Talk:Adam Milstein

For the short description there has been some back and forth so I am restoring for now to the version that used both but then lets see if we can decide on the best, shortest SD for this subject. I propose: "Israeli-American venture philanthropist" because that seems to incorporate both the "investor" aspect as well as philanthropic pursuits. Though I am open to other suggestions. It seems there is disagreement over whether just investor alone or just philanthropist alone would be best. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I’m generally of the opinion that “philanthropist” is a non-neutral fluff term that is only appropriate if it’s either a) the subject’s only noteworthy “professional” activity or b) overwhelmingly used by RS to refer to them. In this case, we appear to have sources identifying that Milstein’s career as having been a real-estate investor [https://www.tmcnet.com/topics/articles/2020/05/14/445411-meet-adam-milstein-real-estate-investor-active-philanthropist.htm] before philanthropist.

:The label of philanthropy seems particularly ill-suited to a neutral portrayal of someone whose donation work is overwhelmingly political in nature; consequently, sources sympathetic to this work call it “philanthropy” and sources opposed to it call him a “right-wing donor” [https://theintercept.com/2019/03/25/adam-milstein-israel-bds/]. Interestingly, perhaps what could have been the most authoritative source cited here, [https://www.jta.org/2019/03/19/israel/prominent-pro-israel-donor-pulls-out-of-aipac-conference-after-saying-muslim-lawmakers-clash-with-american-values JTA], dodges our question by calling him a "pro-Israel funder" and avoiding the terms "investor" or "philanthropist" (although they do apply the latter to George Soros when briefly mentioned). The Nation, which could have been another definitive source, introducse him as {{tq|multimillionaire Adam Milstein, a convicted felon}} [https://www.thenation.com/article/world/canary-mission-israel-covert-operations/], and in another article just refers to him as {{tq|chairman of the Israeli-American Council (IAC)}}[https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-israel-spies-on-us-citizens/]. Much as we would avoid calling a militant a freedom fighter or a terrorist, in the presence of RS chiming in on opposing sides of this dichotomy, avoiding a value-laden term seems prudent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm in agreement with Rosguill. 81567518W (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::I would propose two options, both of which are fairly value-neutral: "Israeli-American real estate investor" or "Israeli-American political donor". The former is the immediate occupation and the latter is what the subject is more notable for. 81567518W (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Venture philanthropy is a type of impact investment that takes concepts and techniques from venture capital finance and business management and applies them to achieving philanthropic goals. The term was first used in 1969 by John D. Rockefeller III to describe an imaginative and risk-taking approach to philanthropy that may be undertaken by charitable organizations.

:Venture philanthropy seems to be a different kind of pursuit which would not be relevant here. Theofunny (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venture_philanthropy&diff=prev&oldid=1284357040 Your edit on Venture Philanthropy adding Milstein, seems to draw from his own website, a primary source. Theofunny (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Primary sources are not prohibited, though often secondary sources are preferable for their independence and when available, as they are not always. Curious though that you added back the SD there which says, "Impact investment with a focus on philanthropy." Which, isn't that exactly then what we are talking about when we bring up both "investment" and "philanthropy" on this page? One consideration is length etc., given that a "short" description" is after all meant to be "short", but another is a term to best describe the subject accurately, precisely, and with language that also fully encompasses the material and does so also with brevity in mind. I think your return of that SD there helps to bring to light that the term actually best does precisely that when fully considering all options. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Wanted to hop in and note that there are two (technically four refs, of which three are duplicated -- if anyone wants to complete a good faith edit by streamlining #17 and 30 to match ref #8, go for it) references that state Milstein is an "active philanthropist" in the headline. Ref #2 labels Milstein as being both an investor and philanthropist. What's the issue here with including both? Just curious if there is a Wiki guideline that discourages "philanthropist" in general. I feel that "venture philanthropist" is promotional, as the references do not use that title. Perhaps the compromise would be to keep SD as is and restore lede language to "investor and philanthropist"? I do not feel "Impact investment with a focus on philanthropy" is appropriate for SD. --Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::No one suggested "Impact investment with a focus on philanthropy" as the SD here for this subject, that was referencing the SD on another article (Venture philanthropy). Iljhgtn (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Noted. I still recommend keeping SD as is and potentially restoring lede language to include both "investor" and "philanthropist", as this is how reporting describes Milstein. Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The limited reporting on Milstein from RS does not use the word "philanthropist". 81567518W (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Here are two examples of RS that describe Milstein as being a "philanthropist". If we can come to a conclusion, I will update to reflect. Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::* https://www.jpost.com/international/article-707198

:::::::* https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-739099

::::::::It looks like https://www.jpost.com/international/article-707198 does use the "venture philanthropy" label directly, which to me seems to incorporate the investor aspect more strongly and so should be retained as is. Also, the SD as is is 39 characters, which is about perfect. We should not go over 40 unless there is a very good reason to or we cannot find a shorter SD that could possibly work, which is simply not the case here. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Both of these linked articles are promotional and should not be considered RS - read the disclaimer at the bottom of each. 81567518W (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Reading the discussion, "investor and philanthropist" seem fine to me. Most of the sources in the article refer to him as one or the other. Bruebach (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Noted and agreed. I only mean this for the lede language, not to alter SD. In regards to the Jerusalem Post, it is considered to be a reliable source, only treated with caution when "making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". As this is not the case, it may be consulted for restoring "philanthropist". --Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Native advertising is not the same thing as reporting and it not admissible as a RS. 81567518W (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::See WP:SPONSORED 81567518W (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: I see what you mean now. Thanks for pointing this out. "Philanthropist" is still worth exploring, as two other editors also find value in pursuing the conversation. (Reminder that Wikipedia functions as a community-consensus site.) I have found three other Jerusalem Post articles that are independently published and categorize Milstein as also being philanthropist:

:::::*https://www.jpost.com/not-just-news/jerusalem-post-50-most-influential-jews-number-39-adam-milstein-469072

:::::*https://www.jpost.com/international/new-york-times-internationally-prints-antisemitic-cartoon-of-trump-netanyahu-588014

:::::*https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-777816 (this may be too close for comfort to the Israel-Palestine topic to use as a reference, but sharing for coverage)

:::::--Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::[https://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-israel-donor-adam-milstein-denies-report-that-he-funds-canary-mission/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-israel-donor-adam-milstein-denies-report-that-he-funds-canary-mission/]

::::::Times of Israel refers to him as a "Pro-Israel donor" and calls him a donor once again but makes no mention of philanthropy/philatropist. Theofunny (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for sharing. This backs up "investor" in addition to "philanthropist" above. Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:If there is no consensus we can err on the side of caution and remove the term or we can raise to a Noticeboard. 81567518W (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Noting here that I have removed the term from the SD and lede. 81567518W (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Much more of the consensus seems to support inclusion here rather than removal. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::A good faith effort has been made in the noticeboard and here in the talk page to reach a consensus which proponents of the use of the term "philanthropist" have so far not engaged. Please refrain from WP:WAR until that has taken place and a consensus has been reached. Feel free to create a new noticeboard post if you wish. 81567518W (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::What are you talking about? there is a pretty clear majority consensus. Bruebach (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Again, that is not how WP:CON works. "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)"

::::::further

::::::"Living people. In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it." 81567518W (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Separate from short description, because it looks like there was some confusion of short description and lead in the prior discussion. What do we think of the following as a proposed lead based on prior discussions?

"Adam Milstein (Hebrew: אדם מילשטיין; born 1952) is an Israeli American donor and philanthropist. He is a managing partner at Hager Pacific Properties." Iljhgtn (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:The problem is the same; the only reliable source that uses that term has a history of paid promotional content with the subject and it would be imprudent to use it. 81567518W (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's not the only source that uses it though? The algemeiner article and JNS article both also use it. They are both in the reference list in the article.

::From what it looks like his notability mostly comes from his philanthropy in the Jewish community? So these articles definitely are relevant.

::I don't get why this has to be so complicated Bruebach (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think "investor and philanthropist" is better, but this isn't bad. Bruebach (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for separating the lead vs. SD, Iljhgtn. I agree that we are overthinking here. I also agree with the phrasing suggested by Bruebach. Additionally, Jerusalem Post is qualified as being a RS, which describes Milstein as such. I see no issue with:

::Adam Milstein ({{langx|he|אדם מילשטיין}}; born 1952) is an Israeli American investor and philanthropist. He is a managing partner at Hager Pacific Properties.

If Iljhgtn, Bruebach, and I are all in agreement, then it appears we have reached a consensus. Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:That is not how consensus works, please see WP:CON. I've posted in the noticeboard here: WP:BLPN 81567518W (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Has there been a balanced sampling of sources given the diversity of coverage and the contentious nature of many of the organizations this person supports? The article should reflect that diversity rather than be based on sources at one end of the spectrum of coverage. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::A broad survey, including sources that have a history of sponsorship with the subject: [https://www.thenation.com/article/world/canary-mission-israel-covert-operations/][https://theintercept.com/2019/03/25/adam-milstein-israel-bds/][https://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-israel-donor-adam-milstein-denies-report-that-he-funds-canary-mission/][https://theintercept.com/2025/04/02/penn-israel-canary-mission-peisach/][https://www.timesofisrael.com/leader-of-american-israeli-group-tweets-anti-semitic-image-of-soros/][https://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-israel-donor-wont-speak-at-aipac-after-attacking-muslim-lawmakers/][https://forward.com/fast-forward/421149/adam-milstein-aipac-twitter-omar-tlaib-muslim/][https://www.dailycal.org/archives/funds-to-ucla-student-political-party-came-from-outside-sources-leaked-emails-show/article_61186bca-8840-5730-99ac-27395692e53a.html][https://forward.com/israel/202616/why-did-ucla-hillel-funnel-cash-from-pro-israel-do/][https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/251193][https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/182877][https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/pro-israel-donor-abandons-aipac-muslim-lawmakers-clash-with-us-values-583955]

::The most common description is pretty unanimous regardless of source: pro-Israel donor, with no mention of philanthropy 81567518W (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

: Perhaps a side-issue for the lead, but does someone think WP:nationality should not apply here? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)