Talk:Sylvain Cypel

Untitled

This is my first real wiki entry, so it's bound to have structural flaws. I look forward to looking at it again, after a passage of time, and seeing it improved by those familiar with Mr. Cypel's work and thought. "Walled" really is an interesting book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrdanjoh (talk • contribs)

Heavy use of Mondoweiss

As it is only be used with great caution (per the RfC arguments and close) for BLP, I would like to remove all citations here. Is someone opposed? FortunateSons (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am. You are one of those editors who see room in a carefully phrased statement that does not exclude Mondoweiss for BLP material if great caution is exercised. So programmatically you search wiki for the use of Mondoweiss generally, and look like you are campaigning to rid it of recourse to Mondoweiss tout court. This looks pretextual, purging wikipedia to elide a POv. So either you cite specifics, or nothing. If you can cite any use of Mondoweiss on a BLP article which suggests that the subject of the article is defamed, or improperly attacked, you have an argument. You don't have one here. If you are familiar with Cypel's book (I have the French original) the author's views coincide everywhere with what Mondoweiss often argues.Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Being unfriendly to the views of the LP is not what great caution refers to, it also refers to being overly friendly to the subject and other issues caused by the poor quality of the source. For example, a person improperly defended against a hostile claim could also be a case where great caution forbids the use of the source.

Specifically, this article is heavily based on a - at best, disputed - source with particular concerns about usability for all (not just unfriendly) BLP in a disputed area, so definitely a case where there needs to at the very least be a strong consensus for inclusion. As you have stated, the case is not 100% clear, which is the reason for a talk page entry compared to removal. While the content seems to be generally consistent with his views (as far as I can tell, I paid little attention in French class), that simply isn’t the standard we use for sources and content.

Therefore, the close, which does allow space for discussion in certain cases, is the reason for a talk page notice compared to a removal citing the decision without comment.

You could also note that I have not removed some BLP used and generally left content with a cn, so this isn’t a case of me just wiping all content that I don’t like, but the removal of an unreliable source with a high (but as anything else, not necessarily perfect) amount of caution with the goal of removing a source that should be avoided wherever possible for BLP. I did check actively for defamatory and other highly problematic claims and removed or commented on whatever else I found to be in violation of policy (almost exclusively in BLP contexts), but that is in accordance with the relevant policies, and would be a suboptimal use of my time had my goal only been to purge information that I dislike. FortunateSons (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There are also potential secondary issues, such as what I believe to be a poorly attributed (half-) quote at 13a. Even if the source itself were unproblematic, the heavy reliance on one source with the same leanings as the subject is potentially problematic when it comes to maintaining a NPOV. FortunateSons (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding general use: at least if MW was not fully misleading, much of the content could be successfully cited from ABOUTSELF sourcing, of which there thankfully is plenty. It’s quite possible that a few can remain and most should be replaced, or that we add secondary citations to account for the weakness of the source in some cases (either temporarily or permanently), approaches I both consider to be valid. FortunateSons (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hang on. Do you ever write articles? You seem to know an awful lot about how they should be written, if they are in this topic area at least? I can't recognize in the considerations above the slightest awareness of how they are written, given the nature of the object of the article. Since Cypel is a new figure relatively for the anglophone world, there are not as yet many sources, a handful, and you are fiddling with the Mondoweiss caution to gut half of what we have, namely fingering an article source where the perfectly respectable Philip Weiss presents Cypel's book and, in the same article, alerts the readership to a talk between Cypel and the respected civil rights lawyer Robert Herbst, cosponsered by ICAHD. Mondoweiss is an important voice in the American Jewish community representing those of that community who are very uncomfortable with Israel's occupation and wars. There is zero BLP danger here, unless you are reading that to mean 'Biographie de Leretz-Palestine'.:) Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I wrote 1, significantly contributed to another, and then did localised work on (if I had to guess) about a dozen (vague estimate, not sure on the actual number), which is decent for less than 2k edits if you ask me. On that note (request, not canvassing), if you want to take a look, Olivia Frank is still in need of some feedback if you have the time. I’m considering translating some articles from german law or medical topics in the long term, so if you edit there, you might see me at some point too, but no promises.

Calling Philip Weiss perfectly respectable is at least disputable, based on some past conduct of Mondoweiss, but I get what you mean, he’s definitely no Blumenthal. I wouldn’t call MW an important voice either, but that’s a disagreement regarding what is or isn’t fringe or unacceptable as a journalist or a mensch, something for which editors couldn’t find consensus and the two of us likely won’t either.

The heavy BLP reliance on MW is at the very least problematic in the context of this conflict, but not necessarily a dealbreaker in this exceptional circumstance, can we agree on that? As I gather that you are French/french-speaking, would you consider citing the relevant French articles? That would fix both issues.

I am not sure fingering is the right word, but I get what you mean and understand the issue you are having.

That being said, if my French doesn’t betray me, that joke is pretty funny. :) FortunateSons (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing problematic here. I am not using Mondoweiss. I am using Robert Herbst, a distinguished civil rights lawyer. That he publishes in MW is neither here nor there. Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

A. That isn’t the only MW citation.

B. While clearly an activist, I am less than certain that he counts as a subject-matter expert for the specific area of the book.

Assuming you don’t disagree with both, it still leaves issues unresolved. FortunateSons (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oh come now. 'While clearly an activist, I am less than certain . . ' grammatically means you are an activist, not Herbst.
• George Viereck the pro-Nazi 'poet', interviewed Einstein. He knew nothing of physics. Pontius Pilate interviewed Jesus, knowing nothing of Judaism, etc.,etc. By the way the word 'activist' as you use it means 'anyone who militates for a cause from a left-wing perspective' It is the default substantive in I/P to undercut the reliability of anyone who criticizes Israel.
• You do not have to be a subject-matter expert to interview a subject-matter expert.
• I think we have finished here. Saying there are issues when you can't name them in terms that correspond to clear policies seems to be a pretty pointless exercise.Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  • I‘m pretty sure that it’s technically not ungrammatical, but that doesn’t really matter, the sentence is quite clear
  • I have no issue with using the wording from an interview as SPS, just on relying on MW as a source for BLP, and have left the former before while removing the latter.
  • you can argue about the line between citizenry and activism, but he clearly is an activist, per the source: He is co-chair of the board of ICAHD-USA and was chapter coordinator for Westchester Jewish Voice for Peace from 2014-2017. That doesn’t mean that his activism is wrong (what I have read, I agree with a non-insignificant percentage), but it doesn’t stop being activism when I like it.
  • the issue is the use of a source that preferably shouldn’t be used for BLP in the context of a contentious topic, as a significant percentage of citations for the subject. I have suggested French and/or SPS sourcing, of which enough should be available.

  FortunateSons (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay thisthread is pointless and the reason is lack of expository clarity and a failure to respond on point.

• I noted that your punctuation of a clause produced a sentence that grammatically meant the opposite of what you intended writing.
• You come back stating

  'I'm pretty sure that it's technically not ungrammatical'.

I.e. goalpost shifting. I did not say your sentence was 'ungrammatical': I said that the sentence, as written, in terms of grammar made you the activist, and not Robert Herbst, which apparently is what you mean to say.

Most of your remarks in this thread are not clear, and one cannot argue with that kind of argufying. The issues you raise, to the degree they are intelligible, have been fully answered. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh come on. The question of the sentence being ungrammatical for the intended meaning is generally implied when responding as such, and a sentence can have multiple plausible interpretations where the unintended one is more intuitive without being wrong. Also, even if it is wrong (which is quite possible, C1/C2 English does have some limitations when it comes to details), nitpicking over something that still makes sense, even if it’s wrong, is pointless (particularly in regards to mobile edits). I’m not going after every grammar, spelling or punctuation mistake in your comments either.

If a sentence is unclear or has two possible meanings, I’m happy to clarify where relevant (as in: where there is more or less than one interpretation that an average person would consider plausible).

Your disagreement with what is a policy-based argument and your rejection of alternative suggestions is clear, the policy-basis of your disagreement less so, but I guess you feel the same way about mine.

As what I suggested would have almost no downsides (all or almost all content can remain), while having a positive impact on sourcing quality, I’m saddened that prefer a different approach.

Nevertheless, all the best with future editing, and let’s meet again under more pleasant circumstances :) FortunateSons (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)