Revision as of 01:41, 12 September 2018 editMeatsgains (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers75,342 edits →Survey: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:56, 12 September 2018 edit undoIcewhiz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users38,036 edits →DiscussionNext edit → | ||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
::There is follow-up reporting on the substance, what are you talking about. Milstein's denial of the claim has received widespread coverage, as has obviously the accusation itself. Eg , , . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)</small> | ::There is follow-up reporting on the substance, what are you talking about. Milstein's denial of the claim has received widespread coverage, as has obviously the accusation itself. Eg , , . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)</small> | ||
::Also, flat out calls him Canary Mission's founder. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)</small> | ::Also, flat out calls him Canary Mission's founder. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)</small> | ||
::: One needs to be careful when using translations - ''Le Monde'' is merely describing the bits of canned footage that were leaked. It does not take "ownership" of the assertions in the footage - merely describes them. How about finding a source that was actually published imstead of relying on "censored" (a term that was actually in the lede) or canned footage that was not actually published and that some (not that many) outlets speculated on why they were not published? ] (]) 03:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Non-BLP sourcing for serious accusations == | == Non-BLP sourcing for serious accusations == |
Revision as of 03:56, 12 September 2018
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 sourced must 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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
Tax evasion
More is needed on his tax evasion conviction, which is mentioned in passing in a "JNS" article, and more in general on controversies. The problem is a lack of reliable sourcing, as he has mainly been covered in blogs. We had a "criticism" section that contained close paraphrases from the JNS article and also seemed UNDUE. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Added from a primary source. I see there is a paid editor working on this article. If he is truly interested in building an encyclopedia, as paid editors always claim, the way to do it is to suggest sources that deal with his criminal convinction, which is underweighted in the article due to lack of sourcing. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Adam Milstein. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150107002459/http://www.israeliamerican.org/board-of-directors/ to http://www.israeliamerican.org/board-of-directors
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130925203529/http://hagerpacific.com/about_hager_pacific_properties.html to http://www.hagerpacific.com/about_hager_pacific_properties.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150215034535/http://www.sp-ba.org/who-we-are to http://www.sp-ba.org/who-we-are
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150215034535/http://www.sp-ba.org/who-we-are to http://www.sp-ba.org/who-we-are
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727191656/http://www.hagerpacific.com/adam_milstein.html to http://www.hagerpacific.com/adam_milstein.html
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) 13:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
RfC on Al Jazeera Documentary
|
The following text was recently added to the lead of the article:
- The Lobby – USA, a censored Al-Jazeera documentary about the Israeli lobby in the USA, features hidden camera footage of Eric Gallagher claiming that Milstein funds The Israel Project, as well as Canary Mission.
The text in question was added via these edits, sourced to Electronic Intifada and Haaretz. Should this text be removed? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Survey
- Yes per WP:UNDUE, WP:V, WP:REDFLAG and WP:BLP. EI is not a reliable source. Our policies require better sourcing for contentious material in biographies of living persons. The phrasing of the addition is POV ("censored") and the placement in the lead is UNDUE. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes (Remove). Clearly UNDUE. No reliable source - EI is not a RS. Haaretz is claiming he is mentioned in an AJ doco that was canned and never published by AJ (a strong indication the doco failed AJ's editorial process). Definitely not lede worthy, and UNDUE all together - besodes failing sourcing per BLP policy.Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- No (Move to body) The Haaretz mention is a reliable source, and the wording of the text provides sufficient context to the accusation to not be WP:UNDUE. However, including it in the lead would be undue. signed, Rosguill 21:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- No (Move to body) It is not significant enough to be in the lead, but it should be mentioned somewhere in the body, together with mr Milstein denial. Huldra (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- No - widely covered in reliable sources, see below for just a few. Suffice it to say, when JTA, Haaretz, and the Time of Israel all support the material in question as reported by EI the claim that EI is not a reliable source loses any value. There are a plethora of sources available here. nableezy - 22:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes - The content is WP:UNDUE unless additional reliable sources can be found for support in which case it should be added to the body not the lead. Meatsgains 01:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
It seems misleading to claim as Icewhiz has that the Al Jazeera documentary was "canned" or that it "failed AJ's editorial process": the Haaretz source is quite clear that the documentary was censored by the Qatari government. signed, Rosguill 21:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- In any event it was not released by AJ (Qatari gvmt influence over it a question of AJ being a RS at all). So we have reporting on segments that were supposedly leaked - raw bits of some unreleased whole. The rather limited secondary reporting (mentioning the subject here) is limited to description of these bits with no followup reporting on the substance. We do not actually have a reliable publication standing behind these bits.22:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- There is follow-up reporting on the substance, what are you talking about. Milstein's denial of the claim has received widespread coverage, as has obviously the accusation itself. Eg JTA, Haaretz, Times of Israel. nableezy - 22:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Also, Le Monde flat out calls him Canary Mission's founder. nableezy - 22:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- One needs to be careful when using translations - Le Monde is merely describing the bits of canned footage that were leaked. It does not take "ownership" of the assertions in the footage - merely describes them. How about finding a source that was actually published imstead of relying on "censored" (a term that was actually in the lede) or canned footage that was not actually published and that some (not that many) outlets speculated on why they were not published? Icewhiz (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Non-BLP sourcing for serious accusations
This revert reintroduced serious accusations in contravention to BLP policy. The section cotes three sources - JNS which is a deadlink and does no appear online (despite JNS having aj archove), Electronic Intifada - an advocacy site and certainly npt a source appropriate for a BLP - and EI itself mainly cites a primary document, and the primary court document which does not mention the subject by name and is not usable anyway per BLPPRIMARY. Please do not reinstate without actual secondary RSes backing this up.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have no problem with adding text on the tax evasion conviction if it is reliably sourced. I am perplexed the sourcing is as skimpy as it is. But that is not our fault. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- This individual is not a low key individual. He is covered. One would expect better than an opposed advocacy site citing a redacted judgement.Icewhiz (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- And Milstein (or someone close to him/sympathetic to him) have apparently gone through a lot of trouble hiding this. Anyway, we have 3 sources here:
- "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TUVIA MILSZTEIN SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 3 3 4 2 ADAM MILSTEIN (LAST 4 DIGITS)". FindACase.
- "Active Philanthropist Adam Milstein – a Growing Connector in the Jewish World". JNS.
- Why did Israel intervene for convicted US felon Adam Milstein? Abraham Greenhouse, The Electronic Intifada, 15 December 2014
- Do you seriously think that archive.org have falsified the JNS page? In addition we have the case file. Sorry, User:Icewhiz, you have no case here, and I think you know it. I will take this to the WP:BLP/N, if necessary, Huldra (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- The redacted case file fails BLPPRIMARY (and there may be issues with RSness as well), the JNS archive is dead, and EI is not a source appropriate for such a BLP accusation. Beyond this we have UNDUE to consider - even if true, this is a very minor tax conviction which seems to be ignored by more mainstream sources covering the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- When I click on the Web Archive link I get text which then vanishes. That is the only usable source. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- A weird gray filter appears over the text when I open the link. However, I am then able to click a button that says "clear" and read the article without interference. signed, Rosguill 21:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- I was able to read it by instantly pressing "print." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- A weird gray filter appears over the text when I open the link. However, I am then able to click a button that says "clear" and read the article without interference. signed, Rosguill 21:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- When I click on the Web Archive link I get text which then vanishes. That is the only usable source. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- The redacted case file fails BLPPRIMARY (and there may be issues with RSness as well), the JNS archive is dead, and EI is not a source appropriate for such a BLP accusation. Beyond this we have UNDUE to consider - even if true, this is a very minor tax conviction which seems to be ignored by more mainstream sources covering the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- And Milstein (or someone close to him/sympathetic to him) have apparently gone through a lot of trouble hiding this. Anyway, we have 3 sources here:
- This individual is not a low key individual. He is covered. One would expect better than an opposed advocacy site citing a redacted judgement.Icewhiz (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is an interesting situation. We have three sources: a murky, uninformative reference to a "tax evasion conviction" in an otherwise puffy JNS article; Electronic Intifada (unusable, not an RS source); and lastly we have a Find-a-case court decision that has two problems: first it relates to a "TUVIA MILSZTEIN" not Adam Milstein. Where is the reliable secondary sourcing to indicate that they are the same person; secondly it is a primary source and no, that is not optimal for indicating the nature of a criminal conviction. What if there were other proceedings? "Connecting the dots" and relying on non-RS sources strikes me as contrary to WP:OR. On balance I don't like the sourcing one bit. We need clear and reliable sourcing if we're going to slap a criminal conviction into someone's bio. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think we can be pretty sure Milstein would have been suing Electronic Intifada to hell and back by now, if what they wrote about him wasn't true. (It isn't as if Milstein couldn't afford it..) Huldra (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, we don't allow blogs and non-RS websites as sources for contentious material in bios, period. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is not what I said,Huldra (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, well you've included that source as a reference to text you have sought to include. If you agree that it is not allowed by WP:V, why did you include it? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, I do not agree that it is not allowed pr WP:V (I see no such consensus on the WP:RS/N) Having said that, I would not have argued including if we solely had the EI source. That is different from what I stated above, and will repeat: if what EI had written (about Milstein) wasn't correct, I suspect he would have sued them to hell and back. He hasn't, why is that, do you think? Huldra (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think that it might very well be true. I'm not arguing its truth. There are plenty of true things we can't have in Misplaced Pages because they are in blogs like EI. It's an advocacy website/blog, but if you wish to advance that it is an RS source then you need to make that case. I think that on its face it fails BLP and V, and that it is incorrect to state that we can use its text in BLPs, the absence of better sources notiwthstanding. Whether it is used solely or in concert with other sources is immaterial. Some types of sources just aren't allowed for BLPs. I haven't checked RSN, but I'd suggest that if it's not there it is because no on has ever tried to use it as a source because it is obviously unacceptable. But perhaps I'm wrong on that. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- I see I am wrong as EI has been discussed now and then, inconclusively. But I'm not seeing any discussion of its use in BLPs. I think that would be a bridge too far. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I count 21 instances where Electronic Intifada has been discussed on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (and 16 cases for Mondoweiss). Some people have tried very hard for years to have them both banned as sources, ...but have not succeeded. As I said, for a BLP I would use it, but I would not use it alone, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, I do not agree that it is not allowed pr WP:V (I see no such consensus on the WP:RS/N) Having said that, I would not have argued including if we solely had the EI source. That is different from what I stated above, and will repeat: if what EI had written (about Milstein) wasn't correct, I suspect he would have sued them to hell and back. He hasn't, why is that, do you think? Huldra (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, well you've included that source as a reference to text you have sought to include. If you agree that it is not allowed by WP:V, why did you include it? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is not what I said,Huldra (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, we don't allow blogs and non-RS websites as sources for contentious material in bios, period. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think we can be pretty sure Milstein would have been suing Electronic Intifada to hell and back by now, if what they wrote about him wasn't true. (It isn't as if Milstein couldn't afford it..) Huldra (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Le Monde Diplomatique: Kleinfeld managed to talk to Canary Mission’s founder and financial backer, Adam Milstein, chairman of the Israeli-American Council (IAC). Milstein was jailed briefly for tax fraud in 2009, but that didn’t prevent him from carrying on his activities from prison. nableezy - 22:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, that passes muster. I have to say, I find it weird as hell that we have to scrape together text on someone's tax evasion conviction. Maybe he did cover his tracks. But it's not our job to "right great wrongs." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not really, when you have as many millions as Milstein, Huldra (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Or maybe he is just not important enough for the mainstream media to write about. Either way, this speculation (including my comment, frankly) has no place here. BLP covers talk pages as well as mainspace. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not really, when you have as many millions as Milstein, Huldra (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, that passes muster. I have to say, I find it weird as hell that we have to scrape together text on someone's tax evasion conviction. Maybe he did cover his tracks. But it's not our job to "right great wrongs." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Early life
The entirety of that section is sourced to either a self-published bio or to a blog entry by a marketer, with the sole exception of him having an MBA, which is sourced to the about the board on the IAC website. It is nearly all self-serving, and none of it reliably sourced. If better sourcing is not provided I intend to hack away. nableezy - 23:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- A subject is usually considered a reliable source on himself, unless the material is unduly self-serving. Frankly I don't quite understand how this bio passes muster per WP:BIO. It is shaping up as a battleground and may be more trouble than it's worth. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Heh, heh, you are not accustomed to the IP area, are you? Huldra (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not unusual for articles that are a subject of paid editing, which this one is and which initially drew my attention to this article. See my comments from 2016. We have a situation that is often found among marginal persons who have paid editors, which is lack of sourcing. The difference is that here we have editors willing to enthusiastically make up that deficiency with patently unacceptable sources. We'll see how this shapes up but I'm not adverse to nominating this for deletion at some point if warranted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Heh, heh, you are not accustomed to the IP area, are you? Huldra (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see what's so self-serving about this section. Having participated in the 1973 War is pretty unremarkable for an Israeli citizen aged 21 at the time. Milstein's parents' immigration history is arguably presented in more detail than is relevant, but I don't really see how it's self-serving. signed, Rosguill 23:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. It's not unfavorable but doesn't cross over into puffery. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Israel-related articles
- Low-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- Start-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- WikiProject California articles
- Start-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- Unassessed University of California articles
- Unknown-importance University of California articles
- WikiProject University of California articles
- Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment