Talk:Jillian Segal

Proposed sentence

Placing criticism of subject without context potentially violates WP:BLP. As such, I am removing the segment until consensus can be reached.

• Option #1 - Keep criticism but offer context + NPOV language: The Jewish Council of Australia, described as a left-leaning Jewish organisation formed earlier in 2024, stated they were concerned that Segal, a past president of the ECAJ, would not be able to distinguish between criticism of Israel and antisemitism.

• Option #2 - Unless Jewish Council of Australia is deemed notable enough to have its own page, leave the material out of the page.

I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this thread. I would propose:

• Striking out "described as a left-leaning Jewish organisation". Described by who? And if "left-leaning" is relevant then should we include that the ECAJ is considered "right-leaning" by the same source? Including "left-leaning" is not NPOV, as it implies that the JCA are criticising Segal because the JCA is left-leaning, which is an interpretation rather than something from a source. Also not sure what the point of the other two sources are- the Jewish Independent source is reliable and says they're left-leaning, the other two are explicitly critical sources of the JCA that don't contain any information not already supported by the first source.
• I'm ambivalent on keeping "formed earlier in 2024". "Earlier" is unspecific and subjective so we can say February 2024 if we want to include the timing. The date of their founding also only needs one source, rather than multiple. This also feels like a contrast with the remark in the previous paragraph that the ECAJ is the "representative body". I think we need to be careful to not be saying "she was praised by a legitimate group, and criticised by some new-formed illegitimate group", because then we're well into POV.
• I would also propose removing "..., a past president of the ECAJ," as that fact is already mentioned above in a previous paragraph. Additionally, including it gives an almost incredulous tone to the sentence, as if saying "The JCA was concerned about Segal, (who by the way is a president of the ECAJ so knows a thing or two about antisemitism!), etc etc". I feel that its inclusion undermines the criticism being made, which is inappropriate in Wikivoice.

GraziePrego (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

On the leftist/left-leaning etc. characterisation: this has been established by the sources provided (Jewish Independent and the Aus. Jewish News.). I've also seen the researcher P. Mendes write about them in this way. He also describes them as Anti-Zionist. As the council has no page on WP it is essential that it's notability be established. If one wants to include their position, it's necessary to explain who they are in lieu of a WP page. There is a need to add more sources as this is a topic no well covered, so multiple sources are ideal. The Council website offers no information as to date of founding, so early 2024 is the best information available. Also it's not difficult to see if the major parties support her role and the representative community organisation supports her role, that this be firmly presented as the political and communal consensus position. Dissent from a newly formed left-leaning pressure group has to be contextualised as such.I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The SBS source you have gives the founding of the JCA as February 2024.

Taking your comment into consideration, how is this wording:

The Jewish Council of Australia, a pro-Palestine Jewish organisation formed in February 2024, stated they were concerned that Segal would not be able to distinguish between criticism of Israel and antisemitism"

"pro-Palestine" is the self-described position of the JCA; the Jewish Independent source doesn't specifically exactly say that they're anti-Zionist, just says "It seeks to counter antisemitism without conflating it with anti-Zionism.", which isn't the same thing. Pro-Palestine is accurate, contextual and neutral. GraziePrego (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I've made a page for the JCA as I think there's well enough sources to have notability. With that in mind, I think

The Jewish Council of Australia criticised the appointment, stating they were concerned that Segal would not be able to distinguish between criticism of Israel and antisemitism.

...is now the appropriate wording. GraziePrego (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

As per WP:NOTSILENCE, pinging @I.am.a.qwerty- if there's no further objection I will add the final version of the wording I have proposed. GraziePrego (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't sent you latest one and I think it's problematic. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You've removed any contextual indicators and now we are back to where we started. Either provide context or remove the sentence entirely. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Context is now provided by visiting the Wikipedia article for the JCA. In exactly the same way, we do not need to say "right-leaning pro-Zionist organisation" whenever we mention the ECAJ, because they too have a Wikipedia page that provides that context. You have justified the need for framing by saying it is required as the JCA does not have a page to provide context for readers, but now they do. GraziePrego (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We can also strike the "Option 2" that you proposed, as the JCA now has its own page and has been reviewed, as such it has been deemed notable. We need only in that case discuss whether the framing words you propose are necessary for inclusion. With that in mind, I shall post this discussion on the "3rd opinion" page, so that we can move past this impasse. GraziePrego (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Dispute regarding the inclusion of extensive framing of a particular organisation when quoting their criticism.):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Jillian Segal and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The SBS News source is high-quality and demonstrates a balanced look at differing viewpoints on Segal's appointment, from Albanese to the JCA. A balanced summary for this article should include different prominent viewpoints for a high-profile appointment such as this, and I believe the JCA's take is noteworthy here at this time. I'd also say that GraziePrego's most recent attempt at the passage is the best yet and should be added to the article. I agree with the criticisms of the initial attempt by I.am.a.qwerty which, while good-intentioned, was a bit too wordy and added some problematic undertones while trying to give additional context. The JCA now having its own page also provides sufficient context in my view. Thanks for letting me chime in. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to point out that your very response points to the need for context. You refer to this newly formed activist group as "the JCA" while in the Jewish Australian context, the JCA acronym refers to the longstanding Jewish Communal Appeal that serves as a representative organisation for the Jews of NSW (together with the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies) and collects and dsitributes communal funds in the same manner as the Jewish Federations in North America. I once again stress that presenting the council statements without context potentially violates WP policy, and I suggest that if context is not offered, the statement must be removed. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

On your SBS point, per WP, everything depends on context. The SBS writers and editors can be treated as WP:RS when it comes to general matters, not when it comes to the internal politics of a small ethnoreligious community. In this case, community researchers, established news outlets, and longstanding representative organisations should be treated as preferred sources of information (and again, each story should be treated on a case-by-case basis). I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Upon doing a bit more reading I've changed my opinion a bit on this (the JCA acronym thing is really beside the point here) and think some context probably should be provided; all press coverage I could find of this appointment made sure to include both viewpoints on the issue however, and Wikipedia should certainly do the same. Nearly all outlets have emphasised the recentness/small-scale of the Jewish Council of Australia however.

• Al-Jazeera mentioned that they have strongly criticised Israel's actions in Gaza.
• ABC said similar.
• The Guardian called them "a relatively new group of Jewish Australians who are critical of the Israeli government".
• The Conversation called it a "smaller-scale Jewish community organisation".
• SMH labelled them "a new community group that opposes Israeli policy".

I've taken another go at writing something here:

• Option #3 - The Jewish Council of Australia, a Jewish community group formed in February 2024 that opposes Israeli policy in Gaza, expressed concern about Segal's appointment, stating that they were concerned that Segal would not be able to distinguish between criticism of Israel and antisemitism.

StewdioMACK (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

A) Jewish community group sounds as if it's representative. Perhaps change to advocacy group.

B) your version addresses the newness but glosses over the antagonism it appears to have created. I think it's not too difficult to call the group controversial and readers can find out more on their page. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

additionally, it would seem one sided if no response to the Jewish council is added at the end. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The bi-partisan support and ECAJ praise are already earlier in the paragraph. That is the response. It's not one-sided. The clause in my proposal explaining their opposition to Israeli policy in Gaza is far more informative than just "controversial", and basically the way every outlet I linked has phrased it, as I demonstrated earlier. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your contributions, StewdioMACK! I am happy with your Option 3.

• @I.am.a.qwerty, "community" is not a synonym for "representative"; you can have community groups that only represent a small amount of people, as long as they are drawn from a community then it's still a community group. "Jews who love Pokemon" would be a community group, and describing them as such doesn't imply that all Jews love pokemon.
• Also, it's specifically described as a "community group/organisation" in several reliable sources, as @StewdioMACK has listed above, so it's a perfectly correct descriptor to use.
• "Controversial" is vague and is the kind of language that assassinates the veracity of the subsequent statement in a reader's head. Also, is that a descriptor used in a reliable source? GraziePrego (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@StewdioMACK, could I suggest a minor change to your option 3? "...opposes Israeli policy in Gaza" seems a bit vague, would "actions" be more suitable than "policy"? Also "Israel's" rather than "Israeli", it's the actions of the country not actions by those of a particular nationality.

I would suggest "... formed in February 2024 that is critical of Israel's actions in the Israel-Hamas war, expressed" etc etc GraziePrego (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm personally happy with those changes. StewdioMACK (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Cool. I'll add that to the article now. GraziePrego (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)