Talk:Anti-Zionism

message: The page states: "In December 2023, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution equating antisemitism with anti-Zionism." This is misleading at best as the source does not say this. The closest the resolution comes is: “Whereas Jewish students have been targeted for disparate treatment in classes, and derision and exclusion on college campuses and in official student organizations, not only because they are Jewish but often because of their real or perceived views about or connection to, or support for, the State of Israel.” This is much more ambiguous than what is currently in the wikipedia article and should be changed. 2.96.195.197 (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . Removed the sentence. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  04:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @BanyanClimber: You have reverted this edit with the edit summary "this is exactly what source says." Which part of the source supports this? Anti-Zionism is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the article ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  17:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right. I thought Jpost reported the resolution on anti-Zionism since it was big news at the time, but it's not explicitly stated what the resolution says for some reason. I've changed it for the New York Times which is clearer. –Daveout(talk) 00:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  01:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

text: H.Res. 894, passed December 5, 2023, includes the language "Resolved, That the House of Representatives—...(4)clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism". The sentence was accurate and should not have been removed. Source ElasticSnake (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @ElasticSnake: Please review the discussion above and the article. It was only temporarily removed, and later restored with a proper source. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  03:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2024 

message: the whole second paragraph is opinion or without citations. Frankly, it should be deleted, along with other statements. However, for now, can we at least flag this article for it's questionable content? 2600:8807:6807:BD00:1857:3917:DB25:43A3 (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done. The citations needed tags were only added recently. Allow some time for these to be dealt with. Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Most of the para being complained of here was written by a blocked sock. Would you cast an eye over it and see if anything leaps out? I cannot easily tell from just looking if what is written is supported by citations in the body or whether it is an accurate summary. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot see anything that would require the requested citations, esp. since the tagger apparently has not read the article and its sources. Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  can we flag this for potential bias? 

message: Per WP:RSP on MondoWeiss:  We need to attribute in text when we use it. Removing attribution goes against the community consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "when we use it", more precisely when it is the source eg if an expert published in MW, the source would be the expert not MW, right? Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Btw, that last part about blps looks like it will be amended Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  See also my talk page. If any clarification on the wording of the "should be attributed" is needed, it would be better to leave this until after the BLP review is done, to avoid confusing everyone. Zerotalk 14:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  MondoWeiss