This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Clovis Sangrail (talk | contribs) at 22:29, 2 November 2011 (→Poorly sourced statement, possible original research: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:29, 2 November 2011 by Clovis Sangrail (talk | contribs) (→Poorly sourced statement, possible original research: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Occupy Wall Street Anti-Semitism reference
I'd be happy to find a completely non-opinionated source for this, and would then be open to deleting both Ynet and Al-Jazeera as sources, but let's not pretend both sources aren't simply opposing and opinionated points of view, and for now compliment each other well enough. -- Kendrick7 01:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think its unlikely that there'll be an article about this which isn't in an 'opinion' section. It could be included if the statement is made by someone notable. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- The Ynet article isn't an opinion column. The Al-Jazeera "article" is. Read them both and see if you can't tell the difference. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's what I meant - Kendrick was looking for a 'balance' article with an illustration of media bias. As Ynet shows, there is clear evidence of Antisemitic comments. Its unlikely that the same standard of proof can be met to demostrate that antisematism is being used for gain- there is a lot of opinion, but that thats not the same as a fact. The only way Kendrick's 'balance' can be included is if its referred to as an opinion from a relevant and strongly notable source. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- The Ynet article isn't an opinion column. The Al-Jazeera "article" is. Read them both and see if you can't tell the difference. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Some potential news sources
At the bottom of the page: Emergency Committee for Israel Is Bad for Israel — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Reliable Sources
There is no blanket rule against blogs as reliable sources. It is perfectly appropriate to source some things to blogs. Blogs may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, as is the case here for Rachel Abrams. Likewise J Street's press release is a perfectly appropriate verifiable source for their own statements. Greg Comlish (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I didn't realize that "Badrachel" was Rachel Abrams' own blog. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 03:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Poorly sourced statement, possible original research
I tagged two sentences in the article as problematic.
- In the wake of this portrayal of OWS as antisemitic, transparency advocates have discovered substantial financial ties between the Wall Street firms and the Emergency Committee for Israel.
- Two-thirds of ECIPAC’s contributions in the 2010 election cycle came from Daniel S. Loeb, CEO of Third Point Management, a New York based hedge fund.
The first statement is sourced to a blog. The second statement is sourced to two primary sources; secondary sources are preferred. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 05:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Joining the antisemitic claims and Wall street donations is probably synthesis (eg statement 1). Wall Street has influential conservative business people and they are likely to donate to conservative causes. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Both of those statements are true and both are sourced. In the first there is no synthesis because the facts were connected by the source, not by wikipedia. The second sentence is sourced by secondary sources. The information originally comes from the FEC. Greg Comlish (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- The source for the antisematism / hedge fund information doesnt actually infer that Loeb (or other) has put any new pressure on ECI to make the antisemitic claims, while the wikipedia wording seems to suggest that: 'In the wake of this portrayal of OWS as antisemitic'. Since all the evidence of funding is from before OWS, we just need to separate the two issues. (ie. ECI made antisemitic allegations > true, ECI recieves wall street money > true. ECI makes allegations because of wall street money > maybe / maybe not) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Both of those statements are true and both are sourced. In the first there is no synthesis because the facts were connected by the source, not by wikipedia. The second sentence is sourced by secondary sources. The information originally comes from the FEC. Greg Comlish (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- ThinkProgress, a blog, is not a reliable source; please read WP:BLOGS.
- The second sentence is sourced to primary sources, not secondary sources. (Please have a look at those links, Greg, because you seem to think that posting somebody else's raw data makes a website a secondary source. It doesn't.) Per WP:NOR, specifically WP:PSTS, we should be using secondary sources, not primary sources.
- It seems to me that unless reliable sources can be found that support either sentence, they have to go. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 03:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- ThinkProgress could sneak through as a RS as it is an edited blog - If its really just confirming that secondary source that D.Loeb is a large donor. I don't think what's in the article is strong enough to justify an inference that D.Loeb is bullying ECIPAC to smear OWS. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I want to second what Clovis wrote and also say a few things of my own. The allegations of antisemitism against OWS are from ECI and they admit as much. The money ECI receives from Wall Street speaks for itself and it's well documented by the FEC so that's that (and it doesn't matter if the numbers come from a primary or a secondary source because we're only talking about numbers, not interpreting them). The only thing remaining item is sourcing that critics have juxtaposed of these facts. Since you obviously consider ThinkProgress to be an ipso facto critic of ECI then the reference to ThinkProgress is sufficient. Greg Comlish (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- ThinkProgress could sneak through as a RS as it is an edited blog - If its really just confirming that secondary source that D.Loeb is a large donor. I don't think what's in the article is strong enough to justify an inference that D.Loeb is bullying ECIPAC to smear OWS. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I was treating ThinkProgress as a news source rather than a critic, and with a careful read of the reference you won't find any clear causal link between the allegations and wall street funding. If there was evidence of funding being witheld, that would be another matter - but as it stands the best evidence suggests that a right wing organisation was (and always has been) funded by big business (which is nothing surprising) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
- All unassessed articles
- Unassessed Israel-related articles
- Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- Unassessed politics articles
- Unknown-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Stub-Class Conservatism articles
- Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
- Automatically assessed Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles