Talk:Creative Community for Peace

Flipping the bias, eh?

@Ezlev:In "fixing" the article, you've added a bunch of other bias. This is not a comprehensive list, just a starting point. Can we work together to come to a balanced agreement?

1) Most sources seem to focus on the group's desire to connect artists to promote peace. This should be put first and weighted correctly, with it's opposition to BDS second.

2) Variety states unequivocally that this is an apolitical group. It needs to be covered as such.

Creative Community for Peace, an apolitical, non-profit entertainment industry organization, has come together to issue a collective call for “peace"...

3) An entire paragraph based upon a press release from a NY group, plus a mention in the lead, seems totally undue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 08:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Bob drobbs, what was it you said at Talk:StandWithUs? it's a work in progress, and I plan on working more on it later. Maybe I'm being a bit flippant by parroting your words, but I do mean them, just like you did. I have no illusion that my edits solved the NPOV issues in this article, and I don't reject the idea that I may have overcorrected in some aspects. I hope we can assume good faith with each other and work together here.

To respond to your points:

1. Most groups? {{Citation needed}}, I think. I didn't review all the sources' characterizations of CCFP's aims in detail, but per the ToI piece they were founded in direct response to BDS (and that's their own version of their origin story). I agree that we should work toward due weight in the group's aims but I don't agree that that'll necessarily mean placing "desire to connect artists to promote peace" (what does that even mean?) before the group's very concrete pro-Israel advocacy and opposition to BDS.
2. In the piece where Variety describes CCFP as apolitical it also publishes the CCFP open letter in full along with quotes from the organization's director. It's not quite a press release, but its uncritical reflection of CCFP's own statements should be taken into account. Additionally, Variety is an entertainment trade magazine which is considered reliable in its field (emphasis mine) per its RSP entry; the politics of an advocacy group in the IP subject area is outside the field of entertainment – not to mention that Variety isn't independent from CCFP, given that it has been the "media sponsor" for a CCFP event (see the very last line of that article). I'll take this to NPOVN or RSN if I have to, but I hope we can settle it here instead. We can use Variety to attribute Schnur's or CCFP's claims that CCFP is apolitical and non-religious, but we should not state that in wikivoice, especially if other sources disagree.
3. If this were cited to a press release I'd agree with you – it's the Times of Israel coverage that makes it due. (Worth noting that the "entire paragraph" is two sentences). I'll remove the reference to it from the lede, though – I agree that part is undue, at least while the lede is so short.

I'm looking forward to collaborating with you on this! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ezlev: Cheers to keeping it productive!

1) I didn't say "most groups", I said "most sources". Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of what "Views" mean. You might think it means "Political Opinions". I think it means "World Outlook", and the later makes more sense for a group that sees itself as apolitical. Speaking about things like power of music or connecting people may seem "fluffy", but this is a group of creative minded people and I don't think we can de-prioritize the coverage of these ideas from RS because you and I might be more political minded. Examples:

“We believe in the power of music, the arts and culture to build bridges between people ... We want to encourage interaction and co-existence. For some DJ shows in Israel, 50% of those who attend could be non-Jewish, either Arabs, Muslims or Palestinians.”

The arts are a vital mechanism in creating lasting change. For audiences living far away from a conflict zone, an effective way to get the unaffiliated to take notice isn’t just the evening news.

2) I'll consider this more, but I'm leaning toward agreeing.

3) If it was a link to a press release I'd say toss it completely. Instead a RS is covers a press release that makes one big unsubstantiated allegation ("branch of") and another bordering on gossip. Should an encyclopedia really write about who is married to whom with zero evidence it impacts their work? In terms of WP:DUE, the paragraph speaking about Adalah-NY is only 4% of the 1700 word TOI article about CCFP. I think it should be weighted appropriately, cut down to a single probably short sentence, and merged into the paragraph above.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

4) One more thing. I noticed you added "Ran Geffen-Lifshitz" as a founder. The one source says he was present at the breakfast where they came up with the idea, but I haven't seen any evidence that he had any part in the actual creation of the Org or is in any way considered one of the founders. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Per the ToI source: "'As long as we have the truth on our side, then all we have to do is give the facts,' says Ran Geffen-Lifshitz, who co-founded Creative Community for Peace in 2011 alongside Spirit Music’s David Renzer and Electronic Arts’ Steven Schnur." It's the paragraph before the one about the breakfast. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I just checked other sources. Forward agrees. So he stays. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ezlev: Any comments about (1) or (3) above before I go back to editing? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(1): I agree that we should seek due weight in balancing content about CCFP's stated desires versus what they actually do and advocate; I expect we'll disagree on where that due weight is found, but I'm more than willing to discuss that if the issue arises. (3): I agree. Feel free to trim it. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I just made a couple of quick changes. I'll work on a rewrite later and pull in some additional sources. I'll add the inuse tag when I start that. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Huge rewrite. After I started going through sources, I actually did a lot more than I planned.

Totally won't be offended if you cut some things down.

And I'll fix the sources to at least have titles soon. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, in case this wasn't obvious, I'm aware that it's all a bit rough at this point, and will generally need cleanup. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Impressive! I’ll take a look at some point soon. As an aside, you might want to review WP:Bare URLs - I certainly have no problem with expanding citations myself, but it’s a good thing to make a part of your editing workflow. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Getting that much done was exhausting. I know the refs need help. I'll fix it soon. But it's a good suggestion to make it part of my workflow and build the correct refs as I go next time. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ezlev: Thanks for fixing the refs. I fixed the last two. Mostly for my curiosity, can you see if you can find any more information from good RS that have info on the group disputing the term "occupation" or any other views on the occupation or settlements. I took a quick look and didn't see anything. The Forward article states it as fact, but the author gives zero indication where he got that info from.[1]

So I searched the group's website. The word "occupation" is only used like a dozen times on their site. And I found one of their staff members fully acknowledging the occupation:

Like a majority of Israelis, I recognize that the ongoing occupation of the Palestinian people is a long-term threat to my country’s well-being.[2]

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)