Talk:Nina Rosenwald

kudos to RedDogSix GMenken2

Kudos to RedDogSix GMenken2 who created this article before it was deleted a few weeks ago. I retrieved it from a website that saves everything that gets deleted from Wikipedia. That's a wonderful thing because, in my experience, many articles here get deleted for purely political reasons. I'm an inclusionist who interprets our Notability requirement with great latitude. (We all deserve our own Wikipedia articles.) This article version is a re-arrangement of RedDogSix GMenken2's original with added citations. Inclusionists of the world unite—give the POV deletionists a poke in the eye! (The AfD will start any minute now). --72.66.30.115 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks also to Numbermaniac for accepting this new version so quickly (there's a big backlog in new article review). --72.66.30.115 (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: A closer look at the article edit history shows I identified the wrong editor as article creator. I've revised my comments above accordingly. Sorry 'bout that, GMenken2! --72.66.30.115 (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This was deleted via WP:PROD - no one objected so after 7 days it was routinely deleted. It was certainly pov at the time it was deleted and almost half of it was about her parents, not her, as were 4 out of the 5 sources. It's a bit more objective now although the bit about "has focused on supporting human rights and democracy around the world" seems like puffery considering the comments about her anti-Islam stance. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That is how it was deleted. I'm not at all sure that a failure to include libels from political opponents makes a BLP "POV" (but I am glad that Max B ensured her "notability"). That she is involved with Human Rights in China (organization) and was part of Freedom House partially addresses the puffery claim, but I do see what you mean. About her being "anti-Islam", that's just an opinion of her political "enemies" and should be regarded as such, not taken as a proven fact. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is what we do, show opinions. A very bad idea to throw around the word libel, even on a talk page. WP:BLP applies here as well. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear sysop, we do not present opinions as facts using Wikipedia's voice. Blumenthal's opinions about what organizations are "anti-Muslim", "anti-Islam" or ""islamophobic"" must be ascribed to him. Putting quote marks around it in the lead and citing to his hit piece is inadequate as it stands. It currently is a violation of BLP and I will be making the necessary adjustments. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is what I said. I hadn't seen that. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, Doug. I thought you were being contrary (and I promise never to call you "sysop" again). --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I am a sysop, but just speaking as an experienced editor here. I keep having to tell people we don't have powers to rule on content in this way (of course, we can deal with copyright content, etc but that's obvious). Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Living?

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but is she still alive? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 23:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, she is. (If she had died her obit would be easy to find in the New York Times.) I still haven't found her date of birth. She may be in her early 70's but sure doesn't look it in the photo I saw. (photo attached to Max Blumenthal's hit piece) --72.66.30.115 (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the WikiProject biography info box as such. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 01:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

POV

I have restored the original comment from The Nation. The original comment was edited as POV; however, the edited comment was more POV than original. Please do not restore the edited version. If you disagree with my comments, please discuss here. reddogsix (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Reddogsix, we do not present opinions as facts using Wikipedia's voice. Blumenthal's opinions about what organizations are "anti-Muslim", "anti-Islam" or ""islamophobic"" must be ascribed to him. Putting quote marks around it in the lead and citing to his hit piece is inadequate as it stands. It currently is a violation of BLP and I will be making the necessary adjustments. Another problem is that we're making the lead too specific—it's supposed to be a general summary of the content that follows. Let's add the details of the Blumenthal piece to the "Human rights activities" section and make the lead less specific. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear, the statements were from an article in The Nation - one must state that it is an editorially reviewed magazine, not just someone's random unsupported opinion. The statements were attributed to them. Regardless of what you think of The Nation, this is a valid statement with adequate references. Do you think The Nation would allow potentially libelous statements in a article without vetting them? Your editing of the original statement only clouded the original statement and provided a inaccurate view of individual. As far as adding this to the opening paragraph, this is no more specific than stating, Rosenwald has been "an ardent Zionist all her life".

I would suggest we leave the comment until more opinions can be gathered. reddogsix (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we try to write a neutral article by not putting Blumenthal's opinions in the lead and by not stating them as facts using Wikipedia's voice. I don't regard the term "Zionist" as an insult—to me it just denotes someone who believes that the Jews have a right to the state of Israel. As I intended, I have removed Blumenthal's opinions from the lead, making it more general. The details have been added below, in the body of the article. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done, a good compromise. reddogsix (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Reddogsix. (Now I am worried—what did I leave on the table? lol.) --72.66.30.115 (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"donated over $2.8 million to organizations that are staunchly pro-Israel" when the source says "organizations that fan the flames of Islamophobia.”?

That's completely inappropriate. No compromise can include misrepresenting a source so completely. No better is claiming she was called the sugar-mama of hate because of her philanthropy, that is not what the source says. If you think my new wording can be improved, please suggest it here, but the earlier version was unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The sub-title of the "sugar mama" article is "Philanthropist Nina Rosenwald has used her millions to cement the alliance between the pro-Israel lobby and the Islamophobic fringe". You do know what a sugar mama is, don't you? So, the source was not misrepresented. Anyway, I will make an edit to the lead so it's more general and put the slurs from left field down in the body. (How about in a new section called "Cheap shots from left field"? lol.) --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Italics added for emphasis. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course it was misrepresented. The 2.8 million figure explicitly was used to refer to organizations that fan the flames etc. Using the word philanthropy was misleading unless someone read the article, and confusing. Also, 'staunchly pro-Israel' is not in the article, that was your interpretation and clearly not what the article was saying. The lead needs to be a summary of the article, so you can't just cut any criticism out of it. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're overlooking the article sub-title: "Philanthropist Nina Rosenwald has used her millions to cement the alliance between the pro-Israel lobby and the Islamophobic fringe". Just a wild guess on my part, but I would think the "pro-Israel lobby" would be "staunchly pro-Israel" (you know, like water is wet). I haven't cut any criticism out of the article, but specific slurs do not belong in the lead. A case could be made that the opinions of Rosenwald's political enemies don't belong in the article at all—the article isn't about them or their opinions. I refer you to the lead of this featured article about an American politician. I can't seem to find anything critical of the fellow in the lead, and, I'd be willing to bet that somewhere along the line at least one of his political opponents must have said something negative about him during his long political career. My conclusion is that if a featured article BLP doesn't need criticism of its subject in the lead, then neither does this article require it. So yes, I could indeed justify cutting criticism out of the article—the article is about Nina Rosenwald, not about what people think of Nina Rosenwald. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

We aren't getting anywhere and you are still misrepresenting the source, so I am taking this to WP:NPOVN. And no, you cannot cut criticism out of the article - criticism or praise are part of any person's biography. And subtitles or titles of news articles aren't sources and are usually written by headline editors to grab attention, not by the author of the piece. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Israel Land Fund

Does anyone know if the Israel Land Fund referred to in Blumenthal's article is the same as the Jewish National Fund? I was going to wikilink it to our JNF article but was not certain they are the same organization. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

They're definitely not the same. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Roscelese. Yes, I can see that you're right. Looks like they need their own article now that Blumenthal has made them notable. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Scare quotes

See WP:SCAREQUOTES. They should be removed. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have removed them but I'd be at 3RR and try to avoid that - of course, I'd only be at 3RR if I hadn't had to correctly revert twice "adding those organisations misrepresents the source since it doesn't actually say that" - which should have been unnecessary as I was right, but there you are. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Taken to NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Putting lies in Wikipedia's mouth

I'd really appreciate it if editors would stop trying to put lies in Wikipedia's mouth. None of the organizations the Rosenwalds donate to is "anti-Muslim", "anti-Islam" or "Islamophobic". They do not self-identify as such. Only their political opponents label them that way. Wikipedia does not describe a person or organization by uncritically using the terminology of that person's or organization's "enemies", because it so obviously violates NPOV. So please stop trying to do that. Repeated attempts to do so only expose the POV you are trying to push here. No one is objecting to opposing voices being heard, even though they're not required to be heard, but we won't be putting their labels in Wikipedia's mouth to describe our subject. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm commenting on the article, but self-identification, or lack of it, doesn't mean a lot. We can all think of some terrible people in history whose self-identification we would view as not quite accurate. This is true of organisations as well. Self-identifying as a really nice person or organisation doesn't mean that's the truth. So long as we don't state that an organisation is, for instance, anti-Muslim in Wikipedia's voice, we are ok. We are simply saying that they are viewed in that way by their critics. But we can use the terminology their critics use, in fact we should. That's standard all over Wikipedia. And in this article it's sourced. And at the moment your edit has left us with a problem - it is saying The American Muslim is viewed as leftist and progressive - that may be your view, but it isn't reflected in their article so the lead shouldn't say that also. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've rearranged the sentence in question in the lead as it sounded tautological to me. I also replace "and" with "or" in the list of self-descriptions and changed pro-Muslim to Muslim regarding The American Muslim. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You say "So long as we don't state that an organisation is, for instance, anti-Muslim in Wikipedia's voice, we are ok." Well, we weren't OK with these recent edits, then, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], were we? --72.66.30.115 (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's funny you should mention tautologies, because several times now you've implied that any source that describes Rosenwald's politics as anti-Muslim is therefore her enemy and not to be relied upon. You should read WP:RS so you can prioritize that, rather than your personal views. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Blumenthal writes an article called "The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate" and you can't see that it's a hit piece. Duh! Some people think we should let the enemies of the subject of a BLP describe her politics (in Wikipedia's voice no less!) and some people (like me) have a little better grasp of BLP and NPOV. Please take your POV pushing, wikilawyering and attempted bullying somewhere else (Saudi Arabia would be my suggestion). --72.66.30.115 (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who says "there is no such mental condition as an irrational fear of Islam" (which is as pov as "there is no such mental condition as an irrational fear of Judaism" is not exactly the best editor to be editing articles about Islam. I'm not sure that the rewording of the self-descriptions, although technically better, is ok so have asked about that at NPOV. I've also suggested dropping the label Islamophobic as applied to Rosenwald - I think that was added by the IP[9] - ironic eh? Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That's Mr. IP to you, buddy. 1) I was searching the DSM-4-TR (2000) on GoogleBooks as DSM-5 isn't searchable. My search for "phobia" came up with 56 pages where that word appears; "islamophobia" came up zero; "islam" came up zero. I realize this info is not probative (dispositive?), but it is some sort of evidence. In my experience, it's editors who lack an understanding of NPOV and BLP who shouldn't be editing an article like Nina Rosenwald. 2) I believe it was reddogsix who first put "islamophobia" and "anti-Muslim" in the lead [10]. Even if it had been me, it would not be ironic as it only shows that I'm flexible about putting negative information in BLPs provided it's presented from an NPOV and does not overwhelm the rest of the article. There's no "whitewash" or "promotion" going on here, and my edits bear that out. (It may have been me who first added the sentence about Blumenthal's article title to the text body, but don't quote me on that.) --72.66.30.115 (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The person is notable but

is there enough on her to justify the article.

• The background is all to do with her parents and relatives
• The political activism is all a series of names of institutes founded or prestigious people on the board, a naming spree covering for the utter lack of info on the person.
• All I understand is that she is a wealthy person, of influence, who backs a number of causes. There is zero information on her personally, other than that she got a MA, joined ther dems, then the republs. I think that this needs to be merged into Gatestone, unless more information on the person can be obtained.Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought merging was for articles that can't stand on their own, which is not the case for either Nina Rosenwald or Gatestone Institute. What exactly do you want to know—the brand of toothpaste she uses? She is clearly not into self-promotion or more details about her would be readily available. But, no merging of the two articles is indicated. And, regarding her self-description in this article, the BLP guideline allows people who are not world famous to self define as long as it's not excessive. As Roscelese noted, Nina does have credentials in human rights with Human Rights in China (organization) and credentials in spreading democracy with Freedom House. I will likely be reverting you on that, perhaps with added citations to those organizations. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As Roscelese noted, Nina does have credentials in human rights with Human Rights in China (organization) and credentials in spreading democracy with Freedom House.

Human rights. The lead, runs:-

Human rights are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).

Someone who supports human rights in one country (China), but ignores them, or actively works to promote one ethnic or social group over another, is not technically a 'human rights activist' because the principle underlying activism on behalf of people say, in China, is not applied, mutatis mutandis to people in, say, the West Bank. Rosenwald's organization funds illegal settlement expansion in an occupied country (I refer to the judgement handed down by the International Court of Justice in 2004). On the face of it, Ms Rosenwald's activism is restricted to specific political objectives, and fails the test of universalism.

To define her as a 'human rights activist' you need a good independent, neutral authority, a source that has no horse in the race. Most of the descriptions of her activities here are sourced to organizations she directs, has a role in, or is politically close to, and therefore such sources are not acceptable. The page reads as a promo push for her on wikipedia, and to avoid any suspicion that this is the case with Ms Rosenwald (not 'Nina', a slip which suggests you write from a position of personal regard for the subject), the claim she is a human rights activist must be buttressed by a source that is objective.Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. What's sauce for the goose, etc. I don't think she's using this article for self-promotion personally, but we still need to make sure that it doesn't read like a promotional one, stating positive things as fact but negative things as 'described' etc. If there were no dispute there wouldn't be a problem, but there is a dispute. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I might add that her relationship with Freedom House ended in 2007 when she reportedly resigned in protest after the two of its researchers were rapped over the knuckles for charging Amnesty and Human Rights Watch (impeccably universalist HROs) for, putatively, failing to recognize “the character of the [Islamist] enemy against which the civilized world now finds itself arrayed.” (['Nina Rosenwald Profile,'] at Institute for Policy Studies). This fact should be on the page, since the source is already there. Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The argument that you're not a human rights activist if you only work for human rights in one country is the epitome of a specious argument, and, absurd on the face of it. And, no, we don't need a third party neutral source to make the human rights activist claim about Nina, Nina can make it for herself: see BLP/SELFPUB and SELFPUB/BLP or whatever it is. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"What's sauce for the goose". Doug, are you finally going to address all that negative, critical, controversial stuff in the Barack Obama article? (crickets chirping. . . .) Oh, maybe not, huh? --72.66.30.115 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone describing herself as a 'human rights activist' is definitely incompatible with WP:BLPSPS: it is quite obviously self-serving. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor is unfamiliar with wiki protocols. Please note that dismissing a series of arguments by a waive of the hand,(brandishing 'specious') is not a reply, but a refusal to listen or engage with one's interlocutors.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please have a closer look at the policy, Andy. It says if "it is not unduly self-serving;". Since her claim is not unduly self serving and backed by solid evidence (Human Rights in China (organization)), the description is clearly compatible with WP:BLPSPS. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope. She may be an activists for 'Chinese human rights'. She is not a 'human rights activist'. It's a self-serving claim that sits oddly with her belief that other, internationally recognized HR groups are simply not up to standard (her level) in the defence of 'civilization'. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (i.e. neutral sources), as both Carl Sagan and wikipedia have it. Mrs Jellaby on her home page might have described herself as a human rights activist because she looks after the folks at Barrieboola-Gha: her family would have had solid grounds to challenge the claim.Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that a person who works for human rights for 1.35 billion Chinese but not for the human rights of 2.1 million West Bank Arabs is not entitled to call herself a human rights activist. There may be others who would agree with you on this, on what you yourself describe as a technicality, but I'm not one of them. I don't believe it's up to you to set up such a "you-have-to-save-the-whole-world-or-you're-a-fake" standard, which you call "universality". Secondly, the settlements in Judea and Samaria are not illegal—Israel says so, and Israel is in control. (International organizations are fine, up to the point where they begin to interfere with a nation's sovereignty.) Thirdly, I'm glad to hear that Nina dumped Freedom House on a matter of principle; good for her. Fourthly, Nina, Nina, Nina! If you have evidence of human rights violations committed by Nina Rosenwald, I strongly recommend that you present it to the International Court of Justice at your earliest convenience, LOL. (That video you took of Nina personally bulldozing a whole family of poor, homeless Palestinians ought to do it! ROFL.) Fifthly, WP:BLPSPS applies, as her claim to being a human rights activist is not unduly self-serving. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS is clear enough - Rosenwald's claim to be a 'human rights activist' would need to be supported by secondary reliable sources. And as for the rest of your comments, please read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Clear enough to me, apparently not so clear to you because you're still wrong about it. And, since you missed it, Nishidani complained that I hadn't addressed his arguments, thus my long response (as if that's any concern of yours). Your reading assignment is WP:AGF. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact you haven't addressed the arguments.

the settlements in Judea and Samaria are not illegal—Israel says so, and Israel is in control.

The legality or non-legality of a foreign occupation is determined by the internal judgement of the controlling power. Human rights are repressed in Tibet, as they are in Palestine, but the former is an abuse since China is the occupying power, whereas the latter is not an abuse because Israel is the occupying power, and what 'Israel' says of its activities determines the legality of any measure taken. Don't reply. You are blogging, and the blogging is incoherent.Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We've been discussing technicalities. The bottom line is: Israel cannot "occupy" Israel. That part of the world was given to the Chosen People by You Know Who a long time ago and forever. I believe it's in the Book. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No. The bottom line is that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines governing article content. Which include ones regarding reliable sources. In particular, Rosenwald is not a reliabler source regarding claims that Rosenwald is a 'human rights activist, and 'The Book' is not a reliable source for anything whatsoever. If you have trouble accepting that, tough cookies... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Come on, 72 is obviously trolling. Let's ignore him and continue to improve the article according to Wikipedia policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This is just sucking the life out of editorial energies, and the person is just trolling. There's quite a lot of work to be done on the article, and that is what we are here for.Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It won't be the first time policy is overridden by local consensus, will it? Yes, Roscelese and Nishidani, let's continue to "improve" this BLP by letting Nina Rosenwald's enemies tell our readers who she is. I'm sure there's a lot more negative opinions you can add if you really work on it. The result will be what liberals and progressives call "NPOV". --72.66.30.115 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, on the Freedom House issue, it looks like you overreached a bit. The "researchers" (they turn out to be the president and vice president for research) were admonished shortly after 9/11/2001. Nina resigned in 2007. Thanks for finding that, though. Every little bit helps. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, sincerely. That's the kind of close control on source reliability we desperately need in articles. I however didn't 'overreach' (I prefer Shakespeare to Marlowe). I just use the sources available. I've worked out now what happened.

• 'Nina Rosenwald,' March 05, 2013 made the (quite improper) connection between the censure handed out to Adrian Karatnycky and Arch Puddington after they published their criticism of the organization they worked for in ‘The Human-Rights Lobby Meets Terrorism,’ in March 2002 (p.8) and Ms Rosenwald's resignation from Freedom House in 2007.
• This particularly egregious misrepresentation drew on John J. Miller's Freedom House, Rocked,' National Interest article, 2 April 2007, which however does not make the connection: it simply mentions the two researchs at the outset, and then much later down the page mentions Nina Rosenwald's criticism of Freedom House.

I did take the trouble to fish out the original paper by Miller, which several sources alluded to. I certainly should have noted the discrepancy between the two reports. Someone should email the IRC and get them to correct their 'profile'. It is a deontological matter, not to knowingly mispresent the facts. Of course, even the New York Times refuses to expunge obvious errors which get past their fact checkers, as when they recently placed per Jodi Rudoren, sites in the Golan Heights as being in 'Israel'. This is not a 'left' or 'right' problem, at least on wikipedia. Folks here really are under an editorial obligation to do what mainstream papers often ignore, i.e. get the necessary facts straight, and the reportage neutral, and most editors pride themselves on spotting POV overemphasis, or source errors. Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB

To let Nina's enemies describe her but not let Nina describe herself is irrational. WP:SELFPUB applies here. She is not that well-known and seems to keep a low profile (we can't even find out, easily, what year she was born). Her self-description on the Gatestone website is not unduly self-serving nor does it include any extraordinary claims. We already know she is involved with human rights in China. So, what exactly is your problem, Roscelese? Why the edit-warring? Why the POV pushing? Have you gotten away with it so long that now you think your entitled to act this way? Please stop. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been told by multiple contributors that WP:SELFPUB will not permit Rosenwald's self-description as a "human rights activist" to be used in the article. Your continuing refusal to accept this clear consensus is becoming disruptive. If you persist in this behaviour, I shall call for you to be topic banned - and I suspect that this will be a formality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Nation, CAP

Following the new user's removal of this information, I searched to find out if other sources commonly repeat this statement or similar about Rosenwald and her organization, and found that other sources also state that she is anti-Muslim. In some cases they are explicitly using the "exposé" as a source but in others they are not. Is it time to remove the specific identification in the lede, since it's evidently not just those two? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the crapstorm being raised about the statements when sourced, I'd say better to leave them there. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Purportedly" in last paragraph

In directly quoting a source in the last paragraph of our article we say "Nina Rosenwald has purportedly supported a sizable number of anti-Muslim organizations . . . " I see problems in this. First, is it her support that is purported or the anti-Muslim nature of these organizations that is purported (or maybe both)? Second, why use a source with such weaselly wording? What are we conveying to the reader and what should we be conveying? Motsebboh (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The whole quote is "... has purportedly supported a sizable number of anti-Muslim organizations, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC has actively promoted a joint Israeli-American military attack on Iran for a number of years and routinely speaks against Sharia, ethical teachings that guide the daily life of Muslims." I read this as saying "It's rumored that she's supports anti-Muslim groups, AIPAC being a case in point because it blah-blah-blah." This is supposedly her "pattern of philanthropic donations to 'demonstrate[s] how certain political commitments can override a common history of exclusion and degradation'", which was the previous summary of the article by User:Geo Swan. This "reliable source" essentially concludes all this based on purported (as opposed to reported) claims. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this seems suspicious. David A (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Lousy writing for what is is billed as an encyclopedia. I'm inclined to scrap the information and the source. What do you think? Motsebboh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. David A (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Motsebboh your comment here concerns me, as I am afraid it may expose a fundamental misunderstanding of a core wikipedia policy, WP:Verify. You wrote: "In directly quoting a source in the last paragraph of our article we say". No, when we neutrally quote, summarize or paraphrase what a source says, with proper attribution, then it is not the wikipedia that has said it, it is the source that is responsible for the idea in the quote.

I am going to AGF, and take your question as to how Santos meant "purportedly" should be interpreted at face value. Maybe you are someone who is learning English as a second language. Trust me, when Santos, an experienced academic, and chairman of Lynchburg College Sociology department, says Rosenwald is "has purportedly supported" something he wants us to understand that, in his review of his field(s) of expertise, and how Ms Rosenwald fits in those fields, he has come across many sources that made this assertion.

You ask what should we be conveying to our readers? Not wild rumors, but when established academics write something, then it is not a wild rumor. What we should not be trying to do is convey the "truth" to our readers, as WP:Verify says we should aim for "verifiability, not truth". No offense, but your comments strongly suggest you have decided the suggestions that Ms Rosenwald funds anti-muslim organizations and individuals isn't true, and shouldn't be covered here, at all. That really concerns me is because it, frankly, wildly counterpolicy. Geo Swan (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Jason from nyc you put quotes around "reliable source" when you referred to Gabriel Santos's book. You do realize that while I am not a reliable source, neither are you, or any other wikipedia contributor working on this article?

Meanwhile, Santos is not only a published academic, he is the chairman of his department.

Jason from nyc you may feel the book in question does not measure up to WP:RS standards. You may feel that Santos book is too biased to measure up to WP:RS standards. WP:BIAS doesn't say we shouldn't use sources written from a point of view. How could we, when almost all of the sources we use are written from a point of view?

All that is required, all that we should aim for, is to cover those sources from a neutral point of view. If you or Motsebboh think the way Santos book's description of Ms Rosenwald falls short of being neutrally written, do you really think total excision of the paragraph and its reference is the appropriate choice. Given that Santos is a respected academic, don't you think suggesting a way to rewrite that paragraph in a way you think is written from a neutral point of view is the appropriate choice? Alternately, please explain here, more fully, the nature of your objection to the wording I drafted.

Please remember that the wikipedia is not a hagiography. Geo Swan (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No, English isn't my second language. Yes, if Professor Santos really wanted to tell us straight-out that Rosenwald was supporting Islamophobes he conveyed his thought unsuccessfully by using the the word "purportedly." AsJason from nyc notes, we try to be guided by reported events here, not purported ones. Moreover, this purported encyclopedia article is really a highly subjective essay by Santos, so I don't think we have any obligation to use it as a source. Motsebboh (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: As to your point about citing the source in-line, the problem is that the source, Santos, is telling us "this is what I've heard from others" when he uses the word "purportedly" so it amounts to trusting an unexamined source Basically what the law calls heresay. Sorry, but as to Rosenwald this is a poor source. Motsebboh (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I asked the pair of you to consider drafting alternate wording that used the Santos reference. I strongly enourage you to consider doing so.
• You complain that I am "trusting an unexamined source" -- as if that term was part of a policy. As you can see, I double-checked, since I didn't recognize it. I believe you did not intend to craft a misleading argument, that looked like you were citing a policy, when you weren't. Nevertheless, you weren't citing a policy.
• I am concerned about your link to heresay {sic}. I think it strongly implies you think us wikipedia contributors should be trying prove points. We aren't supposed to try to use the wikipedia to prove points. Doing so is incompatible with WP:NPOV.
• Suppose, instead of being a wealthy philanthropist, Rosenwald was an artist. I am not a well-respected art critic, with a record of publications. I am guessing you aren't either. Now what if Santos was a respected art critic, and wrote something like "artist Rosenwald's work is controversial, because many viewers puport she uses Nazi imagery"? Does Santos have an obligation to document that Rosenwald was, in fact, using Nazi imagery? Is it worth repeating what art critic Santos noticed about other's opinions of artist Rosenwald's work? Is it consistent with policy? In my opinion this would be completely consistent with policy, while proscribing using Santos, because he didn't actually prove that Rosenwald used Nazi imagery would be completely contrary to Policy.
• You write: "...we try to be guided by reported events here, not purported ones." Excuse me? Aren't we supposed to be guided by what verifiable, authoritative sources say, not by our own personal opinions of what is true or false?
• I understand it can seem counter-intuitive, but we aren't allowed to censor the use of references we personally disagree with. Geo Swan (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

As User:Motsebboh notes in the title of this section, the word is "purported." Purported means “alleged; supposed; rumoured [11] “reputed, alleged” [12] or “claimed but not proved to be true” [13]. Why is there even a debate? Jason from nyc (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I am trying to discuss this, because I have explained my concerns with your comments, and forgive me, I think you are simply ignoring those concerns.
• Specifically, in your most recent comment, I think you are ignoring the clear wording of WP:Verify and other policies. Verify says our goal is "verifiability, not truth", so quit trying to prove stuff, quit calling on other contributors to prove stuff. Geo Swan (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

“Aren't we supposed to be guided by what verifiable, authoritative sources say, not by our own personal opinions of what is true or false?” We aren’t saying what is true or false ... of the subject but of the sources. I’ve accurately reflected the sources either by (1) quoting or (2) noting the meaning of words with the help of a dictionary. Stop immediately saying that I present a POV!!! The source says the information is purported, that’s not my POV, it’s his word! That means it's rumor or the like. See the dictionary links above. This is a WP:BLP and we can’t enter rumors or WP:BLPGOSSIP. The last says: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true." It is not being presented as true, as the source admits it is unfound rumor. That's not our estimate (or POV) but his. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that Jason makes sense. David A (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• David A, I know I left a heads-up on your talk page, informing you of comments I made here. But I was hoping, if your weighed in here, you would say something substantive. No offense, but generic comments like your first comment in the AFD on this article, [14] and your first two comments here [15], [16], are such generic agreement it does even establish you read any of the discussion. Your most recent comment, immediately above, is yet another fourth generic agreement with Jason. It is very disappointing. Geo Swan (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Jason, on your talk page I explained what I saw as some great weaknesses in your recent attempt to get this article deleted. You didn't really explain why you objected so strongly to the use of The Nation article, an article you called a "smear piece". You didn't provide a fuller explanation there, or on the AFD. But you didn't withdraw your AFD, which is something I would have done if I had made an AFD I then realized I couldn't defend. I thought I had made substantive points about policy, in general, and about NPOV, in particular, which you simply haven't addressed, here, back in the AFD, or on your talk page, so I think my continued concern over NPOV compliance is quite understandable.

WRT BLPGOSSIP:

The WP:BLPGOSSIP paragraph

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.

I don't see how the excised paragraph lapses from BLPGOSSIP:

1. It did not rely of anonymous sources;
2. It was based on a reliable source;
3. It was not an example of circular reporting;
4. Nor do I believe it contained anything that would match the traditional meaning of "gossip".
5. In my answer, to Motsebboh, below, I explained that, while the article cited other references that, individually, argued Ms Rosenwald selectively funded anti-muslim causes, they were written by journalists and human rights workers, not academics, and they didn't say this was a widely shared view. I believe Santos is, on the other hand, saying it is a widely shared view.

So, I dispute that BLPGOSSIP applies, at all. Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I try to call them as I see them according to the rules and guidelines we operate under. I've had differences of opinion with both User:Jason from nyc and David A pretty recently (ex.[17]) so it isn't as though I'm part of a standing tag-team effort against you. The accusation that Rosenwald supports anti-Muslim organizations is already made in our article. Santos's half-assed "purportedly" comment really doesn't add anything to it, and may even detract from it. By the way the rule that we use ONLY reliable sources doesn't mean we are obligated to use All reliable sources, selecting sources is a major part of an editor's job here. Motsebboh (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I do not regard you as part of a tag-team effort.

You write: "The accusation that Rosenwald supports anti-Muslim organizations is already made in our article..." yes, by journalists, and human rights workers. Santos is an academic, and the article does not include any other academics who make this observation. Further, aren't the others making this observation making iit on a stand-alone basis. Santos, an RS, is making a meta observation, informing our readers that Rosenwald faces a community of challengers who share the opinion she preferentially funds anti-muslims causes.

Our article could cite RS after RS who, individually, state she funds anti-muslim causes. Citing RS after RS does not establish it is widely shared opinion the same way as citing one authoritative RS who explicitly says this is a widely shared opinion. Wikipedia rules require great care when drawing a conclusion like that, to make sure we aren't inadvertently lapsing into WP:Original research. But, when an RS, like Santos, draws the conclusion the view is widely shared, then that can be placed in the article with no concern of lapsing from the proscription against orginal research.

I continue to fail to understand your objection to Santos use of the word "purportedly".

I asked you and the other guys to consider rephrasing the paragraph that referenced the Santos article if you had a concern over my original wording. Have you given that suggestion any effort yet? Geo Swan (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• If you don't see a problem with a word like "purportedly" in this context there's not much I can say that's polite. I do notice now, however that I did say "heresay" above when I meant to say "hearsay" (I thought it looked too much like "heresy" in print!!). Perhaps you could get the rhetorically challenged professor Santos into the article by saying something like:

Professor Gabriel Santos of Lynchburg College suggests that Rosenwald has endorsed Islamophobia by supporting anti-Muslim organizations.

I say "suggests" because of the silly "purportedly" we've been talking about. By the way, his use of the example of AIPAC being anti-Muslim because it has recommended bombing strikes against Iran is also silly. A non-sequitur. Motsebboh (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan, I'll ignore your patronizing statements to others and myself, I’ll respond to the discussion of the sources, not the discussion of the editors:

1. How does the paragraph violate BLPGOSSIP? It uses weasel words as Motsebboh pointed out. (see #2:)
2. We explained our objection to “purported” several times. Rumors aren’t a basis for Wikipedia.
3. Does Santos inform us that there is a “community” that accepts the judgement that NR funds anti-muslim causes? Where? He says “some commentators have drawn attention” to certain individuals (in one sentence) and “NR … has purportedly supported …” in the next. To combine those two sentences to conclude that “some commentators … purportedly supported” is to do original research in the form of a WP:SYNTHESIS. We can’t conclude that a community purports, let alone accepts that NR funds anti-muslim causes.
4. We did try to improve your entry. I changed it by quoting Santos directly because I found any paraphrase fraught with interpretation problems and Motsebboh convinced me that Santos is only presenting purported allegations.
5. Santos is a WP:tertiary source that relies on the same secondary sources as we do. Perhaps we should qualify our statements with words like “alleged,” “purported,” and “claimed” instead of reporting conclusions in Wikipedia’s voice. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
   1. When should we replace perfectly acceptable wording, then turn against our new wording, and excise the entire paragraph, even though it had a perfectly acceptable reference, when leaving the original wording would have been perfectly acceptable? That was a rhetorical question. Answer: never.
   2. WRT seizing on one particular interpretation of "purportedly", ignoring other interpretations of it, and ignoring the clear meaning of the paragraph as a whole -- see below.
   3. Your call upon NR looks like a vague handwave at wikipolicy to me.
   4. You wrote: "Motsebboh convinced me that Santos is only presenting purported allegations."

      Re-read what Santos wrote. Santos describes Rosenwald's grandfather, the original philanthropist in the family. I quoted Santos passage, at the end of the paragraph. "Remarkably, this case demonstrates how certain political commitments can override a common history of exclusion and degradation."

      In American discussions "anti-semitic" is almost always interpreted as "anti-jewish". But, technically, both Jews and Arabs are semitic groups. So, anti-semitic could as easily be applied to anti-Arab chauvinism. I think what Santos's main intent here is to contrast Rosenwald's grandfather's inclusiveness with Rosenwald's non-inclusiveness. What does Santos mean by "a common history of exclusion and degradation." He means both Jews and Muslims were outsiders in a largely Christian society, and both Jews and Muslims have a long history of being excluded and degraded by Christian bigots. What does he mean by "certain political commitments that override"... Well, Nina Rosenwald is a lifelong zionist, as confirmed by other references in the article. I think Santos finds it remarkable that Nina Rosenwald has rejected the liberal inclusiveness of her grandfather to fund exclusionist causes.

      In this edit Motsebboh justified a rewording with the edit summary "Changed wording of material taken from "American Mosaic" to clarify what authors are saying about Rosenwald." Yeah, AGF, I am not confident that Motsebboh really understood the point that Santos meant to make. You rewrote the passage, again. Finally, Motsebboh excised the paragraph with the edit summary "If this is only "purported" why use it?"

      Let me quote another sentence Santos wrote about Islamophobia: "From a racial and historical perspective, there is a certain irony to the many factors that fuel this form of fear an opposition."

      A dogged focus on the single word "purported", to assert Santos is only saying it is a "rumor" that Rosenwald selectively funded anti-muslim causes is simply not supportable. Sentence after sentence makes clear that Santos recognizes that Rosenwald has a clearly established record of funding anti-muslim causes.

      Here, in our discussion in wikipedia fora, we are supposed to honor an obligation to be collegial, and do our best to respond to what we think our correspondents really meant. Case in point, Motsebboh, above, misused the word heresy, when he or she meant hearsay, a completely different word with a very similar spelling. I honored my obligation to be collegial, and responded to Motsebboh as if they meant hearsay. I knew they meant hearsay. Sadly, I know there are some wikipedia contributors who seize on these kinds of natural human errors to try to drive correspondents from discussions, through mockery, or, alternately completely erode their credibility, through mockery.

      After a fair reading of the paragraph Santos devoted to the pattern of donations of Nina Rosenwald, and her more liberal grandfather, I don't think anyone could honestly think Santos was only saying it was merely a rumor that Ms Rosenwald selectively funded anti-muslim causes. Motsebboh, Jason, I call on you to exercise the same kind of collegiality I showed in this discussion to ignore a surface interpretation of that single word, and to not allow that naive surface interpretation to have you ignore the clear meanings of the paragraph.

   5. Since Santos is an RS, recording his own authoritative opinion, not an anonymous encyclopedia compiler, offering a non-notable attempt to compile secondary sources, your handwaving at Tertiary looks like a vague handwave at wikipolicy. You wrote: "instead of reporting conclusions in Wikipedia’s voice." Once again I think you show a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. When our article explicitly credits an opinion to Santos we are not "reporting conclusions in Wikipedia’s voice." Geo Swan (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Jason, in your first comment in this thread, you used scare quotes to surround reliable source, when referring to the Santos article. Please give a yes or no answer. Are you still challenging whether Santos, an academic who is chairman of his department, measures up to our criteria to be considered a reliable source? Geo Swan (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is getting tiresome as you repeat yourself and add nothing new--and merely dismiss my arguments instead of refuting them. In all the meanings of “purported” that I posted above, the idea of “unsubstantiated” is implied. “Rumor” is just one of the synonyms. Santos lists the Blumenthal article as a reference. He is clearly using the same secondary source as we use. Either he or his editor choose to convey the notion that these claims are “unsupported.”

What can we learn from Santos? It’s simply that we should follow his lead with respect to the Blumenthal article. This means we should explicitly attribute the material we insert into our article to Blumenthal instead of speaking with Wikipedia’s voice. Apparently Santos or his editor believes the Blumenthal article is either questionable or potentially libelous. I've questioned the reliance on the Blumenthal article and it looks like professional encyclopedia writers/editors feel the same. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have responded to your arguments. I won't speculate as to why you assert I have not.

I know you voiced concerns over the Blumenthal article. You called it a "smear piece". I responded to your concerns, and I think you left my counter-concerns unaddressed.

You write: 'Santos lists the Blumenthal article as a reference. He is clearly using the same secondary source as we use. Either he or his editor choose to convey the notion that these claims are “unsupported.”' Yeah? What the heck do you mean by this? Geo Swan (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

They're "purported." Jason from nyc (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Do you really think you could tell other contributors you made even one meaningful attempt to offer a civil, meaningful, substantive reply to my concerns? Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed! You merely dismiss the author's use of the word "purported" as superficial ("naive surface interpretation") when in fact he deliberately choose that word in a carefully prepared short article that was reviewed by his editors. You continue in that vein with several other passages of his article, all of which hinges on whether or not the Blumenthal article is adequate support. He or his editors have decided it is problematic. I think we should also. I didn't address his passing political commentary, that it's ironic for a Jew to support Israel, that you brought up above because I didn't take it seriously. We could return to that point. Is it important to you? Jason from nyc (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow! I had assumed this one was over. The problem with Santos's single use of "purportedly" is that it it describes the only action which would make Rosenwald's behavior ironic (from Santos's viewpoint): supporting "a variety of anti-Muslim organizations." What we have with Santos is a less forthright, more hedged, less detailed version of Blumenthal. Blumenthal himself, by the way, is hardly the most pristine of sources. Motsebboh (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Motsebboh, you write: "Blumenthal himself, by the way, is hardly the most pristine of sources." Let me try to pin you down on a point that I have asked Jason several times, which it seems to me he simply can't or won't answer. Are you saying Santos is not a reliable source? If so, could you please offer an explanation as to why you think Santos fails to measure up to our RS criteria? Jason has repeatedly implied or asserted that Blumenthal is not an RS. And it seems to me that he can't or won't offer a substantive, policy based explanation as to why Blumenthal fails to measure up to our RS criteria. If you are agreeing with Jason that Blumenthal does not measure up to our RS criteria, maybe you can offer a substantive, policy based explanation?
• You used the term "pristine sources". I've pointed out to Jason, on his talk page, on this talk page, and in the AFD, that we have multiple wikidocuments that offer guidance to good faith contributors as to how to cover topics from a neutral point of view, while relying on RS that are written from a definite point of view. Almost every RS used in almost every article on the wikipedia is written from a definite point of view. If we stopped using every RS that was written from a definite point of view, non-pristine sources, to use your phrase, we would have hardly any RS left.
• If you look at Jason's most recent comment he mocks what he represents as Santos POV, and dismisses it as something not to be taken seriously. I've voiced my concern that it looks like Jason has a fundamental misunderstanding of key policies, in particular of NPOV. His mockery of Santos reinforces my concern. I am not an RS, you are not an RS, Jason is not an RS, none of us wikipedia contributors are reliable sources. None of us are authorized to suppress the use of RS we can't personally take seriously, because, to do so is to substitute our own non-notable opinion above those of clearly notable, authoritative sources.
• Over the last twelve years I have spent over ten thousand hours working on topics when, frequently, the only references were references I strongly disagreed with. The way I saw it my two choices were to not work on those topics, at all, or to do my best to fairly and neutrally use the references I personally disagreed with.

  I am not asking you or Jason to measure up to a standard of policy compliance I haven't measured up to myself more times than I care to count.

• FWIW, I think Jason's mockery of Santos's position is based on a serious misinterpretation of what Santos really meant. Jason mocked Santos for saying it was ironic for Jews to support Israel. Santos didn't say that, didn't mean that, or anything remotely close to that. I think Santos found Irony in contrasting Nina Rosenwald's grandfather's liberalism, and inclusiveness, with the harsh exclusiveness he recognized in her pattern of funding. He found irony in how she turned against a group, related to her own group, that had, historically, suffered from a similar kind of exclusiion and prejudice as her own group.
• You asserted, somewhere above, that the points Santos made were essentially the same as the points made by earlier references. I replied to that assertion, in detail. Short version: (1) Santos made a different, extended point to that made by the earlier references; (2) Santos was a different kid of reference to the earlier reference -- an academic, not a journalist or human rights worker. Could you please do me the courtesy of reading my original reply to your assertion?
• Returning to the focus you and Jason place on that single word "purportedly" -- I really think that, the article as a whole, is clear that Santos does not regard the pattern of Ms Rosenwald's donations as a mere rumor. I strongly encourage you to try to re-read the article, as if you hadn't read it before. Once you have done this, please give fresh consideration to whether you are going to argue its use should be suppressed, because Santos position is that he thinks her pattern is just a rumor. How could Santos talk about the irony of her pattern of donations, compared with her grandfather's, if he thinks this pattern is just a rumor? Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you make whatever edit to the article you like and we'll take it from there. We've fully explained what we think of the Santos source. Good Luck. Motsebboh (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

My terse statement doesn’t “mock” but accurately summarize Santos’ position, which is not Blumenthal’s position. Usually when one reads articles about anti-Muslim sentiment one expects the usual list of anti-Muslim people and groups. We find that in the Blumenthal article. Oddly enough Santos doesn’t pick NR’s support of any of those groups or individuals. Instead Santos takes NR’s support of AIPAC as a case in point for her support for organizations that are anti-Muslim. He fails to comprehend what Blumenthal wrote. Blumenthal calls AIPAC a mainstream pro-Israel group and decries NR's "alliance between the pro-Israel mainstream and the Islamophobic fringe." Either Santos has problems in reading comprehension or an animus towards Israel. It is not her support for AIPAC that Blumenthal refers to as anti-Muslim. In any case, Santos' concludes from NR’s support of groups like AIPAC that this “demonstrate[s] how certain political commitments can override a common history of exclusion and degradation.” Or in my summary “it's ironic for a Jew to support Israel.”

What’s important here is that we are required to accept reliable secondary sources but we are not required to regurgitate without thinking what is said in tertiary sources. Santos is writing in competing encyclopedia. We use the same secondary sources. Why would we defer to flawed commentary in another encyclopedia? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the "purported" is worth including, but only attributed correctly. Isn't that what we essentially say in this article: that Rosenwald is accused of funding anti-Muslim groups? Then it seems "An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic" and Wikipedia are on exactly the same page regarding this.VR _talk 05:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I said something similar on 8th Jan: "What can we learn from Santos? It’s simply that we should follow his lead with respect to the Blumenthal article. This means we should explicitly attribute the material we insert into our article to Blumenthal instead of speaking with Wikipedia’s voice. Apparently Santos or his editor believes the Blumenthal article is either questionable or potentially libelous. I've questioned the reliance on the Blumenthal article and it looks like professional encyclopedia writers/editors feel the same." I believe the whole paragraph should be attribued. (I attempted to enter this comment this morning but it seems not to be here. Sorry for the delay.) Jason from nyc (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Supporting James O'Keefe

https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-okeefes-big-money-donors-revealed
James O’Keefe’s Big-Money Donors Revealed
Tax documents obtained by The Daily Beast reveal the 35 benefactors behind the conservative guerrilla activists at Project Veritas.
Lachlan Markay
Asawin Suebsaeng
The Daily Beast
12.08.17

Previously undisclosed donors listed in Project Veritas’s annual tax filings reviewed by The Daily Beast include Sears Roebuck heiress Nina Rosenwald, an investor and top executive at the William Rosenwald Family Fund. The foundation, and Rosenwald, are major donors to American Jewish and Zionist organizations, and she has also funded a number of conservative political groups and candidates, including more than $80,000 in contributions to Republican political campaigns during the 2016 election cycle.

--Nbauman (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Redundant?

In the lead we already have the summary description of her critics in regards to anti-Islamic bias of her Institute and her defenders who dispute this. Why are we elaborating on this? It's an intro and a summary. We have a whole article on the Institute to go into the details. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said, we should describe Gatestone the way its article does. It's not a minor point because she is the founder and president. If she were just a member or contributor it would be a very different matter. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

We already had "Some critics have categorized her and the Gatestone Institute as anti-Muslim." "Publishing false articles and being a source of viral falsehoods" is the reason why although she didn't write them and it isn't even clear she read and edited them. I don't believe we attributed everything said by someone funded by Soros or the Koch Brothers to the "sugar daddy" of the organization in question. It seems we should be more careful in a BLP than an article about an organization. How about combining the two sentence into one: "Some critics have categorized her and the Gatestone Institute as anti-Muslim due to inaccurate article published by the Institute." Jason from nyc (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't make a lot of sense and in any case isn't correct reading the Gatestone Institute's article. Of couse we have to be careful in a BLP article but as the GI is basically hers we have to be careful there just as much. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim/pro-Israeli credentials of of Raheel Raza and Zuhdi Jasser

Please do not delete my entries which are accurate, relevant and fully sourced. The "muslims" supposedly defending Nina Rosenwald against anti-muslim Islomophobia claims are themselves the subject of allegations of anti-muslim hatred and Islamophobia / pro-Israeli bias. They also represent a tiny fringe minority of so-called "muslims". This is all highly relevant information, that ought to be included in the article in order to avoid the misleading impression given in the article that muslims generally or mainstream muslims somehow support Ms Rosenwald. Truth social elite (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

As I have just notified you on your talk page, per Wikipedia:Contentious topics procedures, you are currently not permitted to edit the article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear: is this because Truth social elite's Wikipedia account is recent or is this because something else? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2023 (vUTC)

New account. Needs "500 edits and an account age of 30 days" to edit the article.

Looking at this further, though 'Truth social elite' is going about this entirely the wrong way, there may actually be a genuine issue here, in that the article may be placing undue emphasis on the views of Raheel Raza and Zuhdi Jasser, neither of which appear to represent mainstream Muslim perspectives on broader issues. One might well suspect their opinions on Rosenwald have been included to provide a false balance. That isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to do things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick answer. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)