Talk:StandWithUs

message: 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)
replies: text: There are 4 sources supporting right wing and twitter is not a source. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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.  <-- This is garbage, please don't insult the intelligence of other editors. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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:  <-- 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)
replies: text: Facts are good, personal opinions are irrelevant. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I was referring to the government part in the lead. MtTamlady (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: You still haven’t answered my question about any relationship with this organisation. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources not credible 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Disrupting Jewish Voice for Peace Meeting (2010) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Switch “Zionist advocacy” to “Israel advocacy” or “Israel Education?”