Talk:Mondoweiss

Template tag: Primary/self-published sources

Added the template tags for primary and self-published sources since half the sources of the article are from Mondoweiss, or interviews/op-eds by Philip Weiss. Needs to be improved. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this still the case? Please explain. Looking through, all the self-published monodweiss sources I saw were either purely informational or proper responses by allegations reported in other sources. (Links to author pages of publications that publish the author are standard in BLPs and hardly a misuse of primary sources.) And of course there are more links below to be added.

In fact I only see ONE misuse, which was just added, i.e.: In 2011, Philip Weiss reported that the liberal blog Daily Kos had "acted to ban commenters from linking to Mondoweiss" on grounds of "anti-semitism." Weiss denied the charge and defended "talking about the large Jewish presence in the American establishment and the importance of Jewish money in the political process." Reference: My Response To The Daily Kos Smear on Monodweiss.

Wouldn't you agree it should be removed?? If not, what is an improper use? And should we feel free to list Mondoweiss's views on a variety of positions using nothing by their website to establish "notability"?? CarolMooreDC 22:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

At this point the only self-published source under contention is Lozowick. Are there any others? CarolMooreDC 00:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

removing the response but keeping the smear

The very idea that one can include a smear against several living people as "Jew-baiters" but remove the response from those living people is absurd and lacks anything resembling a justification. nableezy - 21:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Then remove Smith's charge. This page is about Mondoweiss, not about Stephen Walt, Glenn Greenwald, and Andrew Sullivan. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Or how about, "On July 21, 2010, journalist Lee Smith in Tablet Magazine suggested that Phil Weiss and others were part of an 'anti-Israel blogosphere.'" Then we won't dilute the page with responses to Smith that have nothing to do with Mondoweiss. Thanks for your input. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I would accept full removal of the smear article. But if the smear article is included at all then per WP:NPOV we are obliged to include the significant responses to the smear that have been published in RS. Dlv999 (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

i don't have time to check this right now, but i thought that while this page is not about these people, their names/s redirected to this article. sorry if i was mistaken. Soosim (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As article is only about Weiss I agree with Plot Spoiler sugestion that we should remove the others.If Weiss responded to the allegation it should be included too.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, if a smear against Weiss is relevant to the article then we are obliged by our core neutrality to include significant viewpoints published in RS defending Weiss against the smear. The Walt article specifically mentions Weiss and his blogging, so you are going to have a hard time trying to defend the position that the Smith smear against Weiss is relevant but the Walt defense of Weiss against the smear is not. Dlv999 (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe but Walt blog is not WP:RS and it WP:UNDUE to include him.And the Weiss response already included so I don't see any WP:NPOV problem.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your second excuse for deleting this material in violation of NPOV is even more ridiculous than the first. Stephen Walt is a professor of international affairs at Harvard University. He has published extensively on the Israel lobby, he was also included in the Lee Smith smear. He is probably the best source you could find for a response to the smear. the blog was published by Foreign Policy, a distinguished, mainstream publication. Dlv999 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This is unreal. And doesn't the redirect go this article anyway is, besides being unreal, nonsensical. Walt writes even though he accuses me and my fellow bloggers of being anti-Semites. He is talking about Weiss. This is an ubelievably poor attempt at using Wikipedia to slander a living person. Behavior that should result not in a topic ban but a site ban. I am going to restore the material, and if another user feels that they can edit-war to remove relevant material directly related to the slur that they insist on retaining that user will find themselves at AE. nableezy - 19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You're really acting hysterical for no good reason. You're the one that's been topic banned more than all of us -- due to your behavior. So take a chill pill. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Try me, see what happens. You have removed responses written in reliable sources to an attack on a living person. If you think that is behavior that AE will look kindly upon you can find out for yourself by removing it once more. nableezy - 19:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your battleground mentality is really out of control. Nobody is saying that a response to Smith's comments should be not be included. This is a matter of WP:Undue. Please stop with your threats and try to work constructively. You and others have been warned about crying wolf at AE before. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And edit-warring to include an accusation that somebody is a Jew-baiter but removing a response to that is constructive now? Again, I will be restoring Walt, and the portion in the lower section. If you, or anybody else, thinks that edit-warring to remove long-standing material so that you can slur a living person and remove the response that person will find themselves at AE. nableezy - 20:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There already a response by Weiss, Walt blog is not WP:RS and thus WP:UNDUE for this page.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats a response? Look he called me a Jew-baiter? Thats what you think a response is? Besides being terribly written, your edit made zero improvement. And Walt's blog. Do you have any idea what Foreign Policy is? Do you know who Walt is? Would you care to even attempt to provide a rationale for the hysterically absurd line that Walt blog is not WP:RS? nableezy - 20:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike, I am also interested to see you explain how a Harvard professor of International affairs, (published by Foreign Policy) who has published, and is extensively cited on the topic of the Israel lobby, is not an RS to respond to a smear based on the Israel lobby. He is probably the perfect source for such a response, if you will not accept him you would not accept anyone. Also given that you have abandoned your first excuse for deleting this material, it seems that the important thing is that it is deleted, and you are just scratching around looking for an excuse that will stick. Dlv999 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I wont be restoring the maxblumenthal bit, but Walt is going back in, as will Wright and Fallows. If Smith's slur is relevant, then the response is relevant. If you would like to explain how WEIGHT allows for the inclusion of a wholly unsupported charged against a living person as a Jew-baiter but also requires that any response besides "oh look he called me a Jew-baiter" should be removed you are more than welcome to do so. As it stands, this is long-standing material (added last August, at the same time the slur was first included), and youll need more than a vague wave to an acronym to remove it. nableezy - 21:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ive restored the material. It is in direct response to the charge that you apparently think merits inclusion on this page. If you want to discuss the issue in an attempt to gain consensus for your bold edit, by all means. But just randomly saying oh this policy and this policy arent satisfied when there is zero basis, much less even an attempt at a justification, for the objection or indecipherable edit summaries about redirects is not an excuse to edit war to remove long-standing material sourced to reliable sources. nableezy - 00:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, "long-standing material" isn't a policy either, but I digress. The whole Armin Rosen episode is still undue and needs condensing. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are condensing material, it has to be done in a way that is consistent with WP:NPOV. Deleting significant viewpoints and reliable sources all from one side of the debate is not going to fly. NPOV states that we represent views "published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources "

Regarding the Rosen episode, what we have in terms of RS is one article smearing Kane and Mondoweiss and two defending Kane against the smear (all published in Atlantic). So it is fairly easy to establish that the relative prevalence of the viewpoints is 2:1 and that is how we should weight the section.

Alex Kane, Adam Horowitz, and Philip Weiss all write for the Mondoweiss which is the topic of the article, so difficult to argue their views are not significant here. Dlv999 (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources may be used for good reasons - like countering smears. CarolMooreDC 03:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Adam Horowitz merged per AfD

Bio has been merged. Now let's not look for excuses to remove any mention of him Also, I hope we won't hear this absurd argument that supporting the statement that someone has written for a publication by linking to either the publications' listings of their writings or to one or two specific articles in the publication is a misuse of primary sources. CarolMooreDC 03:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems WP:Undue. There should just be one section regarding the creators. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And who cares what other publications he's written articles for? Wikipedia is not a list. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And these two sentences are misrepresentation and WP:Puff: "In addition to Mondoweiss, Horowitz writes for The Nation, Alternet, The Huffington Post, and The Hill.com.[7][10] Horowitz' work on Mondoweiss has been noted by the New York Times." He doesn't write for those publications, he has had articles published on those sites. And Mackey is just a blog within the NYT websites. Hardly worth a mention. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that if you are doing founders you should do both; so get busy writing the Weiss section.

Also, it is accurate to say Horowitz writes for any site that has a profile; or just say has written for such and such and include refs. If that is policy, I have a long list of writers whose articles I can start cleaning up. :::Removing NYTimes not a big deal since there are so many nuggests from Secondary Sources for Mondoweiss to put into the article now. Hope you'll help with adding such positive and educational material. :-) That's how you get a good reputation as an NPOV editor. (I always find positive things to add to articles of interest that are WP:Undue with negative criticism.) CarolMooreDC 04:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

More secondary sources

If someone wants to add them. (News searching likely publications and "Mondoweiss" can bring up things not brought up by a regular news search)

• Vanity Fair quotes Mondoweiss on ADL overstepping on WTC Mosque [Later note:used]
• CounterPunch refers to article published in mondoweiss; mention of content on Israel lobby
• Gulf News quotes Weiss/Monoweiss on Hagel nomination [[Later note:actually predicts what they would say and comes pretty close]
• WRMEA Abzourek article on Mondoweiss [Later note:used]
• (saw a couple more WRMEA articles mentioning)
• Highbeam has a bunch of articles, some look high quality; here's just a few from the top:

• Weiss in American Conservative on how created Mondoweiss
• Tablet alleges AP picked up a story by Monoweiss [Later note:used ]; plus more WRMEA; other criticial articles
• Arab News on media and Israel-Palestine mentions [Later note:used]
• Intelligencer Journal mentions funny story [Later note:used]

• Questia has a bunch, several of which duplicates of Highbeam.

So get busy! CarolMooreDC

Attempts to introduce Self-published blog

Can editors attempting to add a self-published source making a claim about a third party please familiarize yourselves with the relevant policy: WP:SELFPUBLISH. Dlv999 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed the part where it says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." ALso, there are lots of other self published in the article that you inexplicably failed to remove in your revert. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that the source in question is "an established expert on the topic of the article [Mondoweiss]" Dlv999 (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The guy is an Israeli government employee just being insulting on a personal blog. Would it be ok if he was an employee of any other government? Come on - do we have to take this to WP:RSN?? CarolMooreDC 05:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

carolmoore - why do so many of your comments end with "take this to RSN" or ANI or whatever? really? and to answer your question, if "the guy" (who has a name and is actually a bona fide somebody) worked for some other gov't, i have doubts that this would be an issue. his relevance to mondoweiss is very specific as it relates to his role in said gov't and his perception of mondoweiss' role in that field (as it relates to 'history'). pretty clear. Soosim (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's about as clear as mud. Please provide evidence that the source in question is "an established expert on the topic of the article [Mondoweiss]". Without such evidence the self-published smear needs to be removed as a matter of urgency. Dlv999 (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Soosim, in this case the burden of proof is on you to get WP:BLPN NPOV editors to say that a self-published smear (and from a biased source like the employee of a govt being criticized) is OK per WP:BLP. Our only duty is to keep removing it until that time. CarolMooreDC 13:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You guys are cherry picking to remove one primary source in an article full of primary sources. Please explain why that is or I'll assume you're just POV-pushing. As for his reliability on the subject matter, he is the author of Right to Exist: a Moral Defense of Israel's Wars published by an imprint of Random House. Clearly a reliable source for the subject matter (what I can't say for the other primary sources you refuse to consistently remove from the article). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

First, there are secondary resources not yet in the article, some listed above, more that might be for Mondoweiss instead of/as well as Weiss himself are at his article here.

Second, above I asked Plot Spoiler which primary sources he had a problem with. He didn't answer. Some things like bio material and minor factoid material usually isn't a big deal to use, and there's a lot of that. And it's a proper use of a primary source to respond to an attack, which happens a couple times here. So it's not really clear what you think IS the improper use of a primary source.

I just removed something that had been tagged as a primary source for a couple weeks.

Please be specific about the problems you see in this article.

It looks like "Mondoweiss" only published once in Salon and Weiss hasn't published since 2012, so maybe that's some self-published material that could be removed. CarolMooreDC 23:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Carol, your behavior seems to indicate that you are more interested in defending the site from "smears" than building a neutral encyclopedia. You can't just remove criticism from a relevant source just because you don't like it. I think it should stay. By the way, since when is 'Mondoweiss' a field of study, in which one needs to be an "expert" to be considered a RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.84.230.43 (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your commentary about other editors motivations is inappropriate and you should strike it out. Our policy states that self published blog material is generally unacceptable. The policy says that a self published source may be considered reliable when "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article". The topic of this article is Mondoweiss. What evidence is there that Yaacov Lozowick is an expert in this topic? For instance has he ever been published by reliable third-party publications discussing the topic of this article: Monoweiss? Brewcrew has suggested that his publication of a book (Right to Exist: a Moral Defense of Israel's Wars) makes him an expert, but this is not the case. The book was published 2 years before Mondoweiss was established so he cannot possibly have discussed the topic of this article in that book. Dlv999 (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

dlv - it says "generally unacceptable". not always. and it doesn't matter when the book was published - it goes to his expertise in what his comments were referring to. oh, and thank you so much carolmoore for answering my question about why do so many of your comments end with "take this to RSN" or ANI or whatever? i loved your answer! Soosim (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The book was published two years prior to the establishment of Mondoweiss (the topic of this article). Therefore the book cannot possibly discuss the topic of this article (Mondoweiss). Therefore the book cannot possibly be used as evidence that Yaacov Lozowick is an "an established expert on the topic of the article" (Mondoweiss). You could not use the book as a source for this article, because it does not mention the topic (i.e it would be SYNTH), so you cannot use the book as evidence that the author is an expert on the topic of the article. The very narrow criteria where self-published material may be appropriate was never meant to allow the inclusion of claims such as "a vipers nest of anti-semites" against third parties, by someone who has never had a word published by reliable third-party publications on the topic of the article. Dlv999 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My problem is more that he's employed as a defacto publicist for a nation state (archiving what makes it look good and burying what doesn't??, as many state archivists would do). His private self-published blog is being used to protect that state from criticism. He maybe an expert in defending that nation state, but that doesn't make his self-published rants WP:RS.

As for going to noticeboards, considering that I-P articles usually are edited by people with a bit of a POV, rather than waste time on back and forths, it's best to go to a noticeboard where one has a chance of getting an NPOV opinion from an NPOV editor, which can cut down debate time significantly. In this case, the burden of proof is on the person who wants to put in self-published smears from a govt employee, so go to WP:BLPN.

Still waiting to hear what the other self-published problems are so I can try to correct them if necessary, or explain them if not. CarolMooreDC 17:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard

here. Note that I added this new point which realized as I wrote the BLP note. Others can add other concerns about the entry of course.

From BLPN: He (Lozowick ) doesn’t mention in the article quoted what a search of Mondoweiss shows: that he has been criticized on the site by a contributor here or that he has posted on Mondoweiss and gotten into debates with/been criticized by contributors. So I think there’s definitely personal animus motivating his posting. Which makes his self-published attack even less WP:RS, especially for WP:BLP.

So that's the story. CarolMooreDC 00:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, I reverted it as you cannot use blogs for BLP information. Per WP:BLP & WP:SPS Do not restore it or it will be removed again per BLP policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mondoweiss is a blog. HaleakalAri (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

darkness - ari has a point. and carol correctly pointed out that phillip wrote about lozowick. so lozowick is not coming in from out of the blue. he is responding. very easy now to put in phillip's comments and lozowick's response. okie dokie? Soosim (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do a BLP. No names are mentioned. Just like the criticism of the New York Times does not trigger any BLP issues for columnists working for the New York Times. Please cease wikilawyering. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Names are mentioned. Here is a quote The site offers six or ten posts a day. Weiss writes often, Horowitz rarely (he apparently runs their Twitter account which I don't follow). There's a clutch of other regular writers, and a larger group of people who will appear there occasionally; some of them run their own sites or publish elsewhere and are cross-posted at Mondoweiss. Upper lima 65 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The edit at issue does not include anything about a BLP. If the linked article concerns a BLP that it is not something that falls within out BLP parameters--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC).

Replies:

• Weiss didn't write about Lozowick, someone else did, and I assume it was approved by an editor. If someone put it in the Lozowick article I have a feeling you all would object.
• I don't know if Lozowick choose to respond to that, but the bottom line point is: does any WP:RS secondary source think the comment, or the interchange between Lozowick and anyone on Mondoweiss is notable enough to write about? That's the main comment at WP:BLPN. If they do, then it can be put in the article.
• Not to mention what part of "vipers' nest of antisemites" quoted, which is also the name of the article, is NOT a personal attack on Weiss, Horowitz, et al? As [[Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29|WP:RS:Self-published sources says:" "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."
• Plus I see another unreliable source self published blog has been entered: http://warped-mirror.com/2012/04/11/defending-gunter-grass-at-972/
• Do not remove tags during discussion. CarolMooreDC 22:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Lozowick

I have removed Lozowick. There is clearly no consensus for including this nor any evidence that secondary sources care about it at this stage (much like there was no consensus for this edit). This is meant to be an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I see an obvious sockpuppet reverted and vandalized the talk page with the kind of policy focused integrity and honor I've come to expect. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis who's been back to deleting me last few days. Guess his talking to by whomsoever for making death threats vs. Chuck Hagel only chilled him for a few weeks. CarolMooreDC 16:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thought as much. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

User:HaleakalAri has put this information in again diff here and I will report him to edit warring if he doesn't take it out. Elder of Ziyon blog is an anonymous blog and I don't believe those are ever WP:RS for anything; being mentioned by advocacy groups or a couple WP:Rs doesn't change that. This Times of Israel article has enough info specifically about Mondoweiss to be useable, if not WP:Undue. CarolMooreDC 18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Since it's a 1RR violation in WP:ARBPIA they will be blocked if they don't self-revert, probably for 48 hours, maybe 24.

• revert 1 2013-02-22T18:35:07
• revert 2 2013-02-23T17:57:36

Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion

This article seems like a mere self-promotion article for their blog. Just because a few reporters from other news sources discuss the blog, doesn't make it a valid news website. Furthermore, we don't need ANOTHER article to bicker over on the Israel/Palestinian issue, I think there's already plenty to edit and go around SimplesC (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll second SimplesC's motion. Mondoweiss is nothing more than a glorified blog with a biased agenda and somewhat of a cult following. HaleakalAri (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess Wikipedia:Notability (web) is the appropriate guideline to decide whether it should be nominated for deletion. Whether a random person on the internet thinks it is "a glorified blog with a biased agenda and somewhat of a cult following" doesn't appear to be part of the decision procedure, so there is no point writing things like that here. That's what blogs are for. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

New unreliable source tags

OK, I just notice that User:HaleakalAri did in fact put in here some "unreliable source" tags. He'll have to explain them since I think we've discussed them all as OK uses of primary. I am soon going to remove the Salon republishing Mondoweiss paragraph that looks like it was a non-notable flash in the pan.

Please explain what part of the below these sourcings represent: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

CarolMooreDC 22:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hearing no response from the person who put the tags on, someone who does have a bit of a history of disruption, I'll remove them. CarolMooreDC 17:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

quick on the draw. details to follow. and patience is a virtue. Soosim (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

On Feb 10 I asked you about this issue oat Template tag: Primary/self-published sources top of current talk page. On the 22nd I asked User:HaleakalAri whose edits look highly disruptive to me. More than enough time. CarolMooreDC 17:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable source

How is Just World Books RS? It appears to be a one woman band which does print on demand. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Just World Books is a publisher, not a specific source (the book is the source). It certainly does NOT do "print on demand" (the books take months of bloody hard work to bring to fruition), but rather selects authors with relevant experience who can provide an antidote to the systemic bias in the (esp U.S.) mainstream media. Nor is it any longer a "one-woman band". There is no reason to doubt that Just World Books does the same fact checking, etc, that would be expected of any serious publisher, and I certainly trust Cobban more than I would many other people.

--NSH001 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is just a reference showing a book exists. Even if the book WAS self-published, it doesn't stop it from being mentioned here, especially if it's listed on Amazon. The tag goes with all the other disruptive ones. Take it to WP:RSN if you want other opinions. CarolMooreDC 17:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Journalism/Views/Opinion/Stance sections in many blog articles

Gosh, I guess User:Plot Spoiler has never read an article about blogs before. Please check out some articles under Category:Alternative journalism organizations, Category:American political websites, Category:American political blogs. Most of them have a section which lists various views/journalistic exposes/etc. that have been notable enough to be mentioned in WP:RS. Salon.com, Vanity Fair, Tablet Magazine, Intelligencer Journal (a local newspaper) are all considered WP:RS for the kind of material is presented.

Now maybe you got confused by the section title "journalism" - just first thing that came to my head. But looking at some others I can see that perhaps other alternatives are Jihad Watch's "Impact and stances" or Little Green Footballs' "Recurring themes" or Power Line's "Political positions" or Red State's "content" or .. well, that's a good start. AGF that you did not know this, I'll put it back with a title that might be more to your liking, like: "Views". CarolMooreDC 06:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"Journalism" was a misleading an inaccurate title. It was just a rehash of the reception part of the article. Additionally, it so drastically failed POV since it stated the POV of Mondoweiss as fact - "After the American Jewish Committee accused Jewish intellectuals who did not 'toe the party line on Israel' of being 'self-haters'". Please try to maintain a modicum of neutrality and encyclopedic quality. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

So your suggestion is new title and more NPOV wording, or put it all in reception (with more NPOV wording, and I haven't checked if it reflects source so not opining on whether it's POV or not)? Unclear. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 02:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I moved Kamiya info down, though I do think the reception comments and content comments can be separated into the two different sections. Others' opinions on that welcome.

I retitled the section "Content". I've found a bunch of stuff at a news archive search and have just started adding more WP:RS on notable content that will give readers an idea of what in the world the publication writes about, which is typical for lots of articles about publications.

I added links to Mondoweiss articles discussed by others, also a fairly standard practice at Wikipedia. CarolMooreDC 06:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Political alignment

There is obviously quite some history to this article and some quite serious disputes have occurred. But on a minor note, it would be an improvement if an RS could be found for the "Political alignment" field. Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

You mean besides the self-description of progressive on his "about" page that is used as a ref? Or do you mean "progressive Jewish" is a religious not a political view? Not clear. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The first. Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

Section on Comments

Can someone please explain why this keeps disappearing. Comments are an integral part of Mondoweiss and the Mondoweiss community. Is there a requirement for wiki-editors to declare a conflict? Carol Moore has certainly been a commenter on Mondoweiss. Is it a problem for her to determine the neutrality of edits here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.211.44 (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It is being removed because it doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policies. It's original research, blog-like commentary by anonymous IPs. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on content published by reliable sources. It isn't a blogging site for advocates. The content being added is also blatant POV pushing. Read WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Compliance with those policies is mandatory. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

First, this is an obvious violation of policy so POV doesn't matter. Second, there are a lot of Carol Moore's out there posting on all sorts of topics, so when you are doing your opposition research, make sure you got the right one. Third, opposition research and outing are frowned upon, though in the case of AnonIPs there's not much to do but block them and they can always find another IP. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Revert, why

CiF watch is a blog, I think. Certainly looks crappy to me and not RS. But yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com is certainly a blog, so that fails on SPS and BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Revert, because

CiF watch is not a blog, but a media watchdog site with multiple contributors (see: http://cifwatch.com/cif-contributors/). Yaacov Lozowick is an established expert in both Jewish and general Mid-Eastern history, political science and philosophy, along with being a widely published academic. Thus, according to wikipedia's policies, he "may be considered reliable". As far as the other half-dozen or so sources I added, I'm pretty sure none of them could be considered to potentially violate wikipedia policies.

And you started a new section why? The Lozowick source is self published, read BLP & BLPGROUP. Remove it or I shall revert you. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, that link is not to contributors for the CiFwatch sit, it is a list of people working for Comment in Free at the Guardian. So it is a blog, self revert all of your change now, or I will. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

1. From Wikipedia:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Please explain why Lozowick should be excluded in light of that.

2. All of my changes? That's quite extreme and I can't see how it makes sense. You have a problem with one or two of them, so all should be removed? Furthermore, yes, I linked to the wrong page about CiF Watch. Here is the correct one: http://cifwatch.com/managing-editor/ It is not a blog, and if you go through the first few pages, you'll notice a variety of different contributors. HaleakalAri (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

What all two of them? That is a SPS and violates BLP, are you gonna self revert or do I have to do it for you? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, from BLP "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs." Darkness Shines (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)