although the JC can be used too. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 17:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
| |||