Jump to content

Talk:Alice Walker/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

anti-semitic conspiracy theorist in the lead

First, this was first added to the lead on May 5. Second, the article doesnt support it, it at most supports that she has supported the work of somebody who has espoused anti-semitic conspiracy theories (Icke). I also think that section should be retitled support for David Icke as that is mostly what is covered, though there is one poem the Tablet took issue with as well. nableezy - 04:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It absolutely supports it. She repeatedly espouses and promotes in anti-semitic conspiracy theories, to the degree that people who are biased in favor of her later admit that they should not have supported her once they learn of her views. It's wildly non-NPOV to delete this. Secarctangent (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Also worth noting that the user that made this edit openly espouses support for a designated anti-Jewish terrorist group on their user page, so maybe we shouldn't trust nableezy as being NPOV on this topic. Secarctangent (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Please keep comments to the Content not contributor and avoid ad hominems. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Your understanding of my views is as limited as your understanding of our policies here. You may not restore material removed as a BLP violation absent a consensus for it. And you may not repeatedly make BLP violations on this talk page or in the article. Nothing in the article supports that she herself espouses anti-semitic conspiracy theories. The furthest this article goes is to say she has positive views of Icke's books. nableezy - 06:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree. As noted in the currently-live version of the article, in 2017 she wrote a poem that espouses what many commentators, including those previously very favorable to her, describe as anti-semitic. Cheers. Secarctangent (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
No, it says she wrote a poem that The Tablet and what an opinion piece in the Atlantic says is antisemitic. That is not "many commentators", and even then none of that supports that she is an "antisemitic conspiracy theorist". nableezy - 23:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
For the moment, let's set aside the question of the where of the descriptor belongs, either up top or down below. Would you agree that it is verifiable to say that she is "an advocate [or proponent, or sharer, or whatever] for the works of anti-semitic conspiracy theorist David Icke, and an author of poetry attacking Judaism" or words to that effect? Secarctangent (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
(I suppose I should mention for clarity that I'm going from what Dunutubble says below). Secarctangent (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
no, that is an absurd thing to call her, an author of poetry attacking Judaism. She has authored one poem that so far one actual reliable source has called antisemitic. Moving from that to "author of poetry attacking Judaism" is silly. She has been charged with antisemitism for her support of David Icke and some of her comments and poetry is a verifiable statement. And one that could be in the lead if the lead gets more fleshed out. The idea that the lead should contain as much or more on the charges of antisemitism as it does on The Color Purple is absurd. nableezy - 23:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article should give an overview of why the subject is notable. Icke is notable for his crazy views. Walker is notable for her literary writings, and also happens to have crazy views. Therefore, I would say it's UNDUE to mention the crazy views in the first sentence of the article. For similar reasons, editors decided not to mention JK Rowling's opinion on trans people in the first sentence. (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with buidhe, undue for the lead of the article we currently have. We should be noting the Icke connection in the lead (which should be longer) but "anti-semitic conspiracy theorist" doesn't really seem to be an accurate summary of the "Charges of antisemitism and support for conspiracy theorists" section. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm ok with that proposed approach if others are; seems like a reasonable way to bridge the various perspectives here, but won't make an edit until there's clear consensus. Secarctangent (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
It shouldn't be in the first sentence. A more ideal solution I would recommend is to add a second paragraph to the lede saying something more along the lines of Walker has been the subject of controversy due to her close relationship with British conspiracy theorist David Icke and comments she has made about Judaism. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Secarctangent, as far as there is not consensus for changing the description of Walker, you changed the description of Walker, without consensus, on 5 May. And per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE any material removed as a BLP violation may not be reinserted without consensus that it is not. And per WP:ONUS, the onus of consensus for inclusion of challenged material "is on those seeking to include disputed content." If you continue to edit-war while violating both WP:BLP and WP:ONUS you will be reported. And do not again make any further personal attacks on this page or in your edit summaries, as those will likewise be reported. nableezy - 06:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

How is it a personal attack to note that you disclose on your own user page your support for a group that Wikipedia itself describes as antisemitic, and that you are editing an article about antisemitism?
Is any aspect of that statement not factual about your conflict of interest? Secarctangent (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
My user page makes no such statement of support, and I have no conflict of interest, and if you continue to misuse this page I will be asking for sanctions. nableezy - 13:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I am very happy to retract any statement that is inaccurate if you can help me understand how that is the case. (For example, if I am somehow misunderstanding who put the pro-Hezbollah content on your userbox and it was not in fact you, I would gladly correct and retract my previous statements. I add content here in pursuit of the truth, not any agenda.). Secarctangent (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I dont actually give half a crap what you retract, but if you continue to violate our policies I will report it. Kindly stop discussing me, I am not the topic of this article. This talk page is to discuss Walker, and if the only argument you have is that I am the issue with the edit then you do not have an argument. nableezy - 18:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, that characterization of my contributions here on this talk page is not accurate. Cheers. Secarctangent (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
No, it is, you have repeatedly violated NPA. As long as that stops great. You likewise repeatedly violated BLP, but so far that has stopped so again great. nableezy - 23:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Again, I respectfully disagree. Cheers. Secarctangent (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Well you could do it again and I report it if you feel like it I guess. I dont see the point of continuing this here though. nableezy - 23:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Thats an inherently contradictory statement. The "pursuit of truth" is an agenda. You are advised to focus on editor's arguments rather than on the editor themselves. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree that it's "inherently contradictory" to say that we're here to pursue truth. (What else are we here for, or how else can we assess an edit?) Secarctangent (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I know it kind of sounds silly but we aren't here to pursue truth, you might find Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth interesting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Okay, that's fair enough. In the specific sense of that policy, I'm happy to amend to "pursue verifiability." Secarctangent (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Secarctangent, blp dictates that we can’t assign negative characteristics in an article in “Wikipedia’s voice”. So it will always be “accusations of”, no matter how clear cut it may be. Drsmoo (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: Not quite. We can totally say in WP:WIKIVOICE that a person expresses X views, where X is something that people typically find repugnant. The sourcing just needs to be quite strong for Wikipedia to do that. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Literature Across Cultures I Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Thealexjr100.

— Assignment last updated by Venomlvsviv (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Suspect due weight

Does the opinion by Jonathan Kay merit mention in the notoriety section? I don't believe so. Unlike Roxane Gay, who is a major social commentator, Kay is just an editor opining on the news cycle and other published commentaries for his publication. Not sure if the Ayanna Pressley or Gayle King material really merits a mention either: both are reactions to reactions regarding an accusation, so a few steps off-topic and basically just retraction statements - one for a Tweet, the other for a lack of inquisitiveness. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I would say nix Jonathan Kay due to the lack of secondary coverage but theres too much secondary coverage of the other two not to cover them here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the Jonathan Kay material, which was more about the Icke book than Walker in any case. Waiting on the rest. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep in mind that much of the material you're editing is under 1rr. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
It's in mind. I'm not aware of having reverted anything. The Kay material was there for years, and the rest I moved. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Any time you remove existing material that counts as a WP:REVERT, basically any time you're negating the effects of previous edits thats a revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't not sure that's how it's usually interpreted - admins usually apply some common sense, but may best not tempt fate. You've put the jitters in me one way or another, so I've plugged all the terrible opinion back in for now - it's not like I'm in some sort of urgent hurry. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
TBH I think you're fine to remove pieces that are explicitly marked as opinion, that would seem to fall under the BLP exemption for 1RR/3RR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
On a second assessment it looks like most of the coverage of King is based on an original wire story which I can't find. Unless someone can find it or equivalent coverage I don't think we should cover that bit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"The poem was criticized as using tropes and arguments frequently used by anti-semites"

This line is not a summary of either source cited. Vox describes Walker's "history of anti-Semitic writing" and "she’s been leaning more and more toward blatant anti-Semitism" and "apparent anti-Semitism in Walker’s work" and she "[became] an anti-Semite" and her "acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs." WaPo describes "her apparent appreciation for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories" and "The poem repeats a slew of anti-Semitic tropes". This summary is a serious misrepresentation of the underlying sources, which describe either the poem or the arguments as anti-Semitic, not as "frequently used by anti-Semites". GordonGlottal (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This line is specifically about the poem, and only references what the Vox and Wapo stories specifically say about it. That the poem repeats tropes, as noted above, is what Wapo states, and that is included. Vox then says: "Walker’s poem follows in the same tradition" referring to the earlier phrase "anti-Semites frequently quote it out of context", which is where the second part of the statement about "arguments frequently used by anti-semites" comes in. That is all either say about the poem. While there may be other points made in both pieces that may be included elsewhere, none of this material is pertinent to the specific characterization of the poem in of itself. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
???? WaPo says "The poem repeats a slew of anti-Semitic tropes." Vox discusses her "history of anti-Semitic writing" and "anti-Semitism in Walker’s work" and then provides the poem as evidence. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Michael Lerner content

I am extremely disturbed by this edit by @Iskandar323, which includes the line "In 2009 Michael Lerner, an anti-Zionist rabbi who invited her to speak to his congregation on Yom Kippur, found her "claims about human rights abuses by Israel" offensive and apologized for inviting her." This is an utter fabrication and should be immediately removed. Lerner in fact writes that "Ms. Walker's claims about human rights abuses by Israel are largely substantiated by independent investigations" but "I was particularly disturbed that Alice Walker's presentation was so unconvincing and missed the opportunity to speak to our hearts, in large part because it felt contaminated by anger and a lack of compassion for the Jewish people and for Israelis. I believe that such compassion must be part of our critique. For that reason, I now regret having had Alice Walker as a speaker. I personally experienced some of her remarks as offensive to me and her manner of talking to us dismissive and put-downish and her perception of the Jewish people seemed largely ignorant of the tradition of Jews that we represent and that has been growing worldwide. So I want to apologize to our community for subjecting you to this talk." and "[T]hose sins, while amazingly absent from the Jewish media and the public discourse inside the Jewish community, are increasingly obvious to most other people on the planet, and are generating anger toward Jews that will last for generations and place Jews in grave danger in the 21st century. We ignore them at our peril. So this is why I was so disappointed at Alice Walker's presentation--because the way she presented had the opposite effect of waht I had hoped for and expected. Instead of speaking to our hearts and opening us to consider the ways we need atonement, Ms. Walker's talk actually closed the ears and hearts of many of our congregants and made it less likely that we would be able to engage in the teshuva that is really necessary and urgent for our people. I base this on the reactions of congregants both during and after the talk that they conveyed to me. For that, I wish to apologize to Beyt Tikkun." GordonGlottal (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This is cherrypicking close to the point of being actively misleading. The incident is clearly in relation to charges laid by Walker in connection with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The text that has not been shown above following Lerner's comment about Walker's claims is in specific relation to comments she made about sexual violence: "However, there are at the moment no credible reports of Israeli soldiers raping Palestinian women, as Ms. Walker alleges. I did my own post-Yom Kippur web search on this, and remain very doubtful that these charges have been substantiated. It seems possible to me that there may have been some isolated instances of rape--but I have no reason to believe that that "possibility" ever turned into an actuality. It's not the case that rape is beyond the capacity of Jewish men--in Israel there have been numerous cases of Jewish men raping Jewish women. But the variety of human rights organizations seeking to shed light on Israeli offenses have not made the charge of rape, even as they do make the subtantiated charges of torture, murder, etc. against Israeli settlers and soldiers. So I remain deeply skeptical about this charge." How you are managing to ignore this and imagine that the 'remarks' by Walker are not these, given how explicitly it is explained, is beyond me. What, if not this rather explicit passage, do you think the 'remarks' refers to? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Iskandar, this seems to be blatant cherry picking of the source by GordonGlottal. nableezy - 16:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
You excerpted a quote from Lerner about how Walker was correct in order to imply that he was offended by that same statement, which is totally unacceptable. Lerner's nitpicks of her aside, he never, ever says he was offended by any factual claim she made. Again, he specifically invited her to participate in a presentation about Israel's crimes. You can read some background on the event here: https://www.jta.org/2009/09/22/culture/alice-walkers-yom-kippur-sermon. He says twice that he was offended by her attitude toward the Jews in his own (extremely anti-Israel) congregation. If you're curious what exactly she said that offended him (he doesn't say) you can maybe get some idea from his congregants' contemporary reactions here: http://www.beyttikkun.org/article.php?story=20090930114030409&query=alice%2Bwalker. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, why is this here at all? The sources for it are a. the Beyt Tikkun source from Lerner and b. a blog piece from Jewish Currents written by the editor. Neither of these establish weight and the entire bit should be removed. nableezy - 19:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's not super reliable - I had thought to give it the benefit of the doubt, but if it's going to cause trouble, maybe not worth it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Michael Lerner is not an anti-Zionist rabbi. He is a long time critic of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory but he has never repudiated Zionism. He believes that Israel has abandoned genuine Zionist principles and describes himself as both pro Israel and pro Palestine. Cullen328 (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I already fixed this, Cullen. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the limited previous discussion of Jewish Currents on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, it seems to have a good reputation. It's cited hundreds of times on wiki. Is there any specific objection? GordonGlottal (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The specific objection is that this is part of the Jewdayo Grid section, which is the blog edited by Lawrence Bush (the editor of the magazine) but also by Lawrence Bush. It is basically a self-published blog at that point, and that a. isnt a source that establishes weight, and b. cant be used in a BLP of anybody but the writer. nableezy - 19:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be? It seems to be a section for short biographies of Jewish people by Bush, who is also an editor at the magazine. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
What? Whats this? It actually used to be organized under a blog section. Its always been Lawrence's blog. nableezy - 20:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It was mostly an email newsletter which they also posted to the website as a blog. The "about us" section describes the author as "we". What makes you think the factual claims in Jewdayo are less reliable than those in other Jewish Currents outputs? GordonGlottal (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
And your belief is that an email newsletter is an acceptable source in a BLP? nableezy - 20:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The newsletters put out e.g. by the NYT or WaPo or The Atlantic undergo the same editorial process as anything else they publish. I don't see any reason to assume that wasn't the case for Jewish Currents. They tout this one as a premiere product. Is there a factual claim in this source that you have any reason to doubt? He quotes from a source we have access to. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Where do they tout anything as a premiere product? This was a personal project by the editor, thats it. If there are actual reliable secondary sources about this then present them. nableezy - 20:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The second bullet point on the magazine's "What we do" was "Celebrate the rich Jewish tradition of activism and innovation through our popular daily Jewdayo email". GordonGlottal (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
That is not saying it a premier product, it says it is a celebration of rich Jewish tradition and that this is a popular email. nableezy - 20:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
They tout is as their second-most important product, right after their breaking news coverage! It was not just a blog, not personal, and there is no evidence whatsoever that its output should be seen as less reliable. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
If one wants to believe that the order of operations of what is important is based on the placement of a bullet point list talking about an email newsletter they can do that. I however do not do that. Beyond that, the magazines about us makes no mention of this blog or newsletter whatsoever. nableezy - 20:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't get why you moved this back out of the conflict section which it relates to. Antisemitism is not referenced. Also, the Jewish Currents piece is obviously an opinion piece, if that - it's more like a throwaway comment piece. Not serious factual writing or of much use as encyclopedic sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
He doesn't think she's an antisemite (though a lot of his congregants do) but it doesn't really have much to do with the conflict. Everyone involved (Walker, Lerner, Bush, the congregants) basically agrees with her criticisms. What Bush found notable was Lerner's complaint about the way Walker thought about Jews. What opinion do you think it expresses? The tone is factual and there's no reason to think it didn't undergo their normal process. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
What normal process? This is a blog entry. nableezy - 19:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I suggest you learn to discern between opinion pieces and blogs, and standard news articles and features. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Come on. The second bullet point on the magazine's "What we do" was "Celebrate the rich Jewish tradition of activism and innovation through our popular daily Jewdayo email". It's not an unedited blog. It doesn't express an opinion, and it presumably carries the weight of the publication. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
No, it is an unedited blog. Yes, the magazine itself is a well regarded source. And if you cite things in its reports or analysis then nobody will say it is a blog. This however is the blog of the editor of the magazine. At most it would be WP:NEWSBLOG, but because it is the editor publishing his own blog I dont think that even applies. This is basically a self-published blog, and it cant be used in a BLP. nableezy - 20:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to back up any of those claims? Articles by editors are worth less than articles by others? That would come as a great shock to the many thousands of references on here to Jeffrey Goldberg's articles in The Atlantic. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Im sorry, but youre the one that is going to need evidence here. Ive shown that this was put out as a blog, and there is nothing in Lawrence Bush that suggests the author is an expert so as to use his opinion pieces as a reliable source. And even if it were, an opinion piece or blog entry does not establish weight. Im removing this as a failure of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. nableezy - 20:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It was an email newsletter, and there's no opinion in it. None of them are, in any sense, "opinion pieces". They're short biographies in a factual tone. Prominent factual outputs of a reliable source are literally the only thing that can be used to establish weight. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
An email newsletter is not a reliable source. nableezy - 20:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
That may be your personal opinion, but it doesn't reflect any wiki guideline. On what basis do you distinguish between the factual outputs of a reliable source? BTW your claims of it being "personal" are clearly false if you read through the archives at all. It's a CMS thing that they're all credited to him. Some of the early ones were interviews with living Jews and they're mostly by other Jewish Currents editors, even aside from the way that the website talks about it. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Here's one with Yankl Stillman as the credited author https://jewishcurrents.org/itche-goldberg-on-khayim-zhitlovsky GordonGlottal (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The one by Yankl Stillman might maybe qualify as a NEWSBLOG, but the editor publishing his own piece on a blog is not going through any review besides his own. Sources are not default reliable, if youd like to open a discussion at RSN if this piece is reliable by all means feel free. nableezy - 21:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, only in your own headcanon is this a "blog" with no editorial process. I'm rarely on wiki on Saturdays but you can expect me to post on RSN soon. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism&curid=796701&diff=1116104156&oldid=1113951702 Lookin' for a li'l help? :) Selfstudier (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Hardly an objectionable practice. You equally tried to shame me for posting to BLP/N. It's not my problem if you assume that the current balance of editors unusually biased in your favor. We all benefit from wider-ranging discussions with more editors involved. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Especially if one thinks that those editors might be more well disposed to one's own arguments. Selfstudier (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Antisemitism in section heading

Horse Eye's Back youve commented in this section and as such should be aware of it. The section covers what her critics accuse her of. It covers charges of antisemitism. And per BLP, you need ironclad sources to say in Wikipedia's voice that somebody is an antisemite. nableezy - 17:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Also see Category:Antisemitism in the United States, where right at the top it says It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-Semitic, only those that are provably so. nableezy - 17:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
How is she not provably so? This isn't an edge case or a pro-Palestinian POV being slandered as antisemitic its full on conspiracy theory antisemitism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Its not provably so because sources dispute it. What they do is say who says what. For example the NYT says that many have found to be antisemitic and deeply troubling. The New Yorker at most says she promotes an antisemitic work by another person. There is not the breadth of sourcing required to say that Walker is provable antisemitic in Wikipedia's voice. nableezy - 17:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
What source disputes it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The ones that couch it as an accusation of critics and obviously Walker herself. nableezy - 18:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Thats not disputing it. Walker herself is not a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
To make a statement of fact about a BLP being a racist the sources need to be unambiguous that this is a fact. And they are not. They relay who has charged such, but do not so widely declare it to be true so as to allow Wikipedia to do the same. As you are well aware, disputed content about a BLP stays out absent a consensus for it, so I expect you will not violate WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE as you did earlier. nableezy - 19:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
But we don't need that same level of sourcing to describe words or actions as racist. The statements here are unambiguously antisemitic. You agree? Yes or no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
We certainly do need that level of sourcing. Most sources are saying that critics call it antisemitic. So should we. As far as your leading question, what I think is not relevant, what matters is the sourcing. nableezy - 19:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
It wasn't a leading question, I was trying to establish the basic facts from which we could build on. Unless the sources are saying those critics are wrong they aren't disputing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
No, unless the sources say in their own words what they attribute to critics they are not endorsing it. And lol to "this is unambiguously antisemitic, you agree? yes or no?" is not a leading question. nableezy - 19:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
You understand the difference between a lack of endorsement and a dispute, no? (that one is a leading question, the previous one was rhetorical as it only has one right answer). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
You understand the difference between a reliable source directly supporting the material and not, correct? nableezy - 22:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
A source does not have to state something in its own voice to directly support material. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
That one belongs in the hall of fame lol. Yes, it certainly does. Those sources support that her critics have accused her of something. It does not support that what they have accused her of is true. nableezy - 22:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
We have direct support for antisemitism. "Walker’s anti-Semitism predated this ill-fated interview with the Times" etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we include that the Tablet said this. In fact it was explicitly noted previously that this is the Tablet's view. Again, however, the breadth of coverage of this topic among reliable sources attributes it to critics of Walker. You can keep pretending that isnt true, but it is. nableezy - 22:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
If you were aware the whole time that we had direct support why did you play dumb and pretend we didn't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Why are you playing dumb and pretending like the majority of sources dont attribute that view to critics? nableezy - 15:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and here's a source that disputes it. nableezy - 20:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The Daily Beast is not generally reliable and so has no bearing on a BLP discussion. It would also appear to be an opinion piece (the lack of clear separation between the two being the primary reason The Daily Beast isn't a high quality reliable source). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Thats an article by Elisheva Goldberg, a contributor to Jewish Currents as well as previously The Forward, The New Republic, and The Atlantic. Beyond that, there is no consensus either way on the Daily Beast, making your claim that it has no bearing on a BLP discussion a personal opinion that I need not take seriously. Some editors advise is well below the standard to exclude a source, and Im pretty sure you know that. Maybe not, but now you should. nableezy - 22:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
If there is no consensus then it can't be used for BLP, we are only allowed to use high quality sources. Note that even with high quality sources we can't use opinion, even if an opinion piece is published by a notable author in the WSJ we can't use it for claims about a third party. BLP is not my opinion, it is nonnegotiable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
So your position is that the statement does not need the sourcing required for a BLP, but that this source is not acceptable for a BLP? Cool. Then, as stated previously, the sourcing here is not sufficient to claim in Wikipedia's voice that Walker is antisemitic, much less to include the category. Because BLP is not my opinion, it is nonnegotiable. nableezy - 22:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The language we used was antisemitism which we have direct sources for. "Remarkably, in her questions, Strayed quoted verbatim from the very Times interview where Walker promoted David Icke, asking her about the “kinship” with Jane Eyre she’d expressed there, but not about the anti-Semitism she’d voiced." etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we include the Tablet saying this. That does not make it so it is unquestionably true, and other sources attribute the view to critics, and as The Tablet notes the NYT refused to amend the article. And later NYT coverage shows that this is presented as a view of critics. nableezy - 22:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
It is true though and we don't have a single WP:RS which says it isn't. The NYT's reasons for not amending the article had nothing to do with the facts, they never do that on principle as is clearly stated in the Tablet article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Most reliable sources present it as an accusation of critics, not a fact. Im not interested in debating truth with you, as I do not think some random screenname on Wikipedia is worth spending the time on discussing the truth. That isnt Wikipedia's purpose, and if you feel that it is yours go write a blog. nableezy - 15:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Lol, even David Icke's page has it as "accusations of antisemitism". And you want to just place as a section heading antisemitism here? nableezy - 23:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to change it if you'd like. Are you disputing whether or not Alice Walker is antisemitic? Thats not open for dispute, she is... Thats a basic fact we all have to work from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
That is a BLP violation, which applies to talk pages. The sources do not support that assertion as a statement of unambiguous fact. So no, it is not a basic fact, and no the article will not say that absent a solid consensus for it. You can keep babbling all you like, but as, in a moment of clarity, you said BLP is not my opinion, it is nonnegotiable. Toodles, nableezy - 15:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
You've been warned before not to cross the line between anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. If you want to take this to a noticeboard you can. In the meantime I will say that Alice Walker is antisemitic because "Walker’s anti-Semitism" "published a cartoonishly anti-Semitic poem" "her anti-Semitic history" "the anti-Semitism she’d voiced" "the author’s anti-Semitic backstory" etc Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh Ive been warned? Ok lol. nableezy - 15:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Cute putting a warning on my talk page. You have been warned, you've also repeatedly been warned to stay civil. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Sure, Ive been warned lol. Toodles, nableezy - 15:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
You aren't interested in continuing this discussion? Perhaps you've found a reliable source which says that Walker is not antisemitic? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Im more interested in stopping the BLP violations, which is why I left the notification on your talk page so if it continues it may be reported to AE. Ive already provided the sources that show that this usually presented as an accusation of critics, not a statement of fact. Which means we do the same. nableezy - 15:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
But all that is required to discuss it on the talk page is a single WP:RS which says it. Even if your point is true there is no BLP violation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Nope, that is not all that is required for you to flat out call a living person a racist. This isnt Twitter, we have standards here. nableezy - 15:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Interesting moving of the goalposts, I have not called a living person a racist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hall of fame worthy comment number 2. nableezy - 15:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Antisemitism covers much more than race/ethnicity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

GordonGlottal, WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requires consensus for challenged BLP edits. Kindly do not violate that policy again, and discuss here if you would like to until a consensus is established. nableezy - 17:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ive opened an RFC to get a wider perspective from uninvolved users. nableezy - 18:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Re Tablet, anything from them definitely needs attribution. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
And what about Vox and NY Mag? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC

Should the section covering Walker's poem on the Talmud and praise of David Icke be titled "Accusations of antisemitism and praise for David Icke" or "Antisemitism and praise for David Icke"? Nableezy 18:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Accusations - the section is covering a what Walker's critics have criticized as antisemitic. Most sources, including the NYTimes in April 2022 ("In recent years, she has taken positions, including in The Times, that many have found to be antisemitic and deeply troubling.", "the accusations of antisemitism in recent years.", "But recent accusations that Walker is antisemitic have been the most significant.") report on the accusations as accusations. WP:BLP demands that if we are going to accuse a living person as a racist that the sourcing be exceptional and widespread in supporting it as a fact, not simply as an accusation. There are additionally sources that disclaim that Walker is antisemitic, again including the Times quoting her ex-husband "In an interview, Leventhal, Walker’s ex-husband, said there was no evidence during their marriage that she harbored any antisemitic sentiments." and Elisheva Goldber in The Daily Beast. In cases in which the sourcing is significantly stronger than it is here we still title the section as accusations, not making Wikipedia make a direct accusation against a living person. For example, David Icke's biography itself includes "accusations of antisemitism". The sourcing here is simply not exceptional enough to make Wikipedia make a direct accusation of racism against a living person. nableezy - 18:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    Ive also restored "accusations" per WP:BLP given the number of users who have agreed it is a BLP issue to not include that word. nableezy - 14:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Antisemitism. Reliable sources support this, no real reliable sources dispute this. The statements are obvious, call a spade a spade. --CZUQZ (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)blocked sock
  • Antisemitism and praise for David Icke Sourcing is sufficient for the claim, The Daily Beast is not a BLP quality source... Why bring it up in a BLP discussion? I thought you held BLP in the highest respect? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Antisemitism and praise for David Icke WaPo and other RS have explicitly referred to the poem as antisemitic in their own voice. If you find yourself tempted to revert four different users in 27 hours despite a 1R sanction, you need to take a step back and rethink. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Straight-up antisemitism - "In 2017, Walker published an anti-Semitic poem...", not "an allegedly anti-semitic poem". "In 2020, after learning of Walker's support of anti-Semitism...", not "alleged support of". The text is already stating it as definitive, there's no need to be timid with the header. Zaathras (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    The text shouldn't be stating it definitively, since none of the non-opinion sources do either. This error has been corrected. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Accusations - We should rather use accusations due to the nature of this article (WP:BLP) - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Accusations - the current title is hardly NPOV by any standards and (presumably intentionally?) draws attention to the contents. When this RFC was created the section was populated with large amounts of opinion, now largely removed (not the Jonathan Kay piece, since this is attributed in-text, though whether the opinion of a lone journalist is due is another matter). There are not multiple reliable, secondary sources definitively giving the subject any specific attribution - most of the sources criticize her remarks, opinions or writing rather the subject directly. The current title goes far beyond the Wikipedia remit, making a direct assertion and thus presents a BLP violation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Accusations Below three recent sources that refer only to accusations and refrain from stating the claim as fact:
    NYT 23 April 2022
    "But recent accusations that Walker is antisemitic have been the most significant. She has praised David Icke, who has written that Holocaust denial should be taught in schools and that the Talmud is a racist document. He is also known for a conspiracy theory that a group of child-sacrificing lizard people, many of whom are Jewish, are running the world.
    One of Walker’s poems, “To Study The Talmud,” has also attracted widespread condemnation. In it, she describes her reaction when a Jewish friend (in the interview, she said it was her ex-husband) accused her “of appearing to be antisemitic.” The poem says that one should look to the Talmud in an effort to understand the state of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, which she describes as “demonic.” “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews,” she writes, “and not only / That, but to enjoy it?”
    Jewish organizations, among others, have called Walker’s public support of Icke and her own poem dangerous and harmful. Privately, some in Walker’s life have said her embrace of Icke is mystifying. Several academics contacted for this article were reluctant to discuss the topic. In an interview, Leventhal, Walker’s ex-husband, said there was no evidence during their marriage that she harbored any antisemitic sentiments.
    Walker, when asked, said that her criticism is not of Jewish people but of Israel, as well as of the ancient texts and practices of all religions, including Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. The poem about studying the Talmud also points to the need to “study our programming” from other religions as well. “Do we really want to continue as humans with these old doctrines of separation?” she said. “The Bible is no more exempt than any of these horrid, really treacherous tomes that people are forced to endure, especially women."
  • "Walker is also considered (by some) to be an antisemite" & "“Over the past few weeks, concerns have been expressed about the political beliefs and writings of the investiture keynote speaker, Alice Walker,” said his [Carlos O. Cortez, chancellor of the San Diego Community College District] statement "At the same time, others have expressed their support of Ms. Walker." & "In 2017, Walker wrote a poem about being accused of antisemitism."
  • Accusations - Source coverage is divided between those, such as the article by Yair Rosenberg in "Tablet", which categorically accuse Walker of being antisemitic and those, such as the ones in the list supplied by Selfstudier above, which state merely that Walker has been accused of antisemitism. I think that it would be more in line with the the BLP policy ("Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively") to model the article on the latter. This '"Guardian" article by Luke O'Neill may be added to the list supplied by Selfstudier. As food for thought, I offer another "Tablet" article, by Elad Lapidot, which describes contradictions inherent in various ways of definining antisemitism. Alice Walker's "official website" has various entries relating to David Icke. This 2013 entry is a response to Icke-related criticism (the second paragraph, which is about "the reptile issue", is the first time I can recall ever having seen a sentence punctuated with two colons). There's also currently a post up on the website about charges of antisemitism. I can't figure out a way of linking to it, but a search on the phrase "Alan (I kept my shorts on) Dershowitz" should locate it.     ←   ZScarpia   14:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Accusations per above, I don't think it's something that is 100% confirmed.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Preamble I would point out that the section does not touch on David Icke - nor why/what it is that Walker admires about him except her presumed endorsement of antisemitic views expressed by Icke - ie allegations of antisemitism are actually the only subject of the section - her endorsement of Icke is simply an aspect of Walker's alleged antisemitism. I therefore think Icke shouldn't be in the section title at all and it really wouldn't matter much then whether the section were called "Antisemitism" or "Allegations of" since the former title could refer to actions by Walker against antisemitism. But if the underlying question is whether it can be stated in WP:VOICE that she is an antisemite/guilty of antisemitism, the answer is a clear No the endorsement of that doesn't come anywhere near the level of near-universal statement by reliable sources in their own voice (simply reporting that she has been so accused and why she has been accused is clearly and categorically NOT endorsing the reported accusations). Pincrete (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with Pincrete. Care has to be used in statements, true or not, that no editorial bias slips in. A neutral point of view was deemed so important it became one of our "Five pillars". -- Otr500 (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Suggestion for heading. If the "Accusations" heading is chosen, might I suggest reversing the order to "Praise for David Icke and accusations of antisemitism" so that no one interprets the "praise" part as being one of the accusations before digesting the section? Originoa (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WGS-200 Introduction to Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raanyasiddiqui (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Raanyasiddiqui (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alice_Walker/Archive_2&oldid=1254122025"