Talk:Adam Milstein

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)

AGREED! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.13.232 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Johnnie Bob: the Intercept was never used as a source before, AFAIK. And the tax fraud a has been mentioned on other sources, too, eg [1], [2] Huldra (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Those latter sources you mentioned are discussed on this talk page as well. Please re-review this entire talk page before you decide what opinions to put out in this article for the world to see ... I'm outa here ... Johnnie Bob (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've partially restored the content, as The Intercept is an RS and inclusion of the guilty plea and sentence would appear to be DUE on that basis. I didn't restore a final sentence about the conviction raising concerns and criticism, as that wasn't clearly supported by the cited source. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 14 May 2021 (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 discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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.[2][3]

The text in question was added via these edits, sourced to Electronic Intifada and Haaretz. [3] 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) As noted below, other news media organizations reported on the existence of the contention that originated on EI, repeating what was in the original source without engaging in additional reporting. That is a distinction without a difference, not changing my view one iota, and my other objections stand. I further note that the Canary Mission's funding is now the subject of a series of articles in The Forward. If Milstein is a funder, it will no doubt emerge in that publication or another RS. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 October 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. In light of reporting in Le Monde Diplomatique and republished at The Nation, the content in question should be reworded to not mention The Lobby – USA and simply mention Milstein's connection to Canary Mission, as well as Milstein's denial. The Lobby can be mentioned in the article body. _signed, Rosguill^talk 21:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC); edited 08:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)17:01, 12 October 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 (move to body) - 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^(talk) 01:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Undue, bad sourcing, possible BLP violation.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• No (move to body), with some rewording and using the better sources listed here. The fact that Milstein is accused of (and has denied) funding Canary Mission is well-sourced at this point; see this in particular. We need to mention his denial as well, of course, but I think that given that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (a clearly reliable source with no motivation to give the story unnecessary weight) devoted an entire article to the story and his denial, it becomes hard to argue that it's WP:UNDUE for at least a sentence or two somewhere in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot). Should be removed, per Icewhiz. UNDUE in article at this stage and inadequate sourcing. The material in question appears to originate from a Project Veritas-type political operation more than it is a legitimate documentary, and as noted Al Jazeeera did not broadcast it, indicating lack of acceptability even to a POV broadcast outlet. I believe that BLP requires far higher standards than some editors appear willing to accept for this particular subject. Lastly the "censored" wording is POV and unacceptable, obviously. If this Millstein is indeed the funder we will have to await better sourcing, per NODEADLINE. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• No, but report it as an accusation that he denies. No BLP issue is involved if the wording is neutral. Zero^talk 01:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This RFC is outdated, the original statement is no longer true. The sourcing is not Electronic Intifida, it is Le Monde Diplomatique and The Nation, both of which say flat out Milstein is the founder of Canary Mission. nableezy - 01:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is common for articles to change during the pendency of an RfC. At the time I initiated this, the Milstein allegation was reported in EI but not just in EI, but was repeated without further reporting or confirmation in Haaretz. Now there are others. That makes no difference in the essential point, which is that this originated in a documentary that was not broadcast. Those sources can be utilized to describe the documentary if there were ever to be an article on the abortive documentary, but not as sources on the facts alleged therein. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note to closer - please look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Le Monde Diplomatique and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Canary Mission and Adam Milstein which were open concurrent to this discussion regarding sourcing and BLP issues (based mainly on Le Diplo).Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• No (move to body) & include the subject's denial. Covered in sources; not undue weight. This is a high-profile individual, so I don't see a BLP issue here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 12 October 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^talk 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)

I don't see any evidence that Le Monde doubts that Milstein is the founder of Canary Mission, as they certainly seem to be flatly reporting it in their publication. Could you cite the French where it says that they are merely describing bits of footage? _signed, Rosguill^talk 04:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Read the whole expose (not just the single paragraph that covers the bit on Milstein) - the piece describes Qatari government influence over Al Jazeera and then goes on to described the leaked portions of the canned doco - one by one - it is a rather 1 to 1 transcription.Icewhiz (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

What does that have to do with it being a translation? The key element is that Le Monde refers to Milstein as the founder of Canary Mission and makes no attempt to qualify that statement with "according to the documentary" or the like. It may very well be describing elements of the leaked footage, but barring some sort of disclaimer (some are included for other claims in the article but not for this one), there's no reason to assume that Le Monde is treating this as anything other than reliable. In fact, the French phrasing Kleinfeld a réussi à remonter à fondateur et financier, M. Adam Milstein, président du Conseil israélien américain strongly suggests that they believe the documentary's conclusions regarding Milstein. Le Monde Diplomatique is consistently described as a reliable source on the reliable sources notice board; with the exception of direct quotations of sources and reporting where they themselves cast doubt on the truth of their claims, there are no grounds to dismiss their reporting._signed, Rosguill^talk 06:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, this is the second source you are making wholly unfounded claims about. Le Monde is saying, in its own voice, that Milstein is the founder of Canary Voice. Not according to Al-Jazeera, but as a fact. nableezy - 16:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Given its coverage in Le Monde, I feel that the proposed text is in need of a rewrite to reflect that the claims made by the unpublished documentary have been reported as fact by a reliable source. _signed, Rosguill^talk 07:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This reporting has now been republished by The Nation, which is also considered a reliable source for BLPs. In light of this, I am striking my previous vote to keep the text but not include it in the lead: I am now of the opinion that it is no longer WP:UNDUE to include information about Milstein's connection to Canary Mission in the lead (incidentally, all this coverage means that it may be time to write an article for Canary Mission). _signed, Rosguill^talk 08:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Please note two discussions re Milstein at the BLP Noticeboard. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the complaints about sources above... while I mentioned this in my !vote, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency has covered this here; of particular note is the fact that that article is entirely about Milstein and the accusation that he founded Canary Mission, which I feel satisfies most WP:DUE and WP:RS concerns. Of course, we have to include his denials from that source as well, and it might be worth rewording what we say here to reflect that source more closely; but given his relative profile this is a large amount of coverage for him (more than eg. most of the stuff in the philanthropy section) and more than enough to satisfy WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• The material in question is in the article. How can that be? There is a pending RfC and so far there is no consensus to add. There needs to be one and it needs to be a clear consensus to add disputed contentious material to a BLP. I have removed. Coretheapple (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  I will note that later coverage on Canary (in RSes, and on less than RSes) has mentioned figures other than Milstein (who is mentioned for ICC, but not Canary) as being involved - one guy and another guy. Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  That's correct, and to say that the "documentary" made that claim is not correct. It was one person interviewed by that documentary, an Eric Gallagher. He was not employed by the Canary Mission but by another Milstein-affiliated operation, the Israel Project. The claim is unsubstantiated and denied by Milstein, and as you point out we now have two articles in reliable sources, unrelated to the documentary, further contradicting his claim. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  The nature of the documentary is irrelevant; what counts is that Le Monde Diplomatique and The Nation reported it in their editorial voice. It is literally the entire purpose of a secondary source to analyze primary sources of varying quality and report conclusions with justifiable weight. As far as The Forward's coverage is concerned, their own coverage reports that there was an additional (illegible) signature on the documents establishing that the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco funded Canary Mission, and it's hardly far-fetched that an organization could have multiple people providing funding and/or leadership. Moreover, the Federation's later comments that the donations to Canary Mission were a "one-time grant made in 2016"[4] leave plenty of room for others to possibly have funded and/or directed the organization as well. There's nothing contradictory here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  The Nation is a reprint - with a Le Monde logo. The Le Monde piece itself merely transcribes the canned doco. It is far from clear Le Monde is using their editorial voice. And even if it were - this is one source, making the connection in a single sentence. Later sources that cover Canary Mission in depth do not mention Milstein as being Canary (some do mention his ICC role).Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• this is the actual interview in the canned doco which made the connection reported on - a street walking interview with an employee at the Israel Project, Eric Gallagher.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  There is literally no evidence that Le Monde is treating the content reported as anything other than a statement of fact, and this is in an article where other, more dubious information is preceded by statements establishing the nature of those claims. You were earlier trying to dismiss their reporting by arguing that we couldn't trust their content because it was a translation of a French article also published by them. Further, Le Monde has not published any retractions of their claims–if their claim was anywhere near as dubious as you are trying to argue it is, they would issued a correction. In light of the lack of additional reporting by independent sources connecting Milstein to CM, I think it is completely appropriate to include the claim, along with Milstein's denial, and give them roughly equivalent weight. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  Oh good Lord, there are multiple reasons to not include this text. When evaluating BLP sources we need to use the highest quality sources, not some guy talking in a documentary and that being picked up elsewhere. I am struck by the haste with which editors are adding this info while this RfC is pending. I appreciate your revert in Canary Mission. On that subject, Rosquill, I note that one of your edit summaries in the Canary article mentioned 1RR. Can you please indicate the nature of that stricture and whether it applies to this article as well? Coretheapple (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction. And yes (with some revert exemptions).Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  I believe that articles so covered require a notice on the talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  Well, Coretheapple, your belief is wrong. (Take another example: each and every one of the article mentioned in Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus are covered by ARBPIA, but very few actually have a notice on the talk page), Huldra (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but come to think of if I raised the issue a while back but no resolution was reached. My point simply is that editors should be reminded of the 1RR restriction so as to not violate it in articles that may be covered by it. Coretheapple (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you seriously blanking several rock solid reliable sources from this article based on BLP? Please enlighten me as to what exactly in BLP supports the suppression of The Nation, Haaretz, and Le Monde Diplomatique. The RFC is about the lead, claiming it allows you to engage in such censorship is nonsense. nableezy - 21:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This is comical, but here you go. nableezy - 21:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No, a person not employed by the Canary Mission, interviewed in a documentary that was not aired, is not a "rock sold reliable source" by any stretch of the imagination, and the zeal that I'm seeing here to put that material in this article is depressing. Coretheapple (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Says who? Le Monde Diplomatique and The Nation are the sources here, not whatever you think they based this on. The zeal I see in censoring anything one dislikes is likewise depressing. nableezy - 01:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it is only Le Monde Diplomatique. The Nation reprints Le Monde Diplomatique with the logo of Le Monde Diplomatique, with the French author listed as the author. Second, Le Monde Diplomatique is merely a description of the canned doco - and is not based on any actual investigation by Le Monde Diplomatique. The claim in the canned doco (based on a street interview with a weakly connected person is weak).Icewhiz (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That is incredibly misleading. The source is Le Monde. Whether or not Al Jazeera saw fit to air the documentary is irrelevant. Le Monde saw fit to publish the material, that is what matters here. nableezy - 08:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Le Monde Diplomatique saw fit to describe the canned footage (as the canning was deemed news worthy) - Le Diplo did not verify the contents of canned footage in any manner - nor do they take any responsibility for its contents. One might expect Le Diplo editors to verify that their penned piece describes the leaked segments of the canned doco correctly (a fairly straightforward task) - however they did not verify anything beyond that. In order to avoid repeatedly referencing/attributing the canned doco they even footnoted the following "Unless otherwise specified, all quotations in this article are taken from the documentary" - right at the beginnin. Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, no evidence for that, and again, irrelevant. Le Monde saw fit to say, in their own voice, that Milstein is the founder, based on whatever they determined was necessary for them to make that claim. That is, in Wikipedia parlance, a reliable source says this. You are not a reliable source, making your objection to it totally meaningless. nableezy - 15:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"No evidence"? What about the article?[5] It is an article about the abortive documentary. It is not an article about Milstein but simply parrots what the ambush video says. You're seizing on a throwaway line in the article and portraying that as some kind of in-depth Le Monde investigation into Milstein. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Im sorry, where is the evidence that they did not do any further research? Dont see it in the article, quote please? And again, why is it relevant. nableezy - 15:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Nableezy - Le Monde is a different paper from Le Diplo. As for evidence - it has been provided - Le Diplo itself says "Unless otherwise specified, all quotations in this article are taken from the documentary" - the Le Diplo article is full of unattributed material from the canned doco, explicitly stated by themselves in a blanket attribution of the whole piece to the canned doco. Icewhiz (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, the article is in Le Monde Diplomatique, I shortened that incorrectly. This isnt a quotation, so not relevant, and even if it were it would still not be relevant. The editors at Le Monde Diplomatique saw whatever they saw as sufficient to publish. They are a RS. Both uninvolved editors at BLP/N agreed with this. You two are attempting to WP:CENSOR material without any basis in policy. We do not allow random people on the internet, that is you two (or me), to substitute their judgment for that of a reliable source. nableezy - 15:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and kindly assume good faith. We have now two identical discussions in two separate places in Wikipedia, thanks to your posting on BLP/N, and frankly you are not being constructive in either. This RfC is pending. Please let it run its course without hectoring people who disagree with you. Coretheapple (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It is obscene for you to claim I have made a personal attack while personally attacking me. You are misleading people in both venues and continue to do so here. The RFC was about using Electronic Intifida in the lead of this article. Both commentators at BLP/N have disagreed with the absurd notion that including Le Monde Diplomatique in an article is a BLP violation. You have now violated the 1RR as well. If you do not self-revert I will report you shortly. nableezy - 16:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

1RR? Did you look at the edit history by any chance before making that baseless claim? Do you realize that a 1RR violation involves a revert within 24 hours? Coretheapple (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

ARBPIA requires 24 hours from the time your edit is reverted to re-revert. You took 1 hour and 29 minutes. And you are ignoring that both uninvolved users at BLPN disagreed with the absurd claim that this is a BLP violation. nableezy - 17:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not 1RR you're citing but another stricture, so I have self-reverted. Re BLP: You've made your point already, and I think we all have approximately a dozen times a piece. Let's give it a rest please. Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It is the ARBPIA General 1RR restriction. Regardless, I will give it a rest when you accept that uninvolved editors at BLPN disagree that this is a BLP violation and stop citing that as a reason for removal. nableezy - 17:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Only one editor involved in the BLPN discussion (Nomoskedasticity) had not previously opined at the RfC. The rest had done so. Every single one. So please don't mischaracterize the BLPN discussion as being definitive any way. It is simply a duplication of this discussion with the same participants. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine, the only uninvolved editor. Happy? nableezy - 17:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Another uninvolved editors just opined to the contrary. It is far, far too early to say that the duplicative BLPN discussion has come to a conclusion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That is very much not an uninvolved editor lol. nableezy - 17:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

And one opposed - EM Gregory - who is as uninvolved as the single supporter there. I will also note I only got involved in this article very recently after it was posted to BLP/n in September 2018 - counting involved uninvolved on two subsequent BLP/n posts within a month.... Stretching it.Icewhiz (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Get off it, you know full well that EM Gregory is not an uninvolved editor in the topic area. You all are attempting to censor things that are covered by JTA, the Forward, and Le Monde Diplomatique. It is an obscene abuse of process to claim a BLP violation when those are the sources used. nableezy - 18:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not aware of EMG's supposed involvement. Nomoskedasticity has definitely edited the topic area - I fail to see how he would be less involved than EMG.Icewhiz (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Or less involved than me. I was summoned to this article by bot and had never even heard of this guy before. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Really? You never noticed EMG being involved in the topic area? Seems odd given how often you two have worked on the same articles in the topic area. nableezy - 18:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We mainly intersect in AfD work. If by involved you mean having edited an ARBPIA article - Nomoskedasticity seems to have done that (as well as commenting on multiple AE reports).Icewhiz (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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^talk 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)

• 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)

If a source is a blog or advocacy website or otherwise impermissible for a BLP, then I don't think it matters in the least whether that source is used alone or in tandem. We don't allow tabloid material in bios and EI is several degrees worse. I don't see what Mondoweiss has to do with this. Has it written about Milstein and are you trying to use it as a source? If not, let's keep the discussion focused please. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:16, 12 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)

• @Zezen: - in [6] and [7] you introduced text not supported by the sole reliable (non deadlink). Findacase is not a usable source per BLPPRIMARY (and possibly other problems). Your added source of [8] says Milstein was jailed briefly for tax fraud in 2009 - or 9 words - which does not support a separate section in the article and the following text - In 2009 he was convicted of two counts of felony tax evasion and sentenced to three months in prison nor the connection to Spinka financial controversy.Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, what a thread of which I was not aware before my edit. Little time to participate further, so let my colleagues dig into other RS-es. A quick link I found with a similar claim: https://medium.com/@ZarinaZabrisky/bikers-for-thugs-chainsaw-artists-miami-mamas-and-the-kremlin-calligraphy-84f7d2e81448 Zezen (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've moved to "career" section. My concerns re use of the court case stands, in part because it is not in his name. Without that we don't have enough. Even with is questionable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The primary source has been removed and the text adjusted. I agree with those edits. My bad for not making them myself. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• If the subject was jailed for felony tax fraud (I think it can also be a misdemeanor) then that needs to be mentioned in this article at adequate length, perhaps in a stand-alone section. The dearth of adequate secondary sources on that issue calls into question the notability of the subject, and I am so tagging. Coretheapple (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Also I see that at some point Milstein's birth name was stated as "Tuvia" at the very top of the article without footnoting. That ordinarily is a routine biographical detail. In this case it connects the subject to the criminal case cited above, so it is not routine and requires sourcing.Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 7 October 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)

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^talk 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)

Notability issue

The absence of adequate sourcing on the "brief prison term" served by the subject, along with the generally thin sourcing in general, indicates for me that this article may simply not meet the notability guidelines for a BLP. I was going to suggest merging with an associated article on the Millstein Foundation but that is in even worse shape. Ironically, the contribution history and talk page disclosure suggests that this article appeared to originate as a paid editing project that backfired badly on the subject. It is now a battleground and perhaps more trouble than it's worth. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I suspect he passes the notability threshold - being fairly high profile in 2015-8. The (possible) tax thing harks back to 2009, is under a different name, and was a minor part in a larger scandal involving other people. As it happened prior to him being notable, lack of coverage is not surprising - it is the sort of thing even an attack piece would mention briefly.Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

My thinking was that serious coverage in reliable secondary sources would have dealt with the tax conviction in a meaningful way. The general practice in articles without adequate sourcing is to cut, not to cross our fingers and add. Perhaps the article should be stubbified. Coretheapple (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks notable, is in national news cycle this week. Removing tag.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY

@Huldra: - I suggest you consider your revert, counter to prior discussed consensus, very carefully. This is an outright BLPPRIMARY violation, findacase is possibly not a RS, and you performed OR in regards to the name of the subject as well as "felon" which does not appear in the source.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I would remove "felon" if it is not in any of the sources, but I see it in the www.jns.org source...Huldra (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The name of the case doesn't match the name of the subject of this article. I'd remove per Icewhiz. Coretheapple (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Lol, you are not seriously suggesting that it is another person? Huldra (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC) (PS read the EI piece, also the jns.org article: Milstein himself have no problem admitting it. The is a an expression "More catholic than the Pope" which springs to mind)

Beyond the sourcing issues (EI not remotely a RS), OR, and BLP violations - if this isn't described in this manner in secondary RSes - and you need to dive into a court transcript - it's UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Canary Mission

Wikipal11119, basically a WP:SPA, has returned again after another month and reinserted material relating to AlJazeera. I don't see any consensus here for its inclusion. Guy (help!) 20:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The RfC above concluded: "There is strong consensus to remove the text regarding The Lobby – USA from the lead section of the article. There is no consensus on whether the text should be included in or excluded from the article body. Editors in favor of inclusion argued that the text was supported by reliable sources. Editors opposed to inclusion questioned the reliability of some of the sources, and claimed that the sentence constitutes undue weight."

There were 5 for, 5 against removing the stuff from the article. However, it might be noted that two of the editors voting "for removing" hasve since been banned due to socking, etc, Huldra (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Would like to reopen this for discussion and inclusion Wikipal11119 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC) "In undercover footage from the leaked 2018 Al Jazeera documentary “The Lobby USA,” a former The Israel Project employe, admitted to an undercover reporter that Adam Milstein founded and funds the formerly anonymous website, Canary Mission. The employee states, “Adam Milstein, he’s the guy who funds it,” but admits he's uncertain who Milstein hired to operate the website. Milstein claims the documentary’s revelations are untrue."

@Huldra: Reopening this discussion. Pinging you due to above thread, where you made a SPA accusation. What is your current stance on this? As I noticed you reverted my removal over the weekend.

I understand this topic is covered in substantiated press; however, I do feel it is against community guidelines to feature pro-Palestinian outlets, given that Milstein is a prominent (controversial) figure in the Jewish/Israeli community. I plan to locate neutral options to replace #32-34. I also reconfigured this into Personal Life, as it does not technically fall under "Activism" activities.

What I don't understand is how a seemingly unconnected account verbatim reinserted the same information that the SPA originally added over four years ago. @Nohorizonss: Could you explain? Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I still think it should be mentioned. It is difficult to imagine that "Eric Gallagher, at the time an employee of The Israel Project" actually lied about it. But Milstein's denial should also stand, (for what it is worth: Milstein served jail-time for tax-fraud.) Huldra (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I've rephrased/removed biased sources (both pro-Palestine + pro-Israel). I have added the further context from the existing Nation reference -- "However, Gallagher reportedly "told Milstein that Al Jazeera had selectively edited his quote to make it appear that he was saying Milstein backed the operation." However, I can remove this if we feel that prose is now leaning too far in the opposite direction. Regardless, I do believe this belongs on his page, particularly following his conviction, but seemed a bit overly detailed all things considered. Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I am uncertain on how the statement "Adam Milstein, he’s the guy who funds it" could have been edited...? More likely, he realise that he has said too much, embarrassing his pay-master, Huldra (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

References