Talk:2024 J.E.W.I.S.H creatives and academics doxxing incident

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Antisemitism and targeting Jews vs. whistleblowing

Hi all

I've added more sources which attribute the primary motivation of the leak to antisemitism and a desire to target Australian Jews. These constitute the vast majority of sources, and per Wikipedia:WEIGHT should be reported accordingly. I have attached quotes to the sources I have added to the introduction, and there are many more that could potentially be added.

Copland appears to be the *only* source who offers an unambiguous defence of the leak as a form of whistleblowing. Keane does not say that the leak was justified as such but see a double standard in how it has been reported compared to others. Many sources also note that members of the group were targeted en masse regardless of political views or attitude towards Zionism.

I think that it's UNDUE to overemphasise the few sources that have defended or excused the leak. I think the balance of Wikipedia:RS strongly indicate that almost all sources attribute the leak as an attack on Australian Jews. Noteduck (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Noteduck. Firstly, I just wanted to say these edits of yours were not only completely fair but also important to point out: [1][2].

Bearian said at the deletion nomination that "probably about 1/4 of the sources [in the article] are unreliable". At the time, I believe the only sources I had added were Crikey and The Conversation (website), which you yourself acknowledged on this talk page are both fine. I therefore think it's fair to say that accordingly to a neutral and extremely experienced editor, about one quarter of the sources you have added to the article are probably not reliable.

You and I are the only two major contributors to this article, and I note the editor with the third highest amount of edits has just been topic-banned for his systemic bias in this area. This is not intended as an insult, but I believe the way you chose to write this article shows a strong bias, and I think any dispute resolution process would agree with me. Here's the article as you wrote it before anyone else edited it: [3]. I noted some of the issues at this NPOVN discussion. I will point out a couple issues only for the purpose of anyone new joining this conversation:

• The article made no mention of the group's previous action of targeting the employment of Antoinette Lattouf. The reason this is a problem is because you wrote the article with 38 sources. You must have done an incredible amount of research to find that many sources. I try to adhere to WP:AGF, but its difficult for me to assume you didn't come across this extremely relevant information about the history of the group's actions in such a massive search.
• The article only stated the leakers "contended" that some members of the group were conspiring against pro-Palestinian figures, whereas even some of the sources you used to write the article confirm that this actually happened. Sources used in the article at the time detailed what this campaigning was, which is extremely relevant to an article on this subject, but was not included. Many other sources not used went into detail about the campaigning. As per my point above, given the extent of your research, I think you should have been aware of this.

Buidhe stated with this very recent edit [4] regarding some sources you used, that a statement "seems to fail verification as written with some sources calling it antisemitic but not addressing the leakers' motives?" This issue they have pointed out is a systemic problem here with many of the sources you have chosen. Yes, you are absolutely correct that considerably more sources call this antisemitic than try to defend the leak either partially or in full. However, as noted by others, at least some of the sources that make this accusation are not covering this issue in an unbiased manner, yet the nature of the sources making this accusation are not clarified in an way to the reader. As I also pointed out in the section above, many sources DO NOT describe this as an antisemitic incident, and instead just point out what happened as straight, un-opinionated news. This is not reflected in the article; the sources currently used do not represent the full range of reliable sources discussing the topic.

Of the sources you originally used to describe this as antisemitic, one was Tablet (magazine), a particularly contentious source on Wikipedia which has since been removed by me [5]. Another was an opinion piece by Newsweek, a source that was noted as unreliable at the deletion nomination and that has since been removed by Buidhe. Accusations of antisemitism absolutely should be kept, but the sources used for this and how it is worded considering the sources need a comprehensive, independent review.

As I pointed out at the the NPOVN discussion, I've never edited in this topic before. Despite how long I have been editing Wikipedia, I have no experience in trying to add due weight from biased sources in contentious topics. This article desperately needs a third, neutral editor. Someone who is not me or you, and who also does not have a history of editing in this area from a particular point of view, needs to systemically go through the sources and see if they are unreliable and need to be removed. Of the sources that are kept, in relation to statements and accusations, someone needs to review if sources used represent the full range of reliable sources discussing the topic, whether the sources are accurately summarised, and whether they are given due weight considering any potential bias. Until such time as that happens, I am adding a neutrality tag to the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The problem isn't just POV—it's that the sources cited fail verification, which is a really serious problem given the BLP issues at stake. If you want to ascribe "antisemitic motives" to the leakers, the source absolutely needs to explicitly discuss the leaker's motives. Just calling it an antisemitic action is not enough. Please don't cite op eds either because they are not reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree Buidhe. See the comments of TarnishedPath in the section below. TarnishedPath, what are your opinions on whether such sources should be removed? Keeping in mind this failed verification issue is completely separate from the overall issues of potential bias and the sources chosen not representing the full range of reliable sources, nor the comments at the article's nomination for deletion regarding unreliable sources that need to be removed. The sources and the statements attributed to them need thorough oversight. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane, noting that the lead doesn't need references as long as references supporting it are found in the body, at the moment the second sentence of the lead has four references and the third sentence has 17 references (8 of which have the failed verification tag after them). I'm going to go through now and remove some opinion pieces. Opinion pieces don't' belong in a contentious topic area unless they are from academic sources and written by subject matter experts. TarnishedPath^talk 06:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I've just made an edit at Special:Diff/1275820886 to reduce the number of references in the third sentence of the lead from 17 to 4. I've also changed the sentence to make it not as long. TarnishedPath^talk 07:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciate your input and contributions TarnishedPath. Just clarifying, did you go through citations that appeared in the lead only, or the whole article? I don't expect you to do more than you've already done. I only ask as if you reviewed whether citations are to opinion pieces/unreliable sources in the entire article I'll remove the neutrality tag. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane at present, I've only checked the lead and only removed what was obviously opinion or primary without going too in-depth. TarnishedPath^talk 10:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane so short answer is I'd keep the POV tag for the moment. TarnishedPath^talk 10:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd note that the Crikey article by Bernard Keane is clearly marked "opinion" but is referenced four times. As per WP:RSOPINION:

When using them [opinion pieces], it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion.[6]

In context, I think opinion pieces can be acceptable if they have attribution (on a case by case basis) so long as per WP:BALANCE undue weight isn't given to a single source.

Thanks for sharing the original page: I had mostly read about the leak in the Oz and the Jewish press which largely focused on impact on members of the group. I should have included Copland as more than an afterthought. Putting "contending" "alleged" etc was pretty clumsy interpretation of WP:VOICE on my part Noteduck (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Given the contentious nature of this topic, I'd steer clear of any opinions which aren't academic and written by subject matter experts as much as possible due to weighting concerns. Anyone can have an opinion, it doesn't mean we should cover it, even if attributed. TarnishedPath^talk 08:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Also there's probably other opinion pieces in the article than just the crickey one which is labeled as opinion. Opinion pieces from sources which are less than generally reliable often don't mark what is opinion. TarnishedPath^talk 08:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, sources that are reliable are more likely to be transparent about opinions and disclosures. I.e. Copland declares he once signed a statement of solidarity; less reputable publications wouldn't do that. Each source needs to be looked at one at a time to determine whether they are reliable, or opinion pieces (declared or undeclared). Obviously that's a pretty massive task so I don't expect anyone to do it anytime soon.

Buidhe appears to have removed all statements attributed to opinion pieces, including Crikey, on the grounds they were written by non-notable people: [7]. I actually started typing I thought that was for the best, and that I'd support the Crikey source being removed entirely if all other opinion pieces were removed as well. However, I went to look at the Crikey article while I was typing this and I noticed for the first time that Bernard Keane, the author of that opinion piece, is linked there and does have notability. Granted there's not much at his article, but enough sources exist to flesh it out if someone put the energy in. Anyway, my point being, does the fact that Keane meets WP:GNG and is the news outlet's political editor impact anything? I honestly don't know and I'm not going to fight to re-include some kind of statement from him beyond asking you to reassess the removal considering he has more notability than I think any of us realised to begin with. If this changes nothing that's fine. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

For this sort of stuff I don't think a journalist being notable in enough, by itself, as far as WP:WEIGHT goes. Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones are extremely notable Australian journalists and I don't think either of their ill-informed opinions on this matter (if they had any) would have any weight. Noteduck is correct when he states that we should look at who's opinion it is on a case by case basis to determine weight, but I guess for me that bar is a bit higher when you have people throwing around accusations of antisemitism. TarnishedPath^talk 12:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Good point, that makes sense. And I completely agree with you about raising the bar for a topic this contentious. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I would say that, as this is definitely in the Israel/Palestine CTOP, we want to use the best possible sourcing standards. That would definitely include removing opinion pieces penned by non-experts. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

If anyone wants to go ahead and do it, they have my blessing. I spend more of my time on BLPs and don't fancy getting too in depth checking source by source in an article about an event. TarnishedPath^talk 13:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we might want to discuss each source before removal. I'll go in and catalog each opinion piece's author's area of expertise and then we can discuss. I'll try to leave out anything about their POV. This will be on purpose as I don't think we should be making this decision based on the content of what they said so much as whether they are someone we would expect had something of value to say about it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for offering Simon, that's very kind of you and certainly more effort than I was expecting from anyone; feel free to be bold and just remove more obviously problematic ones. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

With the Israel / Palestine CTOP I really prefer to measure twice cut once if you know what I mean. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

That's completely fair and very admirable of you, I was mostly just wanting to save you some time. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Opinion Pieces

1. Crikey Opinion Piece 1 Author is Bernard Keane, thge politics editor of Crikey. Keane has also written several books on various political topics.
2. [8] Author is Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director fo rthe Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Australian Assocition for Professional & Applied Ethics., Griffith Univesity.
3. [9] Author is Simon Copland, Honorary Fellow in Sociology, Australian National University
4. [10] Nina Sanadze is WP:ABOUTSELF here but has no special expertise.
5. [11] Ramona Koval is an Honorary Fellow in the School of Communication and Creative Arts, Deakin University and is possibly WP:ABOUTSELF here.
6. [12] This has two authors - Alex Demetriadi is a political correspondent for New South Wales for The Australian. Antonella Gambotto-Burke is a journalist and art critic and a memoirist. She has writen three memoirs and / or books about motherhood.
7. [13] Clear mix of news and opinion (I excluded explicitly news articles from review) Shelby Knowles is a freelance journalist who writes for the Wall Street Journal among other publications. Most of her experience is in photo editing in journalistic contexts.
8. [14] Likely opinion piece - blocked by paywall - Carly Douglas is a journalist with prior experience in criminal, political and general news.
9. [15] Ron Kampeas is the Washington DC Bureau chief of the Jewish Telegrahic Agency.
10. [16] This has two authors - Alex Demetriadi is a political correspondent for New South Wales for The Australian. John Ferguson is an associate editor at The Australian.
11. [17] Larry Stillman is an adjunct senior research fellow in the department of human centered computing for Monash University. His work is definitely on the sociological side of the field with a lot of concentration on community informatics and systems of power.
12. [18] Chip Le Grand is a journalist. He has written books about sports journalism, doping scandals and about COVID 19.
13. [19] Presented as news but clearly an opinion piece. John Ferguson is an associate editor at The Australian.
14. [20] Appears to be an opinion piece - citation also makes specific and actionable claims in charged language regarding a specific BLP in headline. Alex Demetriadi is a political correspondent for New South Wales for The Australian.
15. [21] Nomi Kaltmann is a rabbanit in Australia and a writer.
16. [22] Marcia Langton is the holder of the Foundation Chair of Australian Indigenous Studis at the University of Melbourne. She is the Associate Provist in specifi areas of engagement, cultural collections, heritage issues and the development of Indigenous teaching and research activities at University of Melbourne.

There may be false-positives or missed opinion pieces among articles on The Australian. This is because of two factors: 1 - paywalls prevent full review of articles 2 - The Australian seems to readily blend news and opinion reporting in its articles. Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

My initial thoughts: As I mentioned in the thread below I'm very concerned about the use of The Australian in this article as, first off, it's being used rather a lot with several articles written by the same two men. Some of these appear to be opinion others news and most are somewhere in the middle. I'd honestly delete the source from this article where I don't think it's particularly reliable (in context). Item 2 and 3 are likely due - both are professors with specific domain expertise.

I would say that cites 4 and 5 are usable for WP:ABOUTSELF with attribution but should not be used to make statements about third parties.

Cite 11 (Larry Stillman) and 16 (Marcia Langton) are both of questionable significance. Both are distinguished professors whose work is peripheral to the expected domains of expertise but not entirely outside them.

Cite 1 is somewhat questionable but his having written several books about politics means I'd consider inclusion of his opinion as due.

The rest I'd throw in the bin. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 thankyou for taking the time to do that. With the information you've provided I'd be confortable with 2, 3 and 11 as long as there was full attributation. Political correspondents, WP:ABOUTSELF, editors and other WP:RSEDITORIAL/WP:RSOPINION from non-experts is WP:UNDUE in my opinion.

Regarding The Australia references which are behind a paywall, you should be able to access them from the Wikipedia Library using ProQuest which has a lot fo the Murdoch stuff which is behind paywalls. Let me know if you have problems doing that and I can search for the articles tonight after work. TarnishedPath^talk 22:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Thank you so much for doing this. The article desperately needed it. I'd be very interested to see your views on the other sources from The Australian if you can get full access as outlined above, though you've already done more than enough. Firstly, I absolutely agree with both of you that a large number of these need to be removed. I'm inclined to support TarnishedPath's more strict approach. As you note above and below Simon, the article relies disproportionately on The Australian. Considering this, I'd argue that sources 4 and 16, as clear opinions, are the first starting point for trimming back this imbalance. If either of these sources or No. 5 was kept, I'd be arguing to keep No. 1 as well for balance, but I won't oppose all of them being turfed together. In the meantime I'll probably start removing the ones all three of us agree should be removed before too long if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I will archive the sources used on this page starting with the articles from The Australian that are used so people can read them. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources The Australian is listed as "generally reliable" in the same category as The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, with a note that The Australian's coverage on climate change has caused concern. Ergo, there is no reason that articles from The Australian should prima facie be treated as less reliable. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide which treats Crikey and The Conversation as valid as well. Australia has a smaller media environment so there are fewer sources with consensus on reliability. I'll make a few other points after I archive the pages. Noteduck (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree that communikty consensus is that The Australian is "generally reliable". However that is only in regards to factual reporting. For WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL we have different considerations. We need to be mindful that this stuff covers two contentious topic areas. PIA and BLP. TarnishedPath^talk 02:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Also WP:GREL is not a talisman that indicates that a source should never be scrutinized under any circumstances. If they've been blending a lot of fact and opinion together in their reportage on a topic they may be reliable in general... but not for this. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

In a circumstance of blending fact and opinion, my reading has always been that we subject a source to WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 where were up to do in our discussions about removing opinion peieces from non-subject matter experts? TarnishedPath^talk 02:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. I'd spaced on this. I'm on vacation right now and mobile only which isn't ideal for serious work on sources but on Monday when I'm back at my computer I will dig in. Simonm223 (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 I don't blame you for spacing given the shenanigans on the drama board. TarnishedPath^talk 06:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully that is all over now. Simonm223 (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

OK I've gone through and tried to pull some of the more obvious opinion material out of the article. I've also cut a couple things that failed verification. Except for one edit summary that I accidentally posted the edit before completing I've provided detailed edit summaries for each edit explaining my reasoning for any given edit. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The incomplete edit summary should have read: This source is pure opinion and even so it is not being accurately reflected by Wikipedia. Sanandez said, after she was invited to the group, that it felt like a lifeline. This is not the same as the group being for that purpose. Sanandez is unable to speak to the intended purpose of the group as she was not one of its founders. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Simonm223. I'm really happy with the edits you made today. I just wanted to say something regarding this one here: [23]. I personally don't have any issue with pointing out that some people who had left the group had their information shared, providing that this isn't framed in any way as an act of incompetence on the people who shared the information. As you pointed out in the edit summary, the chat log would not have necessarily indicated this. They leakers presumably got a data dump of what the entire chat log at one point, not the live chat log and the members still active when the chat log was shared. But I don't have a problem mentioning that some people had already chosen to leave the chat of their own accord prior to the information being shared. I also don't feel strongly about that being included either. I'm undecided as to whether it's irrelevant regardless, so I will leave that up to you and anyone else here. I just thought I would mention that as my two cents. While I don't actively oppose this change, it was the only one of your edits which I also didn't see as necessary in order to remove the neutrality tag. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Damien, I don't think your assessment is at all incorrect. Expanding my reasoning for removing the line I honestly felt it was something of a non-statement in that I don't think "present membership" was ever expected as the target of the action so much as "present in the chat logs". I did think there was some minor impact to the NPOV balance of the article by its inclusion as there is a (very vague) implication of malice in the idea that absence from the group was not a defense if one had appeared in the logs. With that said, of the various edits I made this is the one I'm least wedded to and if consensus is that it should be restored I'm not going to be overly alarmed. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

A few points as both Wayback Machine and Archive Today are playing up: I'm concerned about the above comment on weaponization of antisemitism [24] The leakers has of course not declared themselves to be antisemitic, but this isn't prima facie proof that they were not motivated by antisemitism. On pieces marked "opinion", please take a bit more care to consider revisiting and refining the material rather than making massive reverts. While Keane's piece (marked "opinion") retains 3 references on this page (which I think is justified) every reference to the piece by Assoc Professor David Slucki has been deleted-he's at Monash's Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation and heads the Monash Research Cluster in Antisemitism Studies - undoubtedly a subject matter expert.[25] Similarly, it seems a stretch to say that Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay[26] is unqualified to talk about discrimination, yet references to her article have been deleted.

I'm happy to merge the citations in the lede per WP:CITEMERGE. The lede as it stands:Politicians and Jewish community leaders described the incident as motivated by antisemitism and a desire to target Australian Jews, while others defended it as a form of whistleblowing. This is not balanced: Copland appears to be the sole source who has unequivocally reached this conclusion.

What I've collated below is far more than needs to be included in the final article (unemployment gives me lots of time) but I do want to point to the sheer weight of sources that have stated that the leak was motivated by antisemitism and a desire to target Jews. Merging the sources in the previous version of the lede:

Multiple sources including politicians from across the political spectrum and prominent members of Australia's Jewish community leaders condemned the leak as antisemitic targeting of Australian Jews.

If you have access to a library membership you'll likely be able to access Pressreader, which is useful to see the breadth of coverage - many, many articles about the leak there. Noteduck (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but merged sources doesn't cut it if they are mostly from individuals who are not subject matter experts in the field. The term antisemitism is thrown around rather loosely by those wishing to push a barrow and I suggest we need experts in regards to this. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The proposed wording seems non-neutral. I would have fo review any removed opinion sources to determine if I thought they were due inclusion. I only reviewed the ones still in the article. Simonm223 (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The current wording

Politicians and Jewish community leaders described the incident as motivated by antisemitism and a desire to target Australian Jews, while others defended it as a form of whistleblowing.

Is quite neutral I think. I see no reason to give weight to the opinions of non-experts. TarnishedPath^talk 11:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Especially since the main difference is a bunch of emotional intensifiers. I agree the current wording is more neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Please read my above comment a little more closely, especially regarding David Slucki TarnishedPath^talk.

"Others Noteduck (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

TarnishedPath please read my comment somewhat more closely, especially regarding David Slucki.

Sorry, I forgot to include Copland in my previous comment:

Multiple sources including politicians from across the political spectrum and prominent members of Australia's Jewish community leaders condemned the leak as antisemitic targeting of Australian Jews, although some defended the leak on the basis that a minority of members had targeted pro-Palestinian public figures (Copland)[27].

It's not our place to say whether spurious claims of antisemitism are everywhere. This might be of interest for a synoptic overview of the group's content.[28] Noteduck (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

It's also not our place to amplify undue claims of antisemitism, particularly given this article has implications for BLPs. On a side note I just removed a clear opinion piece from Crikey which on a first view looked like an argument against the view that what occurred was doxxing. TarnishedPath^talk 11:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Twitter isn't a reliable source besides. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Well it might be if for WP:ABOUTSELF stuff but otherwise, yeah nah. TarnishedPath^talk 12:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm starting to look at the removed references now. The first one - The Maayan Hoffman piece - does not support that the doxing was antisemitic except via inference to the headline. This is insufficient to support the statement. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I will say that the second source (Slucki) may be due attributed mention as with Breakey and Copland as he is an academic in a related field of study. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi TarnishedPath. I don't mind you removing the Crikey piece (No. 1 in Simon's list), but if we're going to remove sources Simon said were either questionable or just should be outright removed, I think we should remove all of them and not just a single one. Accordingly, I've just removed most the rest. I've left referenced 4, 5 and 16 in place for now, since he thought they might be useable while you disagreed; I'm not opposed to you removing them though. I've also left 11 in place which you also thought was OK. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing the rest. I removed the Crickey one and nothing else because I noticed it was one of the early opinions that I missed previously. TarnishedPath^talk 12:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Allon Lee is a lobbyist and I would contend his opinion is undue. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Lorraine Finlay's opinion is probably WP:DUE with attribution. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The second set is all just politicians politicking. The political element of this controversy is already in article with sources so I don't see that adding these in would improve the article - it would likely just bloat the section about the political response. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Moving onto Josh Burns - he's a random MP and we already have a political response section. I don't see anything particularly worth adding his opinion in here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Daniel Aghion is particularly due inclusion - he's a representative of an advocacy group. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Alex Ryvchin is the representative of the same advocacy group. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, before we go further, how about we determine what is now unsupported and discuss whether it is supported by other citations or if it needs to be removed? TarnishedPath^talk 13:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort of do that with the articles being used for comments of politicians. A lot of that is already in the article from other sources or just naming a different set of members of parliament. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

yeah name dropping a bunch of politicians who are probably appealing to their electorate is undue and can be summarised in the political responses section. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd say we should probably stick to ministers and other people with some sort of significance rather than documenting the identical statements of a host of back-benchers. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

especially if the backbenchers are all repeating each other. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 importantly now, there are three references which support the first and second sentence of the lead and none of them say in article voice that what occurred was doxxing. They merely talk about the federal government making doxxing illegal. I think this needs discussion. See the discussion I started below. TarnishedPath^talk 13:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Spender and Daniel are both MPs. Again, we have a section on political responses. We don't need to detail the statement of every MP individually. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Some of these citations are duplicates. Before I go further can @Noteduck please provide a de-duplicated list of citations to save me having to read the same newspaper articles multiple times? Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I can run a script over the article that might remove duplicates. TarnishedPath^talk 13:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes that would be great! I'm not sure how to do that. Can you please look at Wikipedia:PRESERVE and the previous [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Australian Jewish doxxing incident]. You seem to acknowledge that David Slucki warrants inclusion, so perhaps you could think about fitting him in?

Noteduck (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear I meant the citations listed immediately below here at article talk and not the citations in the page itself. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I can look up how in the morning, hopefully TarnishedPath can do it. Executive Council of Australian Jewry is the peak representative body for Australian Jewry, it's worth leaving one source there for source. Josh Burns is "prominent Jewish Labor MP"[https://www.afr.com/world/middle-east/un-adopts-resolution-supporting-palestinian-statehood-20240511-p5jcqq] and surely the most prominent Jewish politician in the country apart from maybe Mark Dreyfus. Please pay attention to WP:PRESERVE! The deletion discussion was rejected just a week ago, affirming the value of the page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Australian_Jewish_doxxing_incident&diff=prev&oldid=1275541410] Noteduck (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry is an advocacy group with political ties to Israel. I don't think its opinions are due inclusion. In general Wikipedia should try not to depend on the positions of political advocacy groups. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The deletion discussion mostly concerned itself with notability. The question of how much weight opinion pieces have in contentious topics is an entirely different consideration. TarnishedPath^talk 15:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Refs

References

Doxxing?

It's somewhat jarring that articles from The Australian (see this) refer to some actions as doxxing while engaging in the act themselves. Thoughts? TarnishedPath^talk 11:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Are there better sources than The Australian that explicitly call this incident doxxing? Or is it all inferrential? Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

TarnishedPath^talk Simonm223 per WP:FORUM citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that such material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.

There are many, many sources that refer to this episode as "doxing/doxxing" which I can source in the morning. You've made rapid cuts to the page without adding much or responding substantively to many of my criticisms. Can you please return to the recent request for deletion and see why this page was tipped for maintaining [29] Noteduck (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The page was kept because of arguments concerning notability, not because of arguments concerning whether opinion pieces were DUE. TarnishedPath^talk 14:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to amalgamate sources and include quotations just as I have been doing. We shouldn't start out from a place of scepticism about antisemitism, which you have suggested [30][31] or suggest that the term "doxxing" is inappropriate based on our own perceptions - we have to just get the best article we can from the sources. Please keep Wikipedia:PRESERVE in mind - there are boundless sources referring to "doxing/doxxing" Noteduck (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Noteduck bundling a bunch of undue opinions together doesn't make them due. I think we'll be left with the best article if we remove opinions, which have no weight, as much as possible. If you believe mine and other's interpretations of policy and guidelines is incorrect, there's an existing discussion at WP:NPOV where you can seek further community input. TarnishedPath^talk 15:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Please adhere to Wikipedia:PRESERVE and consider where the article might need additional sourcing or quotations or other missing material. Noteduck (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

What term do you think could be appropriate for this incident besides "doxing/doxxing"? Noteduck (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, that's why I started this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 00:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE explicitly says If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page. This has been done. A substantial change was identified - the article is too dependent on opinion pieces and on news publishing that blends news reportage with opinion - and changes have been proposed at article talk. So the applicable policy is actually being followed by all parties. Let's instead discuss which sources are due, why, and how to present them.

I, for one, prefer to keep opinions principally to academics who have specific domain expertise and to significant politicians involved. I don't personally feel that opinions from poltical advocacy groups or random journalists are due inclusion. I will note that this position is taken regardless of which "side" any given due opinion is for. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

And by significant I mean party leaders, party whips, governmental ministers and shadow ministers. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, there's an existing discussion? Noteduck (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Noteduck, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Can someone neutral add '2024 Australian Jewish doxxing incident' to their watchlist?. That discussion is how I came across this article. TarnishedPath^talk 03:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I have cut nothing. I made recommendations for cuts that I explicitly said I wanted consensus for before making. But also please avoid amalgamating sources. We want to avoid even the appearance of WP:SYNTH in this topic area. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, as per TarnishedPath's comments above, this page was kept at the deletion nomination due to notability of the incident; it was kept in spite of clear problems with sources.

Noteduck, you say "We shouldn't start out from a place of scepticism about antisemitism", however, have you considered that you wrote this article from a place where you assumed antisemitism was the only possible explanation here? You said yourself on this talk page that you "mostly read about the leak in the Oz and the Jewish press". Before my first edit here the article said this was a "an instance of mass antisemitic doxxing" as if that was a straight and absolutely uncontested fact. The choice of sources used to support this as an undisputed fact in Wiki's voice was particularly interesting: [32]. I read your comment above about mostly reading about this in the Oz and the Jewish press, and I think it's quite plausible that you didn't intend any bias here, you just wrote the article using the sources you choose to read which seem to only cover this issue in one way.

Whether the term in the title 'doxxing' is appropriate has been in the back of my mind for some time now, though I considered it secondary to the massive problems the article had with sources. Something Noteduck is correct about is that there are far more sources that call this doxxing than whistleblowing, but what the article does not reflect is that the term doxxing is not unanimously applied to this. It's called doxxing by critics, of which there are many, but many sources don't call this doxxing (or antisemitic), and just report it as straight news. If we're discussing the term 'Doxxing' we should also consider the current use of 'Jewish' in the title either. Yes, all the members of the group chat were indeed Jewish. I also don't doubt for a second that antisemitic people jumped on the bandwagon here and threatened people purely out of hate. But considering members of the group were conspiring against Pro-Palestinian people, the leakers stated reason for sharing the details is absolutely plausible, as is the argument that the fact group members were Jewish was irrelevant to the leak. Accordingly, I don't consider this to be a 'Jewish' incident per se, I consider this to be a 'J.E.W.I.S.H creatives and academics' incident.

This article's original title, February 2024 doxxing of Jewish Australian creatives and academics, was more neutral. The article was moved to its current title by the person who was topic banned in this subject following the NPOVN discussion. They changed the article title here: [33] I would propose moving the article to '2024 J.E.W.I.S.H creatives and academics doxxing incident' to reflect the name of the group involved, even before a consensus is reached about whether to call this a doxxing. Other suggestions are welcome.

Because I have no prior experience in editing in contentious topics, I originally asked one neutral editor for feedback about what to do about my concerns about this article. That person suggested I start the NPOVN article. Considering this group was involved in a previous notable incident (the termination of Antoinette's employment), that editor also questioned whether the title of this article should be about the second incident at all, and whether the title should just be 'J.E.W.I.S.H creatives and academics'. So the article being about the group itself, rather than the notable incident involving the group that got the most media coverage. It's an interesting idea that I'd like to hear feedback on. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

'2024 J.E.W.I.S.H creatives and academics doxxing incident' would be marginally better as it would remove the implication of antisemitism from the title. I still think we could do better, but just can't think of any alternatives at present. TarnishedPath^talk 03:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

please refer to direct quotations from the sources and lay them out if you want to make changes - there is so much I have provided. Contention of antisemitism come from the sources please look at the sources and the quotations. See WP:TITLE. Damien please look up this incident on Pressreader or Proquest to see the most common terms used. I am spending upwards of eight hours a day on this page trying to keep up with the rapid pace of argument which began as soon as the request for deletion was rejected. The entire counter-argument appears to be based on the one Copland source. This incident literally led to doxxing being added to the criminal code so the argument against seems weak. Noteduck (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm well enough aware of naming policies, such as WP:POVTITLE. You don't need to tell me to read it. If I did have ideas about the best article name right now, I would have already started a WP:RM discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 07:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Noteduck most of the loudest claims of antisemitism either come from people who were members of the subject group or from Murdoch associated newspapers. Those that come from people of significance, such as the statements of Lorraine Finlay, Anthony Albanese or from academics with relevant domain expertise like David Slucki are, in my opinion, due attributed inclusion. Likewise the statements of Hugh Brakey and Simon Copland, who do not believe that the reasons for the disclosure was antisemitic, should be included with attribution. What we should not be doing is stating in wiki-voice that this incident was antisemitic. Furthermore if there is a dispute in reliable sources as to whether this incident was doxing or whistleblowing then we report these perspectives with attribution to reliable sources rather than putting our fingers on the scale. And one way to put fingers on the scale is to cram a bunch of lower-quality sources that largely come from the same publications and often the same authors into the article to make it seem like there's an overwhelming majority position that simply doesn't exist when one looks at the sources holistically and with an eye to source quality. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane and @Simonm223, I've made some further edits in which I've removed unsupported statements and opinion peices/interviews with non-notable individuals. I've also performed the page move suggested above by Damien. On that basis I've removed the NPOV tag. Please let me know if there are other issues which require that the NPOV tag stay. TarnishedPath^talk 02:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Due to the edits from yourself and Simon223, and the name change, I am indeed supportive of removing the tag. I don't see any obvious outstanding issues. I will keep the article on my watchlist, but at this stage, as other editors are watching the article and also addressing issues themselves, I will recuse myself from editing the actual article further, with the exception of non-controversial formatting fixes, and reverting vandalism and violation of the contentious-topics policy as outlined at the top of the page. As I've always said, I was only addressing concerns myself as nobody else had become involved yet. Thanks to both of you for volunteering your time here. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Significant POV issues

The language used in this article seems to be actively downplaying the event leading up to the doxxing incident, ie the purposeful active attempt to silence and have Antoinette Lattouf be fired, along with plans in the group to do the same with several other pro-Palestinian speakers after that success, which was extensively covered at the time. But this article mentions that at the beginning of the overview and never again and the lede tries to summarize it as "a minority" of the group were involved when that wording isn't used lower down. This all seems like a way to handwave the severity of the originating incident. Silverseren^C 03:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Silver seren. As mentioned above, I've recused myself from expanding/reworking the article. As a person who can speak to the history of the article though, the entire article was originally written about the later campaigning against Ford and others that occurred long after the successful campaign against Lattouf. The article originally mentioned nothing about Lattouf and the information about her there now was added later by myself, though the lead was never rewritten to reflect this new information I added as we had much bigger POV issues at the time. I also did not do a deep dive on this subject and pretty much just used the first two sources I found that appeared to cover the issue from a non-partisan viewpoint. I don't disagree at all the Lattouf incident could be mentioned in the lead, or that it could be expanded more in the body if there's adequate coverage of further details. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to do that, as long as you participate in the WP:BRD process if someone reverts your edits. Otherwise just propose your changes here. Please use good quality sources if expanding the article (at least check sources at WP:RSP before using and avoid clearly partisan sources if more neutral ones exist) and as per the discussion above, we're only accepting opinion pieces (including things that are clearly opinion pieces though are not specifically declared as such) from experts in subjects that are at least peripherally related to what they are commenting on. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren, you're correct. @Simonm223 and myself recently did a bit of editing to remove POV issues which were even more significant and I guessed me missed that. I see no issue with you adding any content about the WhatsApp group being used to silence Lattouf and others in the lead up the doxxing incident. TarnishedPath^talk 02:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

As long as it's reliably sourced it's fine with me too. Simonm223 (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The reliably sourced bit is always a given. There's probably already sourcing used in the article that covers the stuff in more detail and the article just isn't reflecting that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I know. I just like to tread particularly carefully in this particular CTOP. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Are you interested in fixing this issue, or did you just want to point it out? In any case, while I agree with you that this needs addressing, I don't see this as a significant issue. I see it as something that can be fixed with an extra half a sentence in the lead, and perhaps that much more in the body as well, and any potential addition in the body would be dependent on reliable sources. I'm not necessarily saying the article shouldn't have more than that, I'm just saying that in my opinion, that is all that would be needed to remove the tag, and if you disagree you're really going to have to specify exactly what wording needs to be added, and which source supports your proposed wording, in order to justify keeping the tag. I'm going to ask you first if you want to either make the changes you see fit or propose them here, with sources. If you aren't interested in that or don't reply (which is fine), considering there's a unanimous consensus here that this proposed change is not a problem, I'll just add it myself and remove the tag, unless someone else wants to do it first (which I'd encourage). I don't want to edit the article at all, but I also don't want to see the article sit with an indefinite tag when the solution is easy and unanimously agreed upon. I still consider myself recused from making changes that don't have unanimous support after prior discussion. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, Damien Linnane, I've made some changes to the lead and additions to the body based on existing sources already in use in the article. I do have a question though: Were there two separate leaks of information? One originally of all the WhatsApp chats between members of the groups and later some other group chats somewhere else that included personal information? Because the timeline here is confusing. The former Whatsapp chat leaks were done in mid January, with reporting already happening on it by January 16. This included information showing the organization of the letter campaign by the two groups and all their other statements of this being purposefully against Lattouf. So, was there a separate leak on February 8th or do we need to update dates here? Silverseren^C 16:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren, I could be wrong, but my understanding was that there was one leak. There's details about a NY Times reporter who was responsible in The Jerusalem Post. TarnishedPath^talk 00:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

So the January date is probably correct then. We might need to update the dates stated in the article if that's the case. I do see why February 8th was used initially, as there is a definitive shift in the reporting it seems from prior to after that specific date. All the initial reporting from the leak in January focused on the reveals about the actions taken against Lattouf and how ABC was manipulated by threats from the two groups. But then starting on February 8th, all of the reporting shifted to talking about the leak as doxxing and bad and then very little of the reporting mentions the actions against Lattouf after that outside of articles directly about her court case. Silverseren^C 00:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Ps, I think your edits so far have added needed detail. So I'm not opposed to you making any changes that you think are necessary. TarnishedPath^talk 00:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Silver seren. Thanks for your edits, but in my opinion they've created a whole new problem. Due to the rewording, the lead now fails to adequately cover that Lattouf was not the only person targeted. The group targeted other people as well, perhaps most notably Clementine Ford, though there were others. I presumed the lead would be reworded to note that Lattouf had been targeting originally, and then attacks on others continued, not that attacks on everyone else would be replaced exclusively by Lattouf. I think it should mention both. What you've reworded in the lead is also not supported by the existing inline citations. None of the three sources at the end of the relevant sentence even mention Lattouf. I think it might also be handy to add in a few words to the prose, or even just a sourced footnote, noting that the police investigation also concluded that claims of "gas the jews" were false. Currently it is just framed as if Lattouf debunking of the videos is an isolated opinion. Here is a source noting that Lattouf's claims were confirmed by forensic police analysis: [34]. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

We should expand the article to discuss all the people involved that there is sourcing available for. And we can adjust the lede as needed to remain a summary of the body. Though...why are there sources used in the lede anyways? I didn't even think about them because I was just summarizing the body content I had added. Your suggestion on the prose addition or footnote sounds good. Silverseren^C 03:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Move the citations from the lead to the body unless they are in the lead to support something which is particularly contentious. That would solve that particular issues. TarnishedPath^talk 03:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now that you mention it, the citations in the lead could just be removed entirely. This article has a history of contention and the citations were added there originally as there was a dispute about whether the attacks actually happened. The original article framed any attacks on pro-Palestinian activists to have only been alleged to have occurred. I'm happy for you to remove the sources in the lead entirely, but if the lead doesn't clarify that Lattouf was not the only target, I'd like to see the POV tag added back on the grounds that it is now the attacks on anyone else that have been downplayed. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we can work through concerns without the need for a POV tag. TarnishedPath^talk 03:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I suppose the first step before removing the lede citations would be to see if they're already used elsewhere in the article or if we need to move them wholesale to somewhere in the body. But before that, to start with, Damien Linnane, would you be able to identify the targeted people we're missing currently and good sources to use about their targeting? You can also go ahead and add that info to the Overview paragraph (maybe start a second one after the Lattouf one at this point?) if you'd like or one of us can once good sourcing is identified. Silverseren^C 04:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

My suggestion for the lead would be a new sentence after the current one mentioning Lattouf. Something along the lines of "... during the Gaza war. After Lattouf was fired, the group continued to discuss ways to jeopardise the employment of other pro-Palestinian activists." That is all that would be required. Nothing else needs to be changed, and no new sources are required. The existing sourcing in the lead already supports this, as does the existing prose in the body. If you want to mention an individual person, just add "of other pro-Palestinian activists, including Clementine Ford", but I don't see that as necessary. The issue isn't that individual people are missing, the issue is that you've reframed the lead to only mention Lattouf was attacked, thereby erasing acknowledgement that there were any other victims. This is not OK. I've already recused myself from making edits without consensus (with the exception of non-controversial copyediting and reverting vandalism), so it would be hypocritical for me to make this change myself after repeatedly stating my recusal. Can you make that change or one like it? I'll give it to the end of the day to for someone to remove the erasure of other victims from the lead before POV tagging the article myself.

Checking the lead shows that the citations there in question are just repeated citations and don't need to be moved. The full sources are in the body. Either remove the citations from the lead entirely, or relocate them to the end of the new sentence I suggested. I don't have a preference, but leaving citations in place for information that they don't back up is clearly a problem. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm taking this article off my watch-list, and will not edit it again, nor will I participate in further talk page discussions. Please don't ping me back here. Before I leave I am making one last edit to the page. People are welcome to revert any part of it. In any case, I don't wish to be notified. Someone tagging the article as POV, then not responding for a week, and then causing a new POV issue with their own edits, and then not fixing the POV issue after it was pointed out, is not something I wish to deal with again.

I'm making the edit I requested above, addressing the issue of other targeted people being erased from the lead. I'm also adding the clarification that Lattouf's assertion was supported by a police investigation. I am, however, removing Silver seren's wording "The Jewish community leaders that ran the two groups", as that really strikes me as editorialising. I'm also removing a historical note explaining some people spell doxing differently, which I think is completely unnecessary. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Merge discussion

There is a merge discussion which concerning this article at Talk:Antisemitism in Australia#Merge proposal TarnishedPath^talk 04:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)