Talk:Artists4Ceasefire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed apparent conspiracy theory about symbolism of badge pins[edit]

Hi all

Content was recently added to the article which appears to be a conspiracy theory claiming that the symbols on the pins is in reference to the lynching of 2 Israeli men by a Palestinian "mob" (use of the word mob added by the editor, not me), the editor also included an emotive quote about the killing. The references that were used were an opinion peice and reporting of claims by two activists (the term activist is used in their Wikipedia articles). I've removed the content because of the lack of evidence and the tone, happy to discuss here.

Just for information, there is currently a disccusion if jpost can be considered a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at Talk:2000 Ramallah lynching. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Sean.hoyland, looking at the contribution history of user who added this to both articles it appears they have done similar things on other articles. I'm not sure what the normal process is for this but I feel like would be really helpful for someone who understands this topic area well to check them, I spotted a few things which look quite problematic with just a cursory look. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been active in the topic area for a long time and I'm also not sure what the normal process is for this kind of situation. The existing processes seem to be designed for bright line violations rather than issues related to bias. Anyway, I'm going to very uncharacteristically assume good faith for now. Maybe they had a bad day. I left them a message, mainly out of curiosity given that they have been editing for so long, mostly at hewiki. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section on the symbols including the conspiracy theory and that it has been debunked by Snopes, hoepfully this will help reduce disinformation on the topic. John Cummings (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope so. But the people spreading them do not seem to mind possibly violating copyright by changing the colors, and people susceptible to this kind of disinformation probably don't worry about due diligence if something confirms their preferred model of the world. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey John, I doubled down on the snopes article and added additional citations. Hope this helps to keep things Neutral point of view. yonkeltron (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yonkeltron sorry I didn't see this message, you didn't use a ping so I'd get notified. Can you tell me what you mean by doubled down? I reverted your edit because you readded the conspiracy theory, formatted it as a poem, added a non free image and used the Daily Mail as a reference. Please lets have a discussion here if you think other information should be added. Just FYI the link for NPOV on English Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks, User:John Cummings. Why do you keep reverting edits? I removed the Daily Mail bit, added a direct quote from the Snopes article which was there previously. To be clear, the assertion of symbolism is not a conspiracy theory, is not a claim made without evidence, and the cited Snopes article does not "debunk" anything. I guess my question is: why you don't help fix the edits rather than continue to revert them? Thanks for engaging. yonkeltron (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yonkeltron, thanks for replying, I've reverted two edits, one by you and one by another editor. I reverted them because how they were written was not accurate. Thanks for making adjustments, I've also changed it slightly including who else has made this claim. I think making it as clear as possible Snopes found no evidence of the claim is important, Snopes says in the article "what was lacking was evidence to support that claim" and goes onto to analyse the sources used, which don't mention red hands at all. I'm happy to go into further detail in the explanation but its missleading to readers to imply there is any evidence for the claim. One option could be to include this direct quote from Snopes if we cannot find woding that we both agree on (although hopefully what we have now is OK with you). If we can't come to an agreement between us I suggest we look at options for resolving it by asking for input from people who know the rules most fully eg admins. Sean.hoyland is knowledgable in the area and has already contributed to the page so pinging him here. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, User: John Cummings, I appreciate this response. It gives me a much better understanding. With you clearer language, I agree with you that we're on the right track. Are you ok with me adding back the citations to press commentary (excluding the Daily Mail links, obviously)? Also, I really like your idea of including the Snopes quote. What do you think about including both a quote regarding the claim and the quote you mentioned which specifies a lack of evidence? yonkeltron (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration?[edit]

Dear colleagues. Would you be able to kindly post an illustration for this article? Englishrussia (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by John Cummings (talk). Self-nominated at 10:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Artists4Ceasefire; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, and is well-sourced. Earwig picks up some text, but that is a mirror from WP. No QPQ required as this is the nominator's 5th DYK. I tagged a [who?] in the text as I think it would be really good to clarify specifics there. I paused on neutrality, as I wondered if there was any commentary on opposition to the open letter than was reported on (in reputable sources) - if so, that would be a good inclusion for balance. I also found this source which states the collective began on 20 October, so that would also be good detail to include. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Lajmmoore for reviewing it, I've added the date in. Just a note for anyone interested, there's a discussion on the talk page about opposition to the group in general, the only thing I can find is a conspiracy theory which was promoted by the Israeli government Twitter account that the badges are secretly celebrating the killing of Israeli soldiers, Snopes debunked it and I've included this debunking in the article. Also I'm wondering if its possible to add some kind of restriction to the page for the date it is in DYK as I think it could be a target for vandalism by IP addresses. John Cummings (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @John Cummings: for addressing the points above. Looks good to me. Could the prepper ping us when it's in a DYK queue, so that it could be semi-protected for when it features? Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Inclusion criteria in list here and in other BLP articles[edit]

In light of Discourseofcourse (talk · contribs) being blocked for spamming links to this article:

We should have clear inclusion criteria for who is listed in Artists4Ceasefire#Members_of_the_collective.

It would also be helpful to identify when corresponding content is due in the BLP articles. - Hipal (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the list. --Hipal (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hipal, can you tell me why you removed the list? Which rule does it relate to? You don't descibe that on either this page or in the edit summary. I've reinstated the list becaue I'm not aware of any rule which would force the removal. I don't see a reason given for that user being blocked, do you have a link? Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP requires high-quality sources for each entry.
WP:NOT applies in a number of ways, especially WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:SOAP as well (which is a problem with this article as a whole).
WP:POV as well given the NOT problems and the poor, promotional sources. --Hipal (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artists4Ceasefire&oldid=1222791246"