Talk:International Fact-Finding Mission on Israeli Settlements

Neutrality
I am removing the indicator that contributors have a close connection. I see nothing in the article that implies that. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 18:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Bias?
50% of the article length is devoted to the reaction defending Israel, whilst the views of the majority of governments and organisations that supported the report have very little place. This is quite a substantial WP:BIAS. I would love someone to bring more balance to the article by including voices "for" and "against" in equal proportions at the very least.  kashmiri 16:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

CN
I have removed a citation needed tag on the reports section, as the information is in the report, which is linked at the bottom. If this is considered an inappropriate removal, please let me know. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 21:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League
Hello, I just wanted to clarify why I reverted the removal of the reaction of the ADL from the page. I feel as though the ADL is a notable source, so why is it that, with a citation, we can't include their reaction in the reactions section?

I understand that the ADL is notable for fighting bigotry, but how does that invalidate their opinion? Is the argument that the ADL's reaction should be excluded because there is no coverage of their coverage? If so, I don't see how that makes sense. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 20:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, here I concur with Dlv999. Because of Wikipedia's insistence on WP:secondary sources, ADL's views on the Mission should normally be learned through a third-party source (that would also clarify, ideally, why ADL's view matters here at all). Otherwise we could end up with a long list of statements and press releases by all organisations that ever decided to make a comment on the Mission's report. Personally, I don't really see why, our of hundreds organisations involved in the Mission, it is ADL's comments that would have any special significance - but then, since someone had put them in, I decided to keep them in order not to be accused of anti-semitism. Regards,  kashmiri TALK  21:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I'm just confused as to what constitutes a secondary source. The link you provided says that a secondary source "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event," whereas a primary source is "An account of a traffic accident written by a witness," or "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment".


 * If the ADL is notable and considered a reliable source for opinion, then wouldn't an in-text attribution be acceptable (like in the example from the same link, "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd...")? I understand that a line has to be drawn, but, at least from my perspective, the ADL qualifies. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, ADL is a reliable source but is also a primary source, i.e., ADL says just what ADL thinks on the Mission. A secondary source would for instance consist of an analysis of various reactions to the Mission, and include ADL's reaction among them. That also ensures that ADL's view is WP:NOTABLE, i.e., mentioned by another source and not just by itself.  kashmiri TALK  11:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)