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

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 [1] 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 [2][3] 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: [4]. 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: [5] 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: [6]. 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)