This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Several users have tried to add an Instagram story that Silverman shared (from another Instagram user). However, Silverman did not state her agreement with the content. In addition, she tweeted from her personal account that sharing the story was a mistake.
Unless a person shares an opinion through their own words, or adds their words to someone else's opinion, it cannot be understood or "suggested" to be that first person's opinion. Silverman has said (through her own words) a number of comments about the conflict in Israel/Palestine, and a neutral summary of those comments could be included in this article. Wiki9814 (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize she tweeted a retraction, that's good to know. Still, there is now news coverage (not high quality) of the story, it may be worth noting she posted and deleted the story since it was notable enough to receive coverage, if it goes beyond tabloid sources
"Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis."
I don't believe there's anything wrong with this specific article on an individual basis, but we can wait a few days or longer and see if it's worth including. Ashvio (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you are going about this backwards; you are determined to have Silverman's Instagram post added to this page and are spending time trying to find different sources to justify it. Even if reputable sources discuss Silverman's deleted Instagram story to the point where it should be included, I do not believe you are the one who should make that determination.
"Though it is not hard to argue she has supported war crimes"
"Your edits jeopardize my edits which document her support for Israel including her support for removing electricity and water, from which readers can draw their own conclusions"
I believe you have a specific agenda in editing this article and would advise you to not continue to make edits on the pages of individuals you have strong opinions about, as that makes it very difficult to remain neutral.
Hello, I believe every editor on Wikipedia has biases on nearly any charged topic such as these, but it's still possible to maintain objectivity and neutrality even with such biases. You can see this by the fact that I did indeed remove unhelpful edits even though I agreed with their content, because they were too charged and unhelpful as well as poorly sourced.
I do have an "agenda" insofar as that I believe a politics and activism section for a prominent celebrity should properly document all the political positions they take, in a neutral and unbiased tone. The purpose of this section is to inform users of Silverman's political beliefs on this topic that is very important to a large number of people, and the fact that several news sources have covered Silverman's social media posts helps prove that it is a notable belief of hers that is worth documenting in her page, so long as it is properly sourced and NPOV. It also ties into previous edits to the section around her DSA membership that was revoked and makes the section more chorological and cohesive.
Additionally, I find it dishonest that you cut out sections of my comments that show I am committed to neutrality despite my personal beliefs. The full quote "Though it is not hard to argue she has supported war crimes, there is a very high standard of evidence required to post something like this factually--you would need a more direct support of this and also likely a secondary source. " And the bit about "from which readers can draw their own conclusions" is the purpose of Wikipedia. We provide facts, readers draw their own conclusions and ideas as they wish.
I'm happy to follow suggestions around recency bias and have not fought back on any reasonable argument against the edits. Ashvio (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two things I'll pull out of your statement:
"I believe a politics and activism section for a prominent celebrity should properly document all the political positions they take"
"inform users of Silverman's political beliefs on this topic"
Responding to these two claims. Silverman has made many posts on Israel/Gaza since October 7. None of which you decided to include, just the Instagram story one. Second, there is not any evidence that Silverman "supports war crimes" or "supported the blockade of humanitarian aid such as water and electricity into Gaza". Sharing another person's post does not imply complete agreement.
Even if you look at the post in question
"There is a very strange thing happening. Many are saying that it's inhumane that Israel is cutting off water/electricity to Gaza. Israel made it pretty simple - "release the hostages and we will turn it back on". Instead of pleading with Hamas to release CIVILIAN hostages which include BABIES and TODDLERS there are politicians (cough couch AOC) calling Israel inhumane. If that isn't enough for you: ISRAEL DOES NOT NEED TO SUPPLY GAZA WITH THESE RESOURCES (which they do, for FREE). If Hamas didn't spend billions of dollars on terrorism they would be able to build the infrastructure to support themselves."
I'm not sure you can draw the conclusions that you are drawing. The post suggests that the author believes Gazans should ask Hamas to release civilians instead of asking Israel to resume water/electricity. It also suggests that Israel does not need to supply Gaza with these resources. But this point is moot anyway since sharing someone else's story does not imply agreeing with it. In addition, the Silverman posted that sharing it was a mistake. You simply cannot assume that Silverman "supports war crimes" or "supported the blockade of humanitarian aid" from her social media feed. Any attempt to ascribe these specific opinions to her is not based on the evidence.
Again, Silverman has made a number of statements using her own words. For example:
If you were indeed trying to properly document "all the political positions they take", certainly these could be included? Again the choice of what to include or not include can bring in biases, and it does not represent a neutral point of view to simply choose one statement (not even her own words, and one she deleted as a "mistake") to ascribe certain political opinions to her that she has not stated herself, but not include other statements that were her own words.
If you continue to disagree, I would recommend bringing in an experienced Wikipedia editor or a few who can moderate and determine what the best course of action is.
You have made several additional false statements about my activities and beliefs. Please refrain from such dishonest accusations as they make you appear bad faith and attempting to attack me personally rather than have a constructive discussion. I am not contesting the removal of the story from the page since she has retracted it, and we should wait for more news coverage to decide on notability for inclusion into the article.
"Responding to these two claims. Silverman has made many posts on Israel/Gaza since October 7. None of which you decided to include, just the Instagram story one." : This is incorrect, I added another of her social media posts to the article which is still on the live version. The general theme of her position and her posts has been supportive of the Israel side of the conflict, as noted by the content as well as perception of her beliefs among the public. The post I added to the article as well as all the posts you share are in line with the arguments and posts made by supporters of Israel if you approach the situation with Wikipedia:NPOV.
"Second, there is not any evidence that Silverman "supports war crimes" ": I never claimed there is sufficient evidence for supporting war crimes to include in the article. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, I specifically reverted edits by another user claiming she supported war crimes because it violates neutrality and source guidelines.
""supported the blockade of humanitarian aid such as water and electricity into Gaza". It is reasonable to believe someone who is constantly resharing posts and articles they agree with are indeed in support of those words and actions. However, since she retracted the post and admitted she was not thinking clearly/under the influence, I am not suggesting adding it back without that additional context. It doesn't really matter, but yes the post she shared clearly and specifically is trying to justify the blockade of Humanitarian aid to Gaza, which I could find 20 reliable sources to back up if it was necessary to do so.
All the posts she has shared you posted here are very clearly and obviously in support of Israel. 86% of Israelis blame Netanyahu as she does for the attacks, but I doubt you would say 86% of Israelis do not generally support Israel's side in the conflict. You are free to add sources to the claim on the live page saying she supports Israel, but they do not change the beliefs. The Instagram story, had she not retracted it, would have been a valid addition to her beliefs page as it was covered by several news outlets which is not a common thing for a celebrities social media posts.
Finally, there's no reason to continue or escalate this conversation further. I am not contesting any edits to the page or suggesting the story should be added back after the retraction until more time has passed. At this point, I am simply defending my reputation from your attacks which feel personal and disingenuous at this point over what I believe rather than edits and actions I've actually made. Ashvio (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.png){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
