Talk:Ash-Shatat

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ash-Shatat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100104222053/http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb01012010.html to http://counterpunch.org/lamb01012010.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

New antisemitism

M.Bitton, Why is “new antisemitism” relevant in this article? The Protocols and especially the blood libel are good examples of the old antisemitism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It says something about the organization that is making the allegation. M.Bitton (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but we normally don't say more than in is necessary about organizations or people mentioned in our articles. We don't say, for instance, "CounterPunch, whose editors and contributors oppose the concept of the new antisemitism". BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

We normally don't use unreliable sources (such as the ADL) for such statements. M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton you summarised this well on the Al-Manar talk page where you argue against excessive description of Hezbollah: wikilinks are fundamental to how Wikipedia works and we use them to avoid repetition and POV. But this is academic if the source is removed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but ultimately, it was ignored and the description there was kept. M.Bitton (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello@Bobfrombrockley@M.Bitton, could you please identify the sources you judge unreliable so that they can be removed from the page and the tag too, by the same token? Thanks! -Mushy Yank. 03:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank: the ADL shouldn't be used for anything that is related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Zionism (this TV series is about both). Please see the closing statement of the RfC.

Basically, the content starting starting with "The Anti-Defamation League" and ending with "to bake matzah" should be removed. M.Bitton (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've read the closing statement. I'll remove the content then. -Mushy Yank. 04:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

ADL, MEMRI and Counterpunch are all bad sources. There are good sources which say some of the same things though (see my comment in the AfD, linking to several). It would be better, I think, to add in good content at the same time, otherwise the article will be more or less empty. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC) PS If reliable sources mention these organisations’ comments, they may be due as opinion via the secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus to remove the content sourced by MEMRI and Counterpunch? -Mushy Yank. 10:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I would flag as better source needed for now and see. I thought MEMRI was on RSP but isn’t. Counterpunch can be used with attribution in some cases, but I saw a better (academic) source for the same content earlier which I can find again. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I found the MEMRI RfC. No consensus but definitely not a good source: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#RfC%3A_Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute_%28MEMRI%29 BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Copying sources for review from AfD: [1][2][3][4][5][6]

Additionally, if anyone has access to this, it is widely cited and seems to contain a discussion of the series: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/718361 BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Content v interpretation

I get that denunciations as antisemitic are “interpretations” rather than content, but a isn’t a description of the content by a scholar of the Protocols good to include in the content section and not in a later “interpretations” section?

I also think the 2003/4 denunciations as antisemitic are part of the story - they led to the bans - so it makes more sense to me to bring them up into the narrative rather than tack them on to the end. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That's his interpretation of the content (we don't need a "scholar" to tell us what the content is about). You suggested a chronological order, which I agree with, and that's what we have. M.Bitton (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)