Misplaced Pages

Talk:Emergency Committee for Israel

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Plot Spoiler (talk | contribs) at 02:29, 3 November 2011 (→Poorly sourced statement, possible original research: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:29, 3 November 2011 by Plot Spoiler (talk | contribs) (→Poorly sourced statement, possible original research: response)(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 iconIsrael
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPolitics
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconConservatism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

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)

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)

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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)
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)
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)
But I still think its worth mentioning the funding base for ECI - probably best in the lead Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
You don't have any reliable sources for this information. Would not include such information on the possible Loeb connection until it is brought forward in reliable sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
ThinkProgress is arguably a RS (though not neutral), as it is a notable edited blog rather than a self published one (+ the funding info is backed up in the primary sources added by Greg). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The funding facts are from the FEC and thoroughly sourced and people claiming otherwise need to take a look at the references. The ThinkProgress article said that in their opinion the facts raised questions about whether the Wall Street funding of ECI influenced their editorial position towards OWS. In my view, it doesn't matter whether or not you think ThinkProgress is biased or not because the wikipedia article was only refering to ThinkProgress to justify the fact that questions had been raised about the impact ECI's funding. I will try to copyedit the wikipedia article to make this point clearer. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
That isn't relevant. It's WP:Original research since the information is taken from WP:Primary sources or unreliable sources - the ThinkProgress blog. Misplaced Pages is based on verifiability, not truth. And information must verifiably come from notable, reliable sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Abrams blog post

This clearly doesn't belong, especially because it relies on sources that are not WP:RS or highy POV - such as Abram's blog or JStreet. To say that Abrams called for the "slaughter of Palestinians, including children," is not factual, highly inflammatory and possibly defamatory -- a violation of WP:BLP. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories: