Talk:Democratic Majority for Israel

Citing the 'Impact' section of the website is undue

@Pennsylvania2: I twice removed a sentence on 'impact', so I should explain why.

This is cited to the 'Impact' page of the Democratic Majority for Israel website. It is totally okay to include this material if it is sourced to an independent reliable source. However, citing the organization itself for this detail seems overly promotional, and fails to provide a non-primary, independent source for this claim. Freelance-frank (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Kaufman reaction

Pennsylvania2 has repeated removal of the following content with edit summaries "This section refers to the 2021 election. Find somewhere else to put it. Or it doesn't belong on article.", "Seems like an incident with no connection to their efforts with candidate", and a third time without note in the edit summary:

DMFI provoked a strong negative reaction from numerous other Jewish groups in May 2021 after it tweeted that Nancy Kaufman, former head of the National Council for Jewish Women and progressive suggestion for Biden antisemitism envoy, had "enabled, rather than battled, anti-Semitism." DMFI subsequently deleted the tweet and issued an apology. The attack alienated a variety of groups that support a strong relationship of Israel from DMFI.

References

To avoid a slow edit war, I would like to move discussion to the talk page. Based on RS coverage, 2-3 sentences on this event seem due (I don't include all available citations to avoid OVERCITE, and DUE has not been referenced at all in edit summaries anyhow). Explanation for removal are either that this content doesn't fit the current article sectioning or that it is not connected to electioneering. Neither of these are reasons to exclude content. Page content should reflect coverage in RS. Section titles not precisely matching is a very minor issue, and SOFIXIT seems a better response than content removal. Freelance-frank (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have slightly changed the section titles to resolve the issue mentioned in the edit summaries. Freelance-frank (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Bowman taxes

Do you suggest I make them on your talk page? Also, I thought I had removed this: "that poverty had kept him from paying his tax burden and" re: Bowman. The source does not mention this. Lionrampant3 (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

No, Lionrampant3, on the article talk page if it is about an article: Talk:Democratic Majority for Israel.

You did and I reverted it. I suggest re-checking the citation. I changed it. Freelance-frank (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Freelance-frank, I'd argue poverty is a defined amount in the U.S. and the article does not state that — it says he struggled with debt, or had money troubles. Lionrampant3 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Add missing sig Freelance-frank (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page. Freelance-frank (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. My description is still off. Freelance-frank (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Large update to page

Hi all! I just went ahead and boldly updated the page and felt I should flag it here to the main editors for obvious reasons. DMFI caught my eye when I did some tweaks to the 2021 Ohio's 11th district special election page and some other light congressional work, and I finally got around to adding more to it here. Happy to discuss any of the changes here and happy to rollback any of my specific edits if we think it's necessary. Basically tried to expand on all of the different sections, but didn't get to everything and was tired of sitting on all this instead of pushing it live. Thanks y'all!

I've gone ahead and tagged the largest editors here as well too. (@Freelance-frank:, @Pennsylvania2:, and @Lionrampart3:). Let me know if you have any questions or concerns! Nomader (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I notice a couple nits I'll pick (DMFI statements that need attribution, slight errors, unexplained removals), but I broadly appreciate these changes. Freelance-frank (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Freelance-frank: Thanks for the edits before, really appreciated it, sorry I didn't respond here! Decided to do a pass at finding Flickr photos for this article and a few others today (mostly a New Mexico special that I'm obsessed with finding candidate photos for and I failed) and found this photo on DMFI's Flickr page. It had creative commons rights that we can use so I uploaded it, but not opposed to changing the caption for it in the article here if you think of something better. Nomader (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Freelance-frank: Hey Frank, saw your edits and was good with most of them from my end (thanks for fixing so many reference things!). I added back in that sentence on the Lowey Partnership for Peace Fund with an actual citation that I meant to use when I added it in before, just a heads up because I know you cut the sentence (probably because there was zero citations with it) and I don't want to look like I'm edit warring or anything. Nomader (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the expansion and discussion. Okay, I see that the statement is verifiable. Thank you for going to the trouble of finding it.

However, I find the source weak from a DUE perspective: it has only three sentences about DMFI, with two being a quote from Mellman. I tried to find another article that speaks more to DMFI's role here, but I failed (examples: [1][2][3][4][5]). Lacking better sourcing, I lean to exclusion. Freelance-frank (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I found a quick passing mention from the Middle East Institute as well ([6]) where it lists it as one of the groups that lobbied for its passage (along with AIPAC, J Street, etc.) -- it looks like the sources you mention say stuff like "An array of pro-Israel groups that do not often agree praised the spending plan" and then don't mention the full list, but I think it's clear from these two references that DMFI is one of them. I find the whole thing pretty fascinating tbh because so much of their other work is focused on electoral politics, which is why I added it here originally. I think that one small sentence on the subject meets the standard set out in WP:PROPORTION (but obviously I don't think any expansion past that would be warranted). Also -- thanks for your work here too, it's really nice to work on an article with other active editors that are actually around for it for once! Nomader (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

As an SPS, I think this adds minimally to weight. I don't feel a need to go back and forth on this at the moment--it's just one little piece--but I see this inclusion as setting the standard at the bare minimum. Freelance-frank (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Freelance-frank: -- just a heads up, I added a 2022 section just now and highlighted endorsements and some primary races. Just wanted to let you know! Nomader (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice! I've been meaning to get around to an expansion like this. Very nice. I'll poke through it. Thanks. Freelance-frank (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed some of the specific names from the roster of endorsements, since it wasn't clear what was granting them weight as opposed to the others listed and because none of them got much individual coverage in the cited articles. Open to hear arguments against that approach. Freelance-frank (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

IMO think your removal was totally fair -- it wasn't well articulated at all (also thanks for all of your other edits here too, really appreciate it). I'm adding in this WaPo newsletter source ([7]) which goes through their largest endorsements for the general election and bringing back in the U.S. Senate endorsements here, because I feel it's the most notable thing (they're playing in U.S. Senate races now in general elections). I can absolutely see a clear rationale here for removing these if you think it's excessive though too -- but I do feel like this makes more sense than me just going, "Oh hey, here's Tim Ryan and every other person" kinda randomly for no reason. Nomader (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Freelance-frank: Thanks for all of your edits here to the stuff I've been dropping in, this page has just kind of become my recent Wikipedia obsession so I'm glad I can drag you along for the ride! Couple of things on top of the endorsement thing I mentioned above:

• On a structure note -- I saw that you removed the history section and separated out the election years. I think the election year sections should be grouped for readability here, but I didn't change this -- open to arguments if you think it'd be too excessive.
• I added a note about the 85% piece here because I was trying to give a good barometer of the overall success rate of these endorsements they've had this cycle. Not opposed to swapping out sources here if necessary. Nomader (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)