Talk:Joseph Edelman

HuffPost

In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers it openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See WP:HUFF and the next raw, about politics specifically. Llama Tierna (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The particular article in question provides links to their evidence. An overall concern about reliability on US politics does not seem to apply when specific evidence of donations is provided. Removing this information entirely seems more about suppressing information than any particular concern with probity. Thedrdonna (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Thedrdonna!

I noticed that you're new to editing articles related to living persons on Wikipedia. It's important to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons (BLP) policy, which you can find here: WP:BLP. This policy mandates that any contentious material must be supported by at least two reliable sources. For guidance on what constitutes a reliable source, please refer to this link: WP:RELIABLESOURCE

Regarding your recent edit, I observed that you referenced a Huffington Post article. However, per a 2020 Request for Comments (RfC), there's no consensus on the HuffPost's reliability in political contexts, particularly in U.S. politics where it's seen as biased. Its reliability in international politics remains undetermined as well. Here it is in full:

In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics.

Your revert and comments, which lean heavily on only one source with no consensus, may inadvertently border on defamation and misuse an unreliable source in a context that requires careful handling.

I understand that as a new editor, you might not be fully aware of these nuances, so I'll consider this a good faith mistake for now. However, I must notify you about the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, especially for biographies of living persons. Wikipedia's focus is not on the correctness of information alone, but on verifying information through reliable sources.

Your recent addition involved a significant amount of information with multiple references on the same page, which is unusual and requires careful scrutiny. Please consider this a friendly reminder to review and adhere to Wikipedia's policies. If similar issues arise in the future, I may need to bring this to the attention of the BLP Noticeboard.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Llama Tierna (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it will simplify things to point out that Pink News has covered the material as well. Pink News has been judged generally reliable (see WP:PINKNEWS), and while they are covering it from the aspect of HuffPo having reported on it, they are doing so in a way that they are putting their own reliability behind it (i.e., they are saying "HuffPo uncovered" rather than "HuffPo claimed to uncover". This article justifies including a focus on the Do No Harm funding and the the statement regarding the reason for that donation, as it ties all of those things to the individual who is the subject of this article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

In fact, the article makes it explicit that Pink News sought to verify and expand on what HuffPo had reported ("PinkNews has contacted Do No Harm for comment.") -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

For those tracking the conversation, let me note that Llama has taken their concern to other forums. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Joseph_Edelman brought two more editors into the matter (myself included), with neither voicing that the HuffPo was a problem and with both supporting PinkNews as an appropriate source. And they raised the issue at Jimbo Wales's talk page, where Jimbo weighed in that HuffPo was sufficient source for this information. They have stated their intent to take this to further forums, I ask that they notify us here on the this talk page when they do. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

New edit

Hello, @Thedrdonna.

I've had to remove another edit of yours due to bias. In your recent change, you cited two sources but misrepresented the content to support your view. A) The Associated Press article you referenced doesn't mention Edelman or his foundation at all; it solely discusses the Do Not Harm organization. B) The ProPublica document on funding various organizations does mention Do Not Harm among others. However, it's a primary document that you've directly copied without any journalistic analysis or secondary sourcing. Additionally, it's unclear why Do Not Harm is singled out when many other charities are mentioned.. Llama Tierna (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Thedrdonna!

I am acting in accordance with the specific rules of Wikipedia. If anyone is suppressing information, it's fairer to say that it's you. You've already twice blacked out the warnings I left on your Talk page. From now on, I respectfully request that you first submit suggestions for changes to the article for open discussion here.

In general, I don't mind using a ProPublica source, but it's WP:PRIMARY. And per WP:OR, it can't be done the way you're doing it. We could, however, create an Edelman Family Foundation section and list there the organizations that, according to this source, receive funding. Llama Tierna (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeatedly deleting important, timely information, citing rules arcana, does not create any desire for compromise. Make those changes, if you like, but otherwise I will revert your deletions, since they seem primarily focused on removing information that the subject of the page (and, it would seem, you) would rather not have public. I'm sure that if I was to put in the work to find a format that met your current set of demands, you would come up with a third, even more onerous set. Thedrdonna (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"born to a Jewish family"

The early life section currently starts with the statement that the subject was "born to a Jewish family". The source used to support it appears to be permanently dead; it is no longer at the listed location, and while archive.org has the html page, it does not appear to have the embedded video where the quote was taken from. None of the other sources on that paragraph mention the religion of his family. I suggest we remove it. While it seems likely accurate (given the family names, specific donation targets of the foundation, etc.), "jew-tagging" has been an on-wiki sport of both those who wish to promote Jews and those who wish to demean them (as in triple parentheses.) Barring a third-party source telling us this is a particularly relevant fact in his life, it is best to do without it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree with the removing that one unless we find a better source here. We don't need any hype around ethnicity for anyone and not just for the Jewish people. Llama Tierna (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus

@Llama Tierna: You've added the claim that a better source is needed for the Do No Harm material, claiming that one source is "mostly a copy of Huffpost with no consensus among editors". That is false. Every single editor but you who has weighed in on the HuffPost and Pink News sources, whether on this talk page, on the Biography Of Living Persons Noticeboard, or on Jimbo's page, has supported their use. Consensus does not require unanimity. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

In fact, an experienced editor, @Edwardx thanked me for my tagging, clearly indicating we share similar views on this matter, so it is not just my opinion as you mentioned. Wikipedia isn't just about "dropping the sticks"; it's about enhancing the quality of the encyclopedia, ensuring that readers have access to information from trustworthy sources. My stance is unchanged: there's a need for a more reliable source to support this information. For example, it is always recommended to have 2 secondary and reliable sources for any controversial information rather than one primary source and another one that retrieves the facts from Huffpost, which is ineligible. The tag will help other editors to search for those sources and add them later. This collaborative effort is the essence of how Wikipedia operates. Also, I didn't see many editors sharing their opinion on this particular source. If you don't see the tag as a consensus between us, then I suggest proceeding with requests for second opinions in a broader context. Llama Tierna (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:THANKS, "It should not be taken as a stamp of approval or as public endorsement of the edit. It does not mean your edit is "right" or that it represents consensus." Edwardx is a fairly frequent thanker, he's thanked me 15 times; I won't claim to know his motivations. Blowing off the fact that your problematic attempts to control this page have met with zero support and yet continue is not an example of you embracing collaboration. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the talk history, I see no consensus among editors the content should be kept out, and there's seems to be no actual argument as to why it should be kept out apart from focusing on critiquing the HuffPo. LlamaTierna's comment to Jimbo that According to a tax return document, the Edelman Family Foundation appears to contribute significantly to the Do Not Harm organization. However, the source of this information was Huffington Post, which is acknowledged as biased in US politics is frankly silly and the WP:FORUMSHOPing is concerning. It would be one thing if the complaint was "this is not true" or "it's easy to prove this is false", but the chief complaint seems to be "I don't like who pointed it out". That he funded DNH is obviously true and that RS have reported on it is true. End of story, WP:NPOV says means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Additionally, frankly the current section is severely lacking. Huffpost didn't just report on DNH, they also reported:

• The contribution to Do No Harm is one of the Edelmans’ single largest donations. It is also roughly the same amount of money that Do No Harm projected as revenue for 2022, suggesting the Edelmans were the group’s primary funders in its initial year.
• The Edelman Family Foundation, by contrast, which he founded in 2017, has showered six-figure grants on conservative organizations such as the Cato Institute; Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression; the anti-critical race theory Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism; Prager University, which markets right-wing videos as teaching material; and UATX, Bari Weiss’ unaccredited anti-cancel culture university.
• The foundation previously gave large donations to one liberal organization, the pro-abortion rights Center for Reproductive Rights, but those gifts stopped after 2021. “The Edelman Family Foundation no longer supports the Center for Reproductive Rights because of their adoption of gender ideology,” a spokesman for the foundation told HuffPost.
• In addition to funding anti-trans rights advocacy through Do No Harm, the Edelman Family Foundation has donated $400,000 to the Manhattan Institute to support, in the foundation’s words, a “gender identity initiative.”
• Parents Defending Education, an advocacy group which describes itself as a grassroots network but has close ties to the Koch network of right-wing political donors, received a $200,000 donation from the Edelmans in 2021, the year of its founding. The group opposes affirmative action and the discussion of racism or gender identity in schools.

We should cite more from the HuffPo instead of the citations to just ProPublica, unless there is any reason to believe the Huffpo's factual reporting is incorrect. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I concur that we should be more reliant on the HuffPost pieces. In texture, it is not directly at odds with the choices made by the editor who picked items from the tax filings -- some of the same institutions, and some similar ones (i.e., Jordan Peterson's unaccredited institution instead of Bari Weiss's. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"frankly silly"

First, let's discuss the article, not my cognitive abilities (WP:PERSONAL ATTACK). Llama Tierna (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Had she said you were "frankly silly", that would be a personal attack. Addressing the arguments you've made is not. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the argument, not you, but I'll expand on my comment sans adjectives.

Your argument, (1) According to a tax return document, the Edelman Family Foundation appears to contribute significantly to the Do Not Harm organization. (2) However, the source of this information was Huffington Post, (3) which is acknowledged as biased in US politics is basically (1) this is true (2) but Huffpo pointed it out (3) and they're biased. However, bias does not mean we can't use them, if you check WP:RSP multiple generally reliable sources are noted to biased. It also notes that no consensus means it may be usable depending on context, as opposed to generally unreliable, which says the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person.

This is true, but the publication that reported it is biased has no grounding in our policies or guidelines. The Huffpo may be used based on context. There's no reason to believe their reporting is inaccurate and their reporting was even covered by other generally reliable RS which puts more due weight behind it, therefore it makes sense to include it. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

UCSD

I've now twice deleted a statement about a donation to the University of California San Diego that was sourced to a University source. They are clearly not a third-party source on the question of large donations to UCSD, and thus cannot show that coverage is due. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The editor attempting to insert the information has taken the issue to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Joseph_Edelman. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The editor then took the matter also to Wikipedia:Teahouse#Joseph_Edelman, although that conversation was quickly shut down due to already being at RSN. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

SPACs in intro

The current introduction has the statement that Edeleman was " instrumental in establishing" a series of SPACs. Thing is, SPACs are just shell companies, empty parking spaces meant for an established company to move into. Being chairman of an empty space is not in itself a major achievement. It doesn't mean he ends up on the board ones the transfer has taken place (such as this example). The names that these companies hold will not be meaningful to the vast majority of readers. If his involvement in these efforts merits being in the intro (and I'm not sure it does), then it would be clearer just to say that "He helped take biotech firms public via the use of special purpose acquisition companies." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Charity section expansion

Hey @NatGertler and @XeCyranium,

I began expanding this section after our chat with Jimmy Wales:

If I were to critique our biography of Jospeh Edelman, I think I'd be more concern with WP:UNDUE. Forbes says his net worth is $2.5 billion, and this donation was for $1 million. The Edelman Family Foundation has $100 million in assets and appears to give over $8 million a year in grants. It is not at all clear to me why this one donation deserves to be such a large part of a very short biography. @Jimbo Wales, Special:Diff/1206951643).

I agree with Wikipedia's founder that it's not right to overly highlight a single donation from a foundation that gave $100 million to various causes, mainly educational. We need to make sure this section reflects a more balanced perspective.

I was also taken aback to find my edit, which used a reputable ProPublica source, was removed. This source has been widely recognized for its credibility since 2019, and my edit simply highlighted the most significant contributions mentioned there.

There is a strong consensus that ProPublica is generally reliable for all purposes because it has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is widely cited by reliable sources, and has received multiple Pulitzer Prizes.

Furthermore, it has been used thousands of times on many pages with no objection including on the page of Wikimedia Foundation.

Therefore, I've reverted the edit back and would appreciate it if you could point out any specific concerns with the source. Maybe it's worth bringing in some editors who were part of the 2019 consensus for their input. What do you think? Llama Tierna (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The ProPublica source your using is not a ProPublica article, it is merely them hosting a copy of a tax filing as part of a database. This is a primary document, as you have noted before on this very page. ProPublica being reliable in this instance just means we can treat this as an accurate copy of the tax filing, but it is not the document itself is not a reliable, independent, third-party source. It cannot tell us what coverage is due. Your analysis as to which donations are the most "significant" is the sort of analysis that WP:PRIMARY tells us to avoid. We should rely on secondary sources to indicate significance. (If anyone suspects that you were just trying to say "largest donation" as in "significant amount".... nope. You list Team Rubicon which got $1800 when the next entry on their sheet was The Tikvah Fund which got two entries of $375,000 apiece without being included on your list.)

In your edit summary, you say "Per Talk:Joseph Edelman", but if you check this page, you will find not only your own objections to basing statements solely on the tax filing ("The ProPublica document on funding various organizations does mention Do Not Harm among others. However, it's a primary document that you've directly copied without any journalistic analysis or secondary sourcing."), but also Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist saying "We should cite more from the HuffPo instead of the citations to just ProPublica", while over on the discussion you started at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Joseph_Edelman, where I voice the concern "The editor who inserted that has also been inserting other claims of donation to the page based on a WP:PRIMARY source, the Edelman Foundation's tax filings." I also showed my concern over sourcing by placing a Better Source Needed tag on the statement.

Jimbo suggested that you round out the biography, which you have done; he did not suggest that we need to list other donations just to be balanced. We have the secondary coverage from HuffPo, and should be using that as a basis of listing other donations. That would qualify as " journalistic analysis or secondary sourcing".

(In both the above comment and in your edit summary, you claim that ProPublica was used on the Wikimedia Foundation page, and I went there to see how it was used so that I could show you the contrast to how you were using it... and found zero invocations of ProPublica. Am I missing something?)

You were bold in placing your edit. Your edit was reverted by one of three editors who have voiced objections to its sourcing. That's a time to follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and reach consensus on the talk page. Putting "You need to bring a sound argument here before removing it again just because you don't like it" into your edit summary while ignoring the sound argument that had been placed against it is going in the other direction. I am restoring the reversion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)