Talk:Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect

Note

Hi – I’m Alison Preece with the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect. I just made wholesale edits to this page because the entire organization has changed and we hadn’t bothered to update this page in ages. As you will see through all the citation proof we offered below, our organization changed its name from The Anne Frank Center USA to the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect in June 2016, when we also brought on board a new executive director, and have changed from prinicipally a Holocaust-only organization to a social justice organization. We also changed our location in New York and opened an office in Los Angeles. Pretty much nothing on the Wiki page was accurate or up-to-date. The page is accurate and up-to-date now. You may call us at our office (Redacted). Thanks! TooManyBoxes (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation about founding

the sentence "Otto Frank, Anne's father, founded the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect in the United States in 1959." is not addressed by the citation used at the end of the sentence. Is there a source that directly supports this sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.228.120 (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

This edit mentioning the New Jersey Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton has no bearing on the validity of the statement that Mr Goldstein made in his role as executive director and should not be included in the article. The hint of political intent can not be made in WP's voice. Buster Seven Talk 07:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not encyclopidik

This is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia entry. 2604:2000:9046:800:90A3:C78C:AFEF:A997 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing and notability

I haven't had an opportunity yet to examine the available sourcing for the article, but I have to say that at the current time it does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. The article at the current time lacks sufficient independent sourcing. I would suggest that editors with a connection to the subject matter study the guideline and the policy on sourcing and suggest potential independent sources here and not add them to the article directly per WP:COI, Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

#resistance [sic]

For the quoted usage of a hashtag, I used [sic] ("thus [it was written]") not to indicate that I thought the hashtag was erroneous, but that it was a non-standard use of punctuation that may look strange to some readers, and thus should be noted as the source's style.

In the same way that a quote saying "one of the loudest voices in the RESISTANCE" might be an intentional choice of the author to style the word in that way, rather than an error, it can be a strange sight in a more conservatively styled article. SilverLocust (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well you can certainly put it back but I'm concerned it may be interpreted as correcting an error.

By the way, to change the subject, I see that the quote from the mission statement was removed on the basis of an essay. I realize that usually mission statements are not advisable. But I think it's necessary to get that kind of language in the article for balance. Coretheapple (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@SilverLocust: Since Jytdog has turned this article into a stub, removing everything we just discussed, the topic is moot until that nonsense is addressed. Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM, WP:RELTIME

Please keep RELTIME in mind; this is an encyclopedia and articles have no dateline. Also please be aware of WP:RECENTISM. What the center has done in the past few months is not a big deal. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course it's a big deal. That's when it entered the public eye, before which it was barely notable. Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

this is what WP:RECENTISM is exactly about Core. We are not part of the media circus. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That's like saying we can't write about Trump because he's the most "recent" president. Utter nonsense. Coretheapple (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a question of WEIGHT, not about saying nothing. And yes there is a lot of stuff about politics (and celebrities, and medicine) that is just the latest blip in the news cycle and that we don't give WEIGHT to. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I would just like to note that you have violated the three-revert rule, Jytdog. SilverLocust (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Content based on the Emma Green article in the Atlantic

Would folks here explain why the criticisms of Emma Green in the Atlantic were given so much WEIGHT? I'll add that the content did the typical "claim the journal said it thing" (like when people write "The New York Times" said X, when it was a report in the NYT, not a statement by the editorial board of the NYT. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the weight given is appropriate. The subject has a major public profile and the Atlantic article is quoted at suitable weight. Coretheapple (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Coretheapple's opinion. Also, while there are several articles from notable publications quoting this group, there are very few that profile the organization and just who they are exactly. The Atlantic piece is not being used in an UNDUE manner. TAG (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It is customary to rely on major articles in major publications. We don't just disregard them and say "oh, that's too much!" Coretheapple (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

As it was this ref got a whole paragraph in the body and a mention in the lead. It is a bit much. As things stand now the factual stuff from the Atlantic about the origin story is there. I am thinking that we shouldn't even mention the organization's own claims about that. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Coretheapple (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hard to discuss content then. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You're linking to a version of the article and referring to "this ref." The rest of your comment is cryptic. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

"this ref" refers to the article named in the header. I link to the version of this WP article where content from that reference was given UNDUE weight. "As things stand now" refers to the shorter version of the WP article. The "origin story" refers to the date of founding and the relationship between the organization and Otto Frank. I noted there that the shorter version of this WP article still retained Greens' findings about the origins of the organization. I wondered if our WP article should say anything about the organization's own claims about its origins. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That article and the tablet ref probably deserve a mention somewhere in the article. They definitely, however do not belong in the lead; the standard for mentioning specific criticisms in the lead is normally a lot higher than this. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

So let's discuss whether the article should consist of this version or this shorter one. I think the longer version is preferable. Coretheapple (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the first choice. TAG (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Me too. SilverLocust (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a poll. Please provide reasoning. The piece as it is now comes off as an attack piece, does very typical silly description of a "feature piece in The Atlantic" to make that ref appear Oh So Important, and gives UNDUE weight to it. The shorter version is better and more appropriate to an organization that really hasn't done that much. We should perhaps do an RfC on this. I will launch that in a bit. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not sure what more there is to say. The article in the Atlantic is of self-evident importance and is given proper weight. The longer version is better, also self-evident. The shorter version is a stub that excludes the bulk of the reason why this article exists. You call that "recentism." That's nonsense. There's really not much more to say. Coretheapple (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. See below. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC - Article versions

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus as to the better version of the two.The status-quo i.e the current state of the article seems to be comparatively better from all spheres and thus prevails.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Please indicate which version you believe better reflects reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidlines, and say why:

1. Longer version here
2. Shorter version here

Thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

!votes

• Longer version. This is an article about a small nonprofit that has had an extremely high profile of late. The organization itself has had such sparse attention that prior to recent events it was of questionable notability. However it has received a fair amount of attention of late, culminating in a profile in The Atlantic[1]. Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Comment The article has been extensively edited since this RfC was created and I think the current version (found here) is preferable to either of the two alternatives originally presented. Second choice, longer version. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC) See below Coretheapple (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• shorter version It is more appropriate for an organization that has done little that is notable so far. There has been a burst of media coverage about it (much of it driven by its own pretty savvy self-marketing, and I will note that this article itself was a piece of promotional dreck.) The "longer version" goes too far the other way and is attack-piece-y, putting undue WEIGHT on one ref and doing the typical hyping of that one ref by actually describing it all, and calling it "a feature piece in The Atlantic" - this is the kind of thing that POV-pushers always do in WP. We should avoid WP:RECENTISM (the longer version even has a section called "Recent developments" which violates RELTIME as well as RECENTISM, very clearly) and we should avoid putting so much WEIGHT on that one ref, and indeed on what has happened in the past six months. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Longer version The organization was only made notable recently. Because of that there aren't many profiles on this organization in reputable publications. Additionally, prior to The Atlantic article, the smaller version was based off of edits made primarily by a staff member of the organization and was criticized for being an advertisement for the organization. TAG (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• shorter version but add in this article which seems to have been cut from the shorter version (excluding the quote from the article that is in the longer version per WP:UNDUE) - the current quote is editorial summary from the journalist but it would be better to summarize content and use in-text attribution for the sourced quotes in the article (comments from William Shulman, Yvonne Simons, Yves Kugelmann and others.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Shorter version - Longer version adds too much subjective information to be encyclopedic and because of this the entire article reads more like a periodical piece. In a more comprehensive article where objective information dominates, small sections on noteworthy topics such as the current controversy could play a part. As currently composed, this article struggles to appear neutral and informative. With an article of this length, I'd prefer perhaps a single line noting the controversy and linking sources and for the controversy itself to be outlined in a separate article should that be deemed noteworthy. As this organization has mainly been noteworthy due to this particular controversy. It may be that the controversy itself could be more comprehensively extrapolated in a separate article dedicated to it and linked in this article. This particular article requires far more input in order to maintain notability in it's own right; taking only pertinent material intrinsic to the subject matter, it is a stub and needs massive work to move beyond that. But that is a separate issue. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 18:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Hello; Anne Frank Center staff here. Thank you all for weighing in here; unfortunately, we don't believe either of these versions accurately reflects our organization. The shorter one doesn't have any factual errors per se, but it gives far too much weight to the Atlantic's question about our founding. We have the historical documentation about our founding in 1959 on our website (annefrank.com/history).

In terms of the longer version, we agree that far too much weight was giving to the Atlantic article here as well. Why not quote some of the other recent coverage from equally reputable publications such as The Washington Post or the New York Times, which are both cited at the bottom? And, if that quote from Peter is going to be included it also makes sense to mention that we are registered with the Association of Holocaust Organizations (here's that citation: http://www.ahoinfo.org/membersdirectory.html).

The longer version also gives misleading information about our affiliation with the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam; it should note that we remain a partner of the House. You can use the Washington Post article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/05/02/meet-the-activist-who-calls-trump-an-anti-semite-using-anne-franks-name/ as a citation there, since the House is quoted as calling us a "partner" in educational activities. (They supply our traveling exhibits.)

Happy to answer any questions about the above, and again, thank you all for your attention to this page. TooManyBoxes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Between those two, the shorter version, since the longer version reads as a bit of a hatchet job, but honestly neither are ideal. The version highlighted by Coretheapple is a bit of an improvement but still has issues - all versions place too much emphasis on the Atlantic article by one degree or another. (I also think that rather than deciding between two versions, we need to focus on the specific issues - this RFC is unlikely to produce a satisfactory or usable result in the long term, because the real question isn't which version we prefer but why, and therefore what we should use to guide the article's development going forwards.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Striking out my !vote above per Aquillion in that the structure of this RfC is a choice between two alternatives, rather than focusing on specific article issues. That's a false choice and may not even be legitimate, as we cannot just "freeze" an article as a "perma-stub," which in effect is what happens if one chooses the "shorter version," and any such result would be contrary to policy, as in effect it would greenlight an editor saying "no, you can't add this, the article is frozen as a stub." Given the evolving nature of any article involving something involved in current events, that is simply not going to work. Within the parameters of this "false choice RfC", I would lean toward the current version and/or the longer version as an alternative to effectively stubbifying the article and omitting relevant detail. Coretheapple (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you went ahead and continued bulldozing mountains of trivia into this article over policy-based objection to the article going in further in that direction, and the fact that you have not even acknowledged the policy issue here, do not change the core of the dispute. The two versions simply represent poles in the dispute; no RfC outcome can freeze a whole article in some preferred version. The core is - do we focus on what the center has done long term or should the article's WEIGHT be given over to the recent statements about Trump and what other people think about those statements and the center's "right" or lack thereof to make them, all sourced to recently published blogs/commentary? It is not hard to understand. This kind of thing comes up all the time when "controversies" emerge in talkingheadlandia. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

reply to this is below Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Uh, no. The reply is here, where it belongs, since you insist upon inserting a response to an !vote even though we have a threaded discussion for that purpose. You commenced this defective RfC because you failed to get your way through edit-warring. You then slapped this one together rather than focusing on specific issues. Yes, it has gone on for too long considering that it was fundamentally flawed. Yes, I erred in not noticing until it was pointed out by another user in the !vote.The rest is your usual repetitious IDIDNTHEARTHAT argumentation. Coretheapple (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I have acknowledged that you think whatever sourced content you want to add is fine. You have not acknowledged the concerns about WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, etc. The one not listening or actually engaging in dialog, is you, Core. Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

As I explained several times below, the mission of the Anne Frank Center was altered in 2016 to"exposing and fighting hate." In recent months this has resulted in significant coverage in reliable sources. Your "undue" argument makes no sense whatsoever as we are simply reflecting what is in the reliable sources (The New York Times, Washington Post and lately a lengthy feature in The Atlantic). That is not recentism, because prior to recent times its existence was simply not noted to any extent in reliable sources. We've been through this many times n the discussion section below. Coverage is ongoing so this RfC is really a waste of time. Coretheapple (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Even here you are not dealing with the actual problem. It is fine to report that the mission changed and the short version does that already. It is another to go into detail reporting (word chosen carefully -- see NOTNEWS) what they said under the mission and how other people reacted. That stuff falls under NOT and is bunch of NOTNEWS/RECENTISM hot air. I am not going to respond here further as this is clutter. I am sure you will want to the last word, so please have at it. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Jesus, what drama over so little. There is very little difference between the two versions, and I agree with the comments above that this RfC is not drafted properly. We should be looking at specific issues, rather than specific versions, and I agree with User:Aquillion that this RfC is unlikely to produce a useful outcome. Within the parameters given in this RfC, the current version[2] is superior to the so-called "longer version", and I find little to argue in favor of the shorter version, which omits too much. The "recentism," NPOV and NOTNEWS objections are spurious. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Figureofnine how would you describe the "specific issue" that is the source of disagreement? Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't know what they are? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course I do. A flippant response from you, which is too bad. The issue is NOTNEWS Recentism bloat, vs solid encyclopedic content. In my view framing the RfC this way identifies the issue clearly. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Pinging Aquillion. Perhaps you can explain to Jytdog what is meant by "specific issues." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

funny Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, just passing the baton. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: This essay articulates my concerns regarding the drafting of this RfC, especially the sections concerning "specificity" and "overgeneralizing an issue." Hope this helps. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Re the "recentism" argument: the proper way to deal with that is to add any material that isn't recent and belongs in the article. If it exists. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That is one way. Another way is not lard the article with a bunch of drama that may or may not matter 6 months from now. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post just corrected a January article on the Anne Frank Center, citing the Atlantic article. [3] But you go ahead and call it "lard." In fact, apparently the past coverage of the Center has been so skewed by misinformation, such as the stuff concerning the founding of the center in this article [4] from June 2016, that editors need to approach past sourcing with caution. "Lard" indeed. Whether or not the Anne Frank Center was in fact founded by Otto Frank is not "drama," it is integral to the article, as is the rest of the material you don't want in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The short version deals with the issues of the origin story. lard indeed! Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it didn't. My point is that the material from The Atlantic was consequential, so much so that it caused another publication to correct a previous article, and that you are minimizing its significance in support of your ridiculous "recentism" trope. Coretheapple (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• User: The Armchair General your vote misrepresents the short version. It cites the organization zero times and has been completely worked over from the older conflicted version, which is actually quite long and which I linked to in my !vote. It is fine to say what you like but please don't make misrepresentations.Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• The article is getting more and more unencyclopedic and more gossip driven. The section Recent Criticism is contra WP:RELTIME and entirely RECENTISM; and the gynormous Comments of the Trump Administration has a header with bad grammar, and the section is entirely UNDUE, contra WP:NOTNEWS, and all driven by WP:RECENTISM. Not encyclopedic. The shorter version is the way to go here. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the subheaders per the above to fix the RELTIME issue and also cut back significantly on the Goldstein quote. Coretheapple (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:Seraphim System the Atlantic article is reference #4 in the short version, used 5 times. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok then count as support for the shorter version. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• There is now a long Washington Post profile, so this subject is definitely a moving target, continuing to receive significant attention in major media outlets. Coretheapple (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

it is just more RECENTISM. WaPo bloviator talking about what other people talked about; none of this will matter in a few years. Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Then you should write the publisher of the Washington Post and recommend that they take it down if you don't like it, as plainly very little of the coverage is to your liking. We go by reliable sources, and the Washington Post, The Atlantic, The New York Times and The Forward are coverage in indisputably reliable sources. Your constant potshots and insults every time a new source is added are not constructive. Coretheapple (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Bloviating is how WaPo columnists make money. They don't have the same mission we do - they are not encyclopedias. Nor does the NYT which is a ... wait for it... newspaper. Are we? No. So misguided... Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The author of the article [5] is a identified as a "general assignment reporter" for the Washington Post, not an opinion columnist, and this was a feature article that presented reporting, not "bloviating," which is what you call everything you don't like. Even if this was a column of pure opinion by a Washington Post columnist and not a reported article by a Washington Post reporter it would still be entirely usable. Please stop the nonsense,, it's disruptive. Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No, this piece appears in WaPo's "Worldviews" section (look at the very top of the page, where you find the "section" of the newspaper). If you click on that word, it takes you to the mainpage for that section, Worldviews. See the right-hand side of that page, a bit down, where it says "About Worldviews", and you will see that it says "WorldViews is The Washington Post's foreign news blog."

this piece is the Acts of faith section, which WaPo says is "news, analysis and opinion."

Two opinion pieces. Obviously.

On top of that, you remain confused about the mission of WP, which is described in NOT. NOT includes WP:NOTNEWS. We don't breathlessly report on goings on in the blogechosphere. Not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what section of the Washington Post these articles are in, and even if they were opinion --- which they plainly are not --- it wouldn't matter either, because what is being used in this article are the facts presented in these articles, such as Goldstein responding to the comments against him. That's not "bloviating" or "hot air," that's balance. That's what "we do here" in such situations, to borrow an expression you keep saying over and over and over again. Why do you keep ignoring the actual content of the articles in question? Why do you keep saying that they are "opinion" when they are not? Why do keep conflating two types of articles, when indeed both are perfectly acceptable when published in a reliable source like the Washington Post? Why do you keep calling feature articles "blogs" when they 1) are not and 2) would be usable even if they were? Why do you keep doing this? Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have said why. You don't have to agree but it misrepresents the discussion to ask me why. This page is at stands is not encyclopedic - it is full of stuff from talkingheadlandia about who said what and what some other person thought about that. A bunch of trivia. Organizations exist to do stuff. What has this organization done? The encyclopedic version discusses that without going into trivia of passing interest. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking why because there is nothing in policy that supports your position. A person being quoted in an article in a reliable source does not render the entire article unusable as "talkingheaslandia." What is your basis in policy for making such a claim? Where did you get that idea? Just because you don't like newspapers doesn't mean that your own personal prejudices suddenly become "how we do things here."

Likewise, new media coverage of an institution is not verboten under NOTNEWS. Why do you keep distorting that policy? And clearly the controversy engendered by this organization is not "trivia." That's ridiculous. Yes,. this is an encyclopedia, not the Directory of Associations.

Yes, organizations "do stuff" and this one "creates controversy" and the article needs to reflect that it or it is not compliant with policy. Whether or not this organization has "done stuff" that you consider worthwhile is utterly unimportant. What matters is the coverage of the organization in reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

We have a difference of opinion about what WP:NOTNEWS and really WP:INDISCRIMINATE mean. There is endless amounts of sources content that could be written about anything; I am sure we could find something about the color of the walls in their reception area if we tried. The article the way you want it is not encyclopedic - it doesn't provide the public with accepted knowledge of enduring interest. It is a nice TMZ piece. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly. We're trying to reach consensus on this. You seem to be throwing up every conceivable objection to every conceivable thing, and then changing the subject when you can't find a basis for what you're saying in policy.Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That is simply not true. You went right ahead adding to the dogshit pile instead of actually talking and trying to reach consensus. Don't wrap try to wrap your bulldozing in some fake mantle of "consensus building". That is just bullshit. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please take your language out of the gutter. If you can't be civil there's no point in continuing this discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You keep talking about what you CAN add, because there is some document you can cite. WP:NOT is about what we would should and should not add to Wikipedia. It is about selectivity. You have not acknowledged this. Not once. You just keep repeating, "there is a source for it". Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Changing the subject again? First you say the sources are bad. When I pointed out there was no basis for that you said this article is a collection of indiscriminate information about a news event. Then you resorted to kindergarten name-calling. Now something new and equally fatuous. This discussion is not productive. Coretheapple (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have been talking about one thing. NOT. This entire time. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, you can't just throw around policy acronyms like "NOT" and "NOTNEWS" and so on and then change the subject or say "we have a difference of opinion" when asked to substantiate it. Which you haven't, indicating that you don't have a substantive basis for your objections but are just trying to "see what sticks." Discussing this with you is totally useless because of your slippery conduct and I'm done here. Coretheapple (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Core, WP:NOT defines what is, and what is not, "encyclopedic." I have been saying consistently that the bloated version is not encyclopedic. It is hot air and gossip. Not (as in WP:NOT) what we do here. This is not just substantial it is fundamental. It is the mission. As I noted, you have been countering with "It is in a source" to which I have countered "Not everything (as in WP:NOTEVERYTHING) that is in sources, should be in Wikipedia." To which you have not actually responded. You have not said why all the hot air is encyclopedic and I look forward to hearing that. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I most certainly did address that, multiple times, but you DIDNTHEARTHAT. I explained to you that this article is about an organization whose notability relates to its generation of criticism and controversy, which you dismiss as "hot air" and as "gossip." It is neither. As a matter of fact if you'll read the article you'll see that its mission was altered in 2016 to generate what you call "hot air." ("exposing and fighting hate") Note that I am quoting from the Washington Post article that you mischaracterize as "opinion" and "bloviating" and "recentism" That altered mission, in turn, has resulted in press coverage. That coverage is not "gossip" but consists of multiple, significant news articles in reliable sources. So yes, it is "in the sources" but it is also highly relevant and your arguments to the contrary are so off-base as to be bizarre.

I'm glad you've abandoned your claim that the sources are somehow defective, unless you DIDNTHEARTHAT either and want it explained again too. You're distorting what I said, you're distorting the sources, you're distorting policy - what is it you haven't distorted? Coretheapple (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Notability is not based on passing events - a bunch of hot air over Trump and responses to that, does not make this organization meet N. That does not deal at all with NOT. (about the sources, you tried argue that 2 opinion pieces in WaPo were somehow Very Serious Reporting About Very Important Things, and they aren't - they are blogs in the blog-echo-chamber-hot-wind-o-sphere) Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

btw, I do understand where you are coming from. There are a lot of people who don't understand the mission of WP and who honestly believe that reporting the latest FART and counter-FART about things, is valid and even good editing. I do hear you. I don't agree. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You're just piling IDIDNTHEARTHAT on IDIDNTHEARTHAT and this discussion has long since passed its pull date. And doubling down on the incivility too I see. Take your toilet talk elsewhere. Bye now. Coretheapple (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. You are unfamiliar with WP:FART? Same thing I have been saying all along. I have heard you, btw, and I gave your argument. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

(moved from the !vote section)

see comment above. moved comment back, that was moved by another editor, contra WP:TPG Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(I'm moving this from the !vote section. We don't have threaded discussions there. I assume this was unintentional.)Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Responding to your comment: you commenced this defective RfC because you failed to get your way through edit-warring. You then slapped this one together rather than focusing on specific issues. Yes, it has gone on for too long considering that it was fundamentally flawed. Yes, I erred in not noticing until it was pointed out by another user in the !vote.The rest is your usual repetitious IDIDNTHEARTHAT argumentation. Coretheapple (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC) See above Coretheapple (talk)

don't mess with other people's comments. Your new comment is not a !vote -- you already had added commentary to the !votes section, so you have no leg to claim that the section is for !votes only. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I changed my !vote. Since you insist upon starting a threaded discussion in the !vote section, I guess that's where it will be. You don't get to insert a wad of snark in response to an !vote, and then decree that a reply thereto goes several thousand words of text below. Coretheapple (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New edits

these edits exacerbate the RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS problems. See also WP:Avoid mission statements. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

My priority was getting rid of the claimed lack of objectivity by making the article fairer to the organization, since I interpreted that as the cause of your NPOV tag. The Anne Frank Center employee person, TooManyBoxes (talk), wanted the group's political comments to be explained somewhat to balance out the criticism, so I added some information without subjective comment. Your solution may be to turn the article back into a stub, but I really don't see that as a good solution. I think it would be useful to put more information from the organization's activities, history, organization or whatever that would decrease the recentism, but Goldstein's comments are definitely notable, or the press wouldn't be talking about them practically every week since around the end of the Trump transition. Nor do I imagine the group will decrease in its criticism of the administration for antisemitism over the next three years, which necessarily goes along with continued media attention and potential Wikipedia searches about the group. (Goodnight.) SilverLocust (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

These edits are fine. I do have some nits here and there, such as the lengthy pull-quote from Goldstein, but in the main these edits are fully in compliance with policy and do a very good job of fleshing out the article. As I indicated above at least twice, the "recentism" argument is completely bogus. Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I've made some edits per my comment above. Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• today's diffs - are you really playing out the "i am the REAL holocaust victim" game in Wikipedia? I didn't think this article get even more tabloidish but here we are. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Abraham Foxman, the former director of the Anti-Defamation League, is notable and his comments were published in the lengthy Washington Post profile of center director Steve Goldstein.[6] Coretheapple (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

these edits turn this even more into "he said/she said" bloggy gossip. Not encyclopedic.. just gossipy. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Deeply moved by your dedication to whittling down this article to a nub, no matter how much attention it gets in reliable sources, Coretheapple (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There is not that much to say about this organization that is NOTNEWS. It has done what it has done. Hot air is not substantial and you are just adding gossipy bloat. No one is going to give a rat's ass in 6 months (or even next week) about this little spat in the Talkingheadlandia. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know, you've said already maybe a half dozen times that feature articles in unquestionably reliable sources are "hot air," "bloviating" and other utter nonsense. You've made your point. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion by weighing in with policy distortions and insults every time a new source or text is added to the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Correcting errors - Anne Frank Staff

Hello -- Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect staff here. We notice a few further erroneous edits have been made to this page and we're hoping an independent editor can help us correct the record.

The three errors and our suggested corrections are listed below. We would very much appreciate some assistance here.

Thank you.

1. In the opening paragraph: "The Center is neither a Jewish organization nor a Holocaust organization[6]" and, under History: "It not a Jewish organization, or a registered Holocaust organization.[6]"

These statements are inaccurate. Peter Rapaport, our Board chair, told The Atlantic our organization works not just on issues involving Antisemitism and the Holocaust, but also that we also work on other issues, such as opposing a ban on Muslim refugees. This makes us no different, as a Jewish organization, from the Anti-Defamation League. The Atlantic misunderstood Peter as somehow saying we are not a Jewish organization, and The Forward reprinted the Atlantic's misunderstanding.

We are proudly a Jewish organization. Indeed, this is what our website says:

As a Jewish voice for social justice, Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect is dedicated to Tikkun Olam, repairing the world. For us, that means advocating on behalf of all communities, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. We fight hatred of refugees and immigrants, Antisemitism, sexism, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, bias against the differently abled and any other hate that runs counter to American promise of freedom. http://annefrank.com/about-the-center/

Also, the Center is an active member of the Association of Holocaust Organizations[footnote: http://www.ahoinfo.org/membersdirectory.html]

We also recently launched the “50 State Genocide Education Project.” Here's the press release: http://annefrank.com/50-state-genocide-education-project/ Here are some news articles about the project: http://www.newsweek.com/two-new-efforts-launched-require-holocaust-education-nationwide-one-triggered-592671; http://www.jta.org/2017/04/24/news-opinion/united-states/lawmakers-from-20-states-pledge-to-mandate-holocaust-education

2. In the opening paragraphs: "It is headquartered in New York City and its executive director is political activist Steven Goldstein,[3][6] known for his advocacy of LGBT rights as founder of Garden State Equality."

"Political activist" is inaccurate; Mr. Goldstein is a "civil rights activist," as per his Wikipedia page. If another source is needed, here are a few news articles citing him as such: http://www.salon.com/2017/02/11/theres-anti-semitism-in-the-white-house-what-made-the-anne-frank-center-get-political-on-twitter/; https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Wounded-WarriorLocal/236851; http://www.out.com/michael-musto/2015/10/09/real-life-steven-goldstein-has-problem-freeheld

3. In Connection with Anne Frank and Otto Frank: "According to the Center, it originated as an affiliate of the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam and that it is not affiliated with either the House or the Anne Frank Fonds in Basel, Switzerland.[5]"

Also inaccurate. It should read: ""According to the Center, it originated as an affiliate of the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam and is now independent from the House, although their traveling exhibits are largely provided by the House.[footnote: http://annefrank.com/about-the-center/, http://annefrank.com/traveling/]. They are affiliated with, but independent from, the Anne Frank Fonds in Basel, Switzerland.[5]"

You could also cite the recent Washington Post article which includes a quote from the House about our relationship: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/05/02/meet-the-activist-who-calls-trump-an-anti-semite-using-anne-franks-name/

Explanation for the edit: Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect has located original documents in its archives proving Otto Frank was the founding President of the organization in 1959, and remained involved with the organization when in 1977 it became independent of the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam. The organization has posted photographs of the original documents on its website at www.annefrank.com/history and these Wikipedia edits reflect the organization’s discovery.

Text below; the source for all of this is www.annefrank.com/history (includes documentation)

Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect began in 1959 as the Anne Frank Foundation, Inc. in New York City. The Anne Frank Foundation in New York City was the American “friends” organization designed to raise money for the Anne Frank House, Anne’s hiding place in Amsterdam during Nazi occupation that opened as a museum on May 3, 1960. Otto Frank, Anne’s father, was founding President of the Anne Frank Foundation, Inc. at 12 East 94th Street in New York City. The founding Vice Presidents of the Anne Frank Foundation included Myer Mermin and Max Grossman. In April 2017, the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect posted photographs of original documents from 1959, which the organization newly discovered in its archives, showing that Otto Frank was the founding President of the Anne Frank Foundation based in New York City.

In 1977, the organization spun off from the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam into an independent U.S. organization with its own Board of Directors, called the Anne Frank Center. The American signatories of this Board resolution for independence included Myer Mermin and Max Grossman, Otto Frank’s Vice Presidents upon the organization’s 1959 founding.

In April 2017, the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect posted the 1977 Board resolution. The Center also posted an additional document from 1977 showing that Otto Frank was involved with the newly independent American organization, now led by his longtime colleagues Mermin and Grossman, by helping the organization to raise funds.

In 2016, the Anne Frank Center expanded its name to Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect to reflect its expanded work in civil and human rights.

TooManyBoxes (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here, with your COI disclosure. As you can see there is a discussion about minimal or maximal versions of this article. Please feel free to weigh in on that. Some of what you raise here would be addressed, depending on the outcome of that RfC.

Addressing the bulk of your post, which is content that you want posted based on what is on your website. Per every policy and guideline, WP articles should be built using independent, secondary sources. We shy away from citing things like organization websites for content about those organizations, across the board. So that part of your proposal is not really helpful. You do have your own website for that stuff. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• The documentation noted by TooManyBoxes has been noted in the article, quoting the Washington Post article, and also Rapaport, the chairman, has been specifically cited for the statement re it not being Jewish or Holocaust. Since the documentation is cited in the Post article it is not necessary to cite the website. As for the veracity of what Rapaport says, he is chairman of the board, quoted in a substanitial article in a reputable source. Further material quoting Goldstein is added from the recent Post article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)