Jump to content

Talk:Emergency Committee for Israel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Occupy Wall Street Anti-Semitism reference

[edit]

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. -- Kendrick7talk 01:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Talk/Stalk 02:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Some potential news sources

[edit]

At the bottom of the page: Emergency Committee for Israel Is Bad for Israel — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

[edit]

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)[reply]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that "Badrachel" was Rachel Abrams' own blog. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced statement, possible original research

[edit]

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.[1]
  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.[2][3]

The first statement is sourced to a blog. The second statement is sourced to two primary sources; secondary sources are preferred. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Talk/Stalk 03:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That isn't relevant. It's WP:Original research since the information is taken from WP:Primary sources or unreliable sources - the ThinkProgress blog. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. And information must verifiably come from notable, reliable sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the Federal Elections Commission is a "notable, reliable source". Stating the source of ECI's funding is not OR. Nor is it OR to state that critics have raised questions about whether the financing of ECI has impacted ECI's editorial position when those critics are clearly and cited. If you disagree with any one of these statements, please clearly state which ones and elaborate as to why you think they are incorrect positions. Greg Comlish (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, later I'm going to add another citation from JewishJournal that should obviate this discussion [4]. Greg Comlish (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source will be useful for material on OWS and ECI's comments about them. nableezy - 14:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Abrams blog post

[edit]

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)[reply]

Rachel Abrams personal blog is a reliable source for what is written in Rachel Abrams personal blog. JStreet is a reliable source for the positions held by JStreet. Rachel Abrams literal words are "Celebrate, Israel, with all the joyous gratitude that fills your hearts, as we all do along with you. Then round up his captors, the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women—those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others—and their offspring—those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god—as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose." Greg Comlish (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is another grey one - the blog post seems to be from Abram's blog, and so could be argued to be included under WP:SPS (see above) as a statement about herself. However, I'm not sure if this is how is supposed to be interpreted. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Emergency Committee, not Rachel Abrams. Using her to criticize the Committee is falling into WP:Attack and WP:Coatrack territory and simply stating matter of factly that Abrams "called for the slaughter of Palestinians, including children" is untrue, inflammatory and a violationg of WP:BLP. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it violates BLP if its clearly sourced. You're right about the question of whether her personal views belong on the ECI article. Its ironically similar to the the antisematism claim (the view of a minority inferred to be representative of entire group). Its the same issue on the Tea Party article; half the article is about racial slurs that someone peripherally related to the movement said in the background of a meeting. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are secondary sources discussing the blog post and the relationship with this organization. Among them are JTA and Washington Jewish Week. nableezy - 04:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That second source of Nableezy's seems to tie ECI and Rachel's views together - its probably a good argument for inclusion Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violations

[edit]

Be aware that this article is subjec to the WP:ARBPIA 1RR restrictions. User:Greg Comlish is in violation of these restrictions with 3 reverts within 24 hours. I suggest everybody take notice of this and not make the same error. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The afforestation statement by Plot Spoiler falsely characterizes my actions. My recent edit [5] to ECI was meant to find a middle ground between opposing viewpoints by including in additional information that was not in the original edit in accordance with the arguments set forth in the talk page. This edit was not a reversion but an evolution of the article. The edit was an authentic attempt to resolve disputes and the characterization of this as "edit warring" is false. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation?

[edit]

Can somebody tell me how allowing Sestak's response to ECI's smear is a BLP violation or how including links between ECI and Wall St. firms could possibly be a BLP violation? And then why this edit by an obvious sock puppet should not be reverted?

It's not a BLP violation, simple as that. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TYT debunks false anti-OWS ad

[edit]

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEPgAp5Mkyc 24.214.230.66 (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emergency Committee for Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emergency_Committee_for_Israel&oldid=1207106765"