Talk:Center for American Progress

Section heading

Independent and nonpartisan? First line CAP then Heritage Foundation and AEI that are linked as similiar. The Center for American Progress is an independent educational, public policy research, and advocacy organization.[2] The Center is a nonpartisan organization The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a private, conservative, not-for-profit institution dedicated to research and education on issues of government, politics, economics and social welfare think tank founded in 1938 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.79.172 (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

The Anti-Semitic incidents should be highlighted more because its a serious topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.192.211 (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment

this organization describes itself as 'progressive', not 'liberal' as is used in opening sentence here

same thing. liberals don't like the word liberal these days, so they use progressive. but progressive is not the same as liberal, but they don't bother to worry 'bout that...

You can not speak for a group which you are not a member of. --Lincoln F. Stern 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Liberal DOES NOT EQUAL Progressive. In this paper written by the founders of the progressive New Party, titled After Liberalism, the authors clearly define the differences between modern progressivism and liberalism. It is a call to move beyond liberalism, which they contend has been a failure. http://bostonreview.net/BR20.2/CohenRogers.html

The bottom line from this paper, progressives favor radical revolution of the working class to achieve social justice through major economic change, while liberals are content to provide for the needs of the working class within our current economic system. Read for yourselves.

Progressive, to many people, means Marxist or other Communist variant. Liberals don't necessarily talk of class struggle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.122.179 (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In modern American politics, 'liberal' and 'progressive' mean essentially the same thing. Modern day progressives are unlike early twentieth century progressives, a good example of which is Teddy Roosevelt, an anti-abortion, pro-death penalty Republican. To resolve the issue, I've changed the wording to "center-left" which is a more accurate description than "left-wing". --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Modern progressives take exception to "liberal" because it has lost much of its meaning, as in "neo-liberal" economic policy which favors Wall Street wealth over other groups with an equal stake in the economy. In much the same way, neo-liberal economics has had little time for middle class concerns about consumer rights and declining real incomes and jobs. With liberal so widely misused, progressives find greater clarity in the term "progressive", so long as it hews to the central agenda of economic upward mobility and education, personal privacy and civil rights and a focus on domestic economic development-- ie. an American economy based on local jobs, and both service and manufacturing activity that benefits whole communities, nor only corporations and their often distant ownership.

I add these lines simply to point out we cannot discuss the accuracy of "left-wing" or any other term without resolving the meaning clearly. Wikipedia makes a great contribution to public dialogue simply in clearly the air on such matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphaa10 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The intro and History sections of this page read like alternating left and right talking points. It's choppy as hell to read, and short on information. Is there anyone out there who knows enough about the organization to sew all this up into a coherent paragraph or three? SetarconeX (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to explain that The Center for American Progress is definitely not non-partisan. They are not center-left they are far left fascists. A misinformation campaign initiated by the Soviets and spread by American Communist Party members in the 1950s started a lie that right wing American politics were fascists. This could not be further from the truth since the right does not employ socialism as their basic ideology. The right believes in the rights of the individual hence the adherence to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Interestingly, the Communist and Fascists are both far left ideologies and can be considered sister ideologies. Adolf Hitler started his political career as a member of the Communist Party but switched to the National Socialist (Nazi Party) because they appealed to his German nationalist beliefs. F.A. Hayek in his book "The Road To Serfdom" points out that these two ideologies have the same basic core of socialism. Hayek quoted one Nazi recruiter who said that it was easy to gain recruits from the ranks of the Communists because of the shared ideological core beliefs. These two ideologies were competing for the same "timber", those people who were in favor of socialism.

The Center for American Progress is a fascist organization that is against individual rights and seeks to remove them by degree over time through their influence in government and the culture war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearz (talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Liberalism and Progressivism in modern-day are the exact same set of ideals, Progressives will use one name until people start to realize how they are screwing over the common man, then they'll start calling themselves another name, they still have the same crzy ideals.Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please use the talk page for discussing the article, not making political attacks. If you would like to read about the distinction between fascism and liberalism, or fascism and conservatism, or fascism and anything else, please read their respective articles. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 14:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What's with calling them 'progressive'? A lot of people call themselves progressive - a lot of Muslims whom others would call conservatives call themselves progressive. Wikipedia is not a place to use a term as subjective as 'progressive' in the article's lead section. Ratibgreat (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"I think ..... " -- exactly the problem. The bases of the argument is that the page is not based on facts yet the argument against provides none itself. We can argue spelling, grammar, give opinions etc - but look at the reality of history in recent 2-3 decades, research those you are for or against -- what was voted for and actually read the bills voted for or against to try to understand why and then determine agreement or not.

As far as arguing the article itself, like all information that you think may have some relevance that makes it worth considering, research it. Despite all the rhetoric, basic real facts like names, dates, votes, results after certain votes, the history of those in influential positions etc etc -- you can have an opinion of whether you think a reality is good or bad and why but until those arguing against the Dem\liberals\progressives AKA any and all not agreeing with the current GOP talking points, you have no argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty530129 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The term "progressive" has been used in so many different ways in the U.S. that to call a person or organization "progressive" is meaningless. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Progressive For example, I doubt that the Center for American Progress would agree with many of the ideas of Henry A. Wallace. Does "progressive" mean that the Center for American Progress favors more cooperative relations with Communist countries and Russia? Obviously not. Furthermore, I don't see any third party source for that description. --Nbauman (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What are the WP:RS for describing them as "progressive"? --Nbauman (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Attribution & Validation nonexistent

I think there are some points which need immediate correction. Otherwise, the veracity of the article can be, and is called into question.

• First: The newspaper in Atlanta which is mentioned is the Constitution-Journal, _not_ the Atlanta Constitution. Please note their website/url - http://www.ajc.com/.

[The newspaper is called The Atlanta Journal-Constitution -- 5.15.10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.245.113 (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Second: The attribution of a quote should have references provided, preferably online in a current url, but if not available online, it should reference a correct name, date of publication, proper title and headline, author and page of publication, and ISBN. The item to which I refer is as follows: "...in the words of the Atlanta Constitution, "former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta has launched a liberal policy institute, the Center for American Progress, to drive the message for Democrats." There is no author attribution, no date of publication, no headline title, etc. It could be reasonably and successfully argued that it (the alleged quote) is merely an an "Internet fabrication." And it follows that if that alleged quote is erroneous, what does it say about the rest of the article? K. L. Bardon 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Meta-NPOV

I question GuyZero's 5/21/07 revert of the external link I added on 5/19/07. GuyZero removed my external link to the "Discover the Networks" entry for the Center for American Progress. "Discover the Network" describes itself as a "Guide to the Online Left". Its counterpart on the left is SourceWatch. On most Wikipedia entries for conservative organizations, there is an external link to that organization's entry at SourceWatch. It seems only reasonable to me on a meta-level that if Wikipedia allows the Sourcewatch external links, it ought to allow the "Discover the Networks" external links. I'll check back in a few days to see if GuyZero respondsJackjump 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack, the linked page on Discover the Networks appears to contain unsourced claims (i.e. "CAP is the official Hillary Clinton think tank") that I couldn't find any other corroboration. This article is lacking any criticism and information with regards to funding -- my suggestion in the edit history is to perhaps incorporate some of the properly sourced material on the Discover the Networks into this article? On a meta-level, in my opinion, each external link should be considered individually, which applies equally to sourcewatch. regards, --guyzero | talk 22:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, GuyZero. The SourceWatch links are to a Wiki, and thus change unpredictably over time. Your perspective, which I think has merit, would suggest that external links to SourceWatch or other forms of changing user-generated content are not appropriate as external links from Wikipedia. I'll think about what you say about the DTN link.Jackjump 11:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify -- my perspective is only that all external links should be checked and weighed individually for inclusion. I don't have an opinion either way with regards to SourceWatch. Wikipedia:External_links seems to be the relevant guideline. cheers, --guyzero | talk 22:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That helps. Thank you. Jackjump 17:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Source?

where the source for this: "The Center is undergoing a period of rapid growth. Its personnel and budget now rival the prominent Cato Institute." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.111.198 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Budget Information

Taken from the 2005 990 the budget information should be available, and also should be noted is their extension Center for American Progress Action Fund 2005 990. Infonation101 (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Green Jobs

This entire section is a direct plagarization of it's one source, and the second paragraph is just defending the proposal instead of providing a balanced critique. The copying has lead to a rather poor section, leading to clauses like "A new report from the non-partisan Center for American Progress" when the non-partisanship has already been established. For the time being, I'm going to go ahead and merge the paragraphs and try to rephrase things in a more balanced and clear manner. Ben (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2008 (PT)

Blog

From the section on the thinkprogress.org, I removed a description of what looks like a minor incident involving a false claim of plagiarism in a speech by John McCain. It seems to have been inconsequential, and was supported only by a reference to an entry on the politico blog, and so I've removed it. --TS 04:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Sentence

The link [5] to CfAP's mission statement is broken. Searching its website, I can't find the quote used in the second sentence. The link needs to be fixed and/or the sentence needs to be changed.Andonee (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)andonee

Nonpartisan??

It's a paradox to say that the Center For American Progress is a nonpartisan organization, as it is openly liberal. It needs to be taken out of the nonpartisan organization category. Also, it seems to me that the criticism & controversy segment is pretty skimpy, just saying. Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not paradoxical to say that the organization is non-partisan simply because it is a liberal group; it would be paradoxical to say they are non-ideological or non-political and liberal, but like the Cato Institute or the Center for Immigration Studies a group can adhere decidedly to a specific ideology and remain non-partisan. However, whether they admit it or not, the Center for American Progress is supportive of the Democratic Party and the current Democratic administration, so I've removed the claim of non-partisanship as in this respect they are clearly not. Regarding the criticism and controversy section, be bold if you want to correct or extend it, just comply with WP:NPOV. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 14:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Center for American Progress is explicitly non-partisan. The opening line of the article right now says it is "a partisan liberal public policy research and advocacy organization." This directly violates NPOV. On its website, the organization explicitly says it is "an independent nonpartisan educational institute." Calling it "liberal" is fine, because it is cited by various reputable sources, but the organization is not partisan. The term "partisan" was added, without citation, by an anonymous, not registered user (see: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Center_for_American_Progress&diff=602656627&oldid=602585376). I am removing the word. Starvinsky (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article is better without the word "partisan". Some readers might identify "liberal" more with some party (or parties) than others, but that is up to them.

((Along with the ["freedom of the press"] rights that publishers have, to write and edit material like this, readers also have some "rights", such as the right to interpret what they read, in the context of their own attitudes, and point of view ... whether gained from their own experiences in life, or from reading, or from whatever source -- such as parents and/or teachers... but I digress. Sorry!...))

I do have a "theory" as to one possible reason why the word "partisan" [perhaps] got inserted. I was not there, at the time, looking over the shoulder of that "anonymous, not registered user" when the word "partisan" got inserted. However, today I read the above comment from Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} from about 14:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC). I agree with the removal, by Jatkins, of "the claim of non-partisanship". (I even went and found that edit, from the same day in 2010 as his "talk:" page edit, here, and I went so far as to click on "thank".)

Apparently, someone (a Wikipedia editor) (that "anonymous, not registered user") was also in agreement with omitting "the claim of non-partisanship", even though the organization itself, on their web site (see http://www.americanprogress.org/about/mission/ ) might -- and, apparently, does -- choose to include the word "nonpartisan", where it says "The Center for American Progress is an independent nonpartisan educational institute under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code.".

My "theory" is, that a specific Wikipedia editor (that "anonymous, not registered user") went even further and decided that, if the word "nonpartisan" was not being included in this article, that ["therefore"?] the word "partisan" "should" be included! I can see how someone might think that ... but I also understand how some -- [e.g. "Starvinsky (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)"] .. [see above] -- might disagree.

Bottom line: IMHO the article is fine now, without the word "partisan", *and* without the word "nonpartisan". Just my 0.02. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lede without any consensus.

One editor seems intent on filling the lede with an entire paragraph of various sources describing the organization as "liberal." This is clearly undue weight for an article this size, particularly given that we've already described their orientation in the first sentence. The entire point of this seems to be to bias the reader. There's no need to spoon-feed the reader an opinion, and there's especially no need to be so redundant with something ultimately irrelevant to the article. It's difficult to draw consensus on these off-the-beaten-path articles because there aren't a lot of editors involved, but this editor has not even attempted to discuss it, much less reach a consensus. It would be great to get some discussion, especially from non-involved editors, otherwise I'll post an RFC later this week. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ebw343 -- Your position is untenable. First, there is already an opinion from Time magazine in the lede. So the claim that the WaPo and NT Times columnists' opinions don't belong is hypocritical. Second, your edit hides a key fact that the Center for American Progress is notable for being "liberal." A Google search of "Center for American Progress" and "liberal" (net of cites from the Center's own websites) gets approximately 870,000 hits. In contrast, a Google search of "Center for American Progress" and "progressive" (again, net of cites from the Center's own websites) gets approximately 810,000 hits. So even though the word "progress" is in their name, more websites/articles/blogs characterize them as "liberal" than as "progressive." BTW, your position on this point directly contradicts your position on Gene Sperling's title. There you claimed he should be called an "economist" even though he has no graduate or undergraduate degree in economics, and even though the WaPo calls him a "political strategist," on the basis of your unsupported claim that "that's what he's notable for." You can't deny that the Center for American Progress is "notable for" being liberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebw343 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ebw343, sorry, I didn't know how to "sign" my comment, so I started it with my "name." BTW Loony, I was going to post a note on your on your talk page to let you know that I had posted the above note here, but your talk page said you were on hiatus. Ebw343 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not uninvolved, but I agree that the addition doesn't belong in the lead. However, since secondary sources describe the CAP as "liberal" more often than "progressive," so I think the lead should say "liberal." Drrll (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

I noticed the controversy over some of the staffers using possibly anti-Semitic language in tweets, blogs, etc. was added a few days ago and then reverted with the reason: One article (published today!) is not notable enough for inclusion. If it turns into a real controversy we can add it back. See WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS). I believe now that some more time has passed and it has been the subject of multiple reliable sources ([1][2][3]), it is notable enough to add. It has also been discussed in other news sources but in the opinion sections so I won't count those as reliable. GrainyMagazine (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Fear, inc

I rewrote this section and changed it to a more encyclopedic tone and included some references for the information. I believe it better fits an encyclopedic tone. I also wanted to get some feed back on adding this link from the the national review online, possibly to the criticism section. thanksTallMountains (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that the above editor, TallMountains, has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Daniel J. Weiss

Daniel J. Weiss redirects to this article, but there is no mention of him in the article. Is this a faulty redirect? --Bejnar (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

he is employed there, but not of significance. so, yes, looks faulty to me. Soosim (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Disputed NPOV

What is disputed as not being NPOV? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to several of the other sections of this "Talk:" page -- especially those which contain the character string "NPOV" in their titles -- such as "Talk:Center_for_American_Progress#Meta-NPOV". "See also" (e.g.) "Talk:Center_for_American_Progress#Nonpartisan.3F.3F" and "Talk:Center_for_American_Progress#Recent_edits_to_the_lede_without_any_consensus.". I am not sure whether "Talk:Center_for_American_Progress#Controversy" would also be considered to be an "NPOV" issue ... but feel free to read that, too. I hope this helps. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

copyedits - descriptions

Made several copyedits to lead paragraph and first two sections. Changes described here:
Lead paragraph:

• lowercase President and Chairman (per MOS:JOBTITLES}
• replaced "Its" with name of subject (personal preference-stronger sentence)
• added CEO acronym (conciseness)
• changed "has a campus outreach group" to "runs a campus outreach group" (more precise verb)
• second sentence-changed "it is" to "the center is" (personal preference-less pronouns for improved readability)
• lowercase center (per MOS:INSTITUTIONS)

History and Mission:

• 2nd paragraph-changed "gathered" to "assembled" (more precise verb)
• lowercase Presidential (per MOS:CAPS)
• changed "U.S. Sen." to "U.S. Senator" (Sen. seems to be used as a title, right before the name of the senator, instead of as a reference to a senator).
• lowercase executive vice-president of the center (per MOS:JOBTITLES)
• lowercase center (per MOS:INSTITUTIONS)
• changed "that includes a timetable" to past tense (sentence refers to a past event)

Climate Progress:

• changed "It is" and "this blog" to "Climate Progress" (personal preference-less pronouns for improved readability)
• separated paragraph into 2 paragraphs (easier readability)
• capitalized each item in the list. (Under http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Initial_letters_in_sentences_and_list_items, it seems unclear whether to leave as lowercase or sentence case, due to the continuation of each bullet point with complete sentences (personal preference: looks better capitalized).

Disputed neutrality tag

There have been no recent discussions about the neutrality of the article. I would like this issue to either be resolved (if it still exists), or the tag should be removed. Dustin (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Greenwald and others?

I reverted this, an editor wrote an edit summary "good point" and restored the "and others", leaving only my linking. IMHO once "and others" is removed it shouldn't be restored without naming them. Doug Weller talk 20:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Liberal

The Center for American progress is defined as liberal" based on "self-reporting." it does not follow any objective metric for liberalism. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be " Economic Liberalism" Economic liberalism is most often associated with support for free markets and private ownership of capital assets, and is usually contrasted with similar ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy, which generally favor alternative forms of capitalism such as welfare capitalism, state capitalism, or mixed economies. Economic liberalism also contrasts with protectionism because of its support for free trade and open markets. Historically, economic liberalism arose in response to mercantilism and feudalism. Today, economic liberalism is also generally considered to be opposed to non-capitalist economic orders, such as socialism and planned economies. Therefore, I would use increased precision and say they advocate for "economic liberalism" etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 04:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Eshaparvathi. I don't know what you mean by 'self-reporting'. We can't use our any analysis here, see no original research and we don't, we use several reliable sources which call it liberal, or to be exact call its viewpoints liberal. So far as your analysis goes, I know what you are saying about Economic liberalism but that's not the only meaning of liberalism, see Social liberalism and more specifically to the US, Modern liberalism in the United States. There isn't any neutral point of view issue here and I've removed the template. As an aside, besides the unusual nature of our policy of no original research which means our articles rely on sources rather than editors' opinions, our neutral point of view policy often confuses new editors (and some experienced ones). Doug Weller talk 07:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no source to back up the claim that Center for American progress is liberal besides the website written by the Center of American Progress. Shouldn't there by an independent source that would back up such a claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Eshaparvathi, you haven't responded to what I wrote. And you haven't read the article carefully. It does not call it liberal. It says that it " presents a liberal[2] viewpoint" and as I wrote above it that is backed by several reliable sources. I have no idea why you say there are no sources for that. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we describe CAP as "liberal" or progressive in the lede? I'm leaning towards liberal Jonathan Williams (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Center for American Progress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114015946/http://www.americanprogress.org:80/issues/2006/09/05/strategic_redeployment.html to http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/09/05/strategic_redeployment.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061229085328/http://genius.americanprogress.org:80/give/ to http://genius.americanprogress.org/give/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112010309/https://www.americanprogress.org/about/our-supporters/ to https://www.americanprogress.org/about/our-supporters/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050407005230/http://www.campusprogress.org:80/ to http://www.campusprogress.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Center for American Progress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204183431/http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/liberal-group-claims-transparency-but-keeps-some-donors-names-secret-20150121 to http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/liberal-group-claims-transparency-but-keeps-some-donors-names-secret-20150121

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Progressive?

"The Center for American Progress (CAP) is a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization."

Are you kidding? ---Dagme (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This is how they self-identify. What exactly do you have a problem with? Is the name of the organization not descriptive enough for you? Elizium23 (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The term "progressive" is used in so many different ways that it's arguably meaningless. Many self-identified progressive groups have directly opposed policies, for example the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Progressive Policy Institute. For example, the Congressional Progressive Caucus supports single payer; CAP does not. I don't think CAP supports Bernie Sanders; they declined to invite him to their Forward-Looking Ideas conference. Sanders makes the distinction between progressives and liberals as follows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP5xavI0d_o

Bernie Sanders In A Candid Conversation With Sarah Silverman

Dec 16, 2016

I prefer to be called a progressive, and the reason for that is, many of us are liberal with pride on issues of combatting sexism racism and homophobia. But you have many liberals who are not progressive when it comes to taking on Wall Street or fighting for a trade policy that works for American workers. So I think what progressivism is all about is accepting all of the fights that liberals have engaged in, to create a diverse society, a non-racist society. But at the same time what a progressive stands for is understanding that this country in many respects is moving towards an oligarchic form of society and that you have a handful of billionaires who control our economic and political life. And if you are not prepared to engage in that struggle I don't think you're doing serious politics.

If User:Dagme or anyone else can find a few WP:RS which say that CAP is not progressive for that reason, that would be a useful contribution to this entry.

I'm not sure about "nonpartisan." I always thought that CAP openly supported the Democratic Party. Has CAP ever taken a position that disagrees with the Democratic Party platform? --Nbauman (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Issues?

This entry doesn't say much (or anything) about the positions CAP takes about issues. For example, what's their position on health care? On the miitary? On Israel? On anything? --Nbauman (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

(Continued) I did some research on the CAP's position on health care and came up with a few sources. I've always thought that single-payer health care was a signature issue for anyone defined as "progressive", but CAP seems to oppose single payer. They also support the Trans Pacific Partnership, according to these sources. I'm quoting Moyers in some detail because I don't want to take things out of context. Any comment? Suggestions?

http://billmoyers.com/story/disappointed-democratic-party-platform-follow-money/
Disappointed By the Democratic Party Platform? Follow the Money
Several delegates to the platform drafting committee have deep financial ties to conservative industries.
By Branko Marcetic
Moyers & Company
July 21, 2016

Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress (CAP), was also a reliable conservative vote, opposing every single one of the platform amendments mentioned so far. CAP describes itself as a progressive policy institute that promises to “not just change the conversation, but to change the country” through “bold, progressive ideas.” CAP does in fact receive much of its funding from charitable foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and its action fund has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from unions over the years.

Still, it also receives significant support from corporate interests, though CAP is quick to point out these only make up 6 percent of its total funding. Some of its donors also happen to be major backers of the TPP and/or bitterly opposed to a higher minimum wage: Walmart, Apple, Google, the MPAA, AT&T, Comcast, GE and Coca-Cola, to name just a few. (The Walton Family Foundation also donated between $500,000 and $999,999 in 2014.) Major financial firms like Blackstone, Bank of America, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs are also long-time donors. The US financial sector has been a major supporter of the TPP, and they stand to benefit handsomely from the agreement.

Health insurers, who would lose out significantly from health care reform, also show up on the list of CAP funders. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association has been donating for years, as has the Health Care Service Corporation and American Health Insurance Plans, a major opponent of single-payer health care. Albright Stonebridge Group is also a longtime donor, and Browner has held various positions at CAP.

Health insurers, who would lose out significantly from health care reform, also show up on the list of CAP funders. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association has been donating for years, as has the Health Care Service Corporation and American Health Insurance Plans, a major opponent of single-payer health care. Albright Stonebridge Group is also a longtime donor, and Browner has held various positions at CAP.

... While the vast majority of Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez’s funding over the years has come from unions, he is also well-funded by the securities and investment industry, commercial banks and finance/credit companies — all big TPP supporters.... Gutierrez ultimately voted against the TPP and single-payer amendments, along with several of the climate change planks....

As studies have pointed out, political donations don’t always correspond directly with political positions because cash doesn’t necessarily invalidate a politician’s personal beliefs, or the interests of their constituents.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/single-payer-health-care-medicare-obamacare-sanders-clinton-democrats/
Democrats Against Single Payer
Single-payer health care has always been a goal of the Left. But Democrats have turned it into a punching bag.
Branko Marcetic
Jacobin
03.29.2017
Clinton confidante and Center for American Progress president Neera Tanden — who as late as January this year seemed to be suggesting that progressives should get on board with a future Sanders push for single payer — recently penned a USA Today op-ed about what was next for health-care reform. Single payer wasn’t in it. (Tanden happened to have been one of the Clinton delegates on the platform drafting committee who voted against the single-payer plank last year).

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-hilary-clinton-progressives-230009
WikiLeaks poisons Hillary’s relationship with left
After learning how Clinton feels about them, liberals vow to push back against her agenda and appointments.
By Kenneth P. Vogel
Politico
10/21/2016

For RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of the National Nurses Union, though, the emails reveal the true feelings of Clinton’s team toward progressives and their causes, and suggest that if Clinton wins the White House, she won’t be on their side.

“If the WikiLeaks are accurate, the issues closest to our hearts are probably not ones she will embrace, like single payer,” said DeMoro, whose union drew fire from Clinton’s team in the primary when it campaigned aggressively for Sanders.

--Nbauman (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism: Lobbying to keep the US in the Yemen War (2015-present) on behalf of the Saudis.

Center for American Progress has been lobbying to keep the US in the Yemen war. It's mentioned in the following links along with criticisms of the war involvement as not being a progressive (or conservative) value. This section is relevant to the article as the Yemen war has the US involved in war crimes and that is not a progressive stance. This information is meant to go in the criticism section of the article which is why the first word in the section heading is Criticism. 47.40.52.156 (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"As I reported for The Nation last May, filings at the Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) have reveled a flurry of activity on the part of Saudi Arabia’s DC-based lobbyists since the war’s commencement.

The FARA filings show the Saudis have engaged the services of several high-profile lobbying firms such as the Podesta Group, Squire Patton Boggs, the Glover Park Group, and Burson-Marsteller, ostensibly with the aim to keep the US government on-side.

For its part, Saudi Arabia’s coalition partner, the UAE, has been funding DC think tanks such as the Center for a New American Security, the ******* Center for American Progress *******, the Brookings Institution, and the Middle East Institute, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), to the tune of millions of dollars annually." -James Carden of The Nation Magazine[4]

US involvement is seen an unprogressive by the left in the Democratic party:

• "The Congressional Progressive Caucus voted to endorse H.Con.Res 81, a bipartisan resolution led by Vice Chair Ro Khanna and co-sponsored by 30 CPC Members, which directs the president to remove unauthorized U.S. military forces participating in the catastrophic Saudi Arabia-led war in Yemen" -Congressional Progressive Caucus[5]

Makes the US complicit in war crimes:

• "Members of the US armed services could be prosecuted for war crimes for providing midair refueling and other military support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, the Obama administration has been warned." -Julian Borger of The Guardian[6]
• "Like many other coalition attacks, this one targeted civilians, and like so many others it employed the sickening “double tap” tactic to kill the people who came to help the civilians killed and injured in the initial blast. It is a gross violation of international law to target civilians, and it is likewise outrageous and illegal to attack medical personnel." -Daniel Larison - The American Conservative[7]

US involvement in the Yemen War is a violation of the War Powers Act- Lee Fang of The Intercept[8]. 47.40.52.156 (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This is all what we call original research. What do these sources say specifically about CAP? Nothing so far as I can see except the Nation, which only says The UAE has given it funds, and that's already in the article. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The words Yemen or war are not mentioned anywhere in the article. Neither is Saudi or coalition. The Nation article is clear that CAP is lobbying to keep the US in the war where they are involved in war crimes, which is the point of posting the other sources, in case a Wikipedia editor was not aware of the situation. I never suggested adding those sources to the article, so your claim of WP:OR is unwarranted. So is the post you made on my talk page, as the Nation source I linked is not being used in this article and this discussion is appropriate usage of this talk page.

The Nation source ("Senators Bernie Sanders, Mike Lee, and Chris Murphy Invoke the War Powers Act to End US Involvement in Yemen") explains why the money is being directed to CAP as a means to keep the US in the Yemen War and discusses how the War Powers Act is being used to stop US involvement. 47.40.52.156 (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, not in the article is the UAE's additional $150,000 donation each to senior fellows of CAP, Rudy Deleon and Brian Katulis for expenses (air fare, hotels, meals and local transportation) to a conference ("fact-finding mission") in the UAE partially planned by Mr. Katulis ("a senior national security fellow, is widely considered to be the most influential think tank aligned with the Democratic Party."). A conference which in "internal emails to Otaiba, UAE officials are very clear that the goal of these trips is to influence U.S. policymakers to be sympathetic to the UAE." "The goal of trip is to educate these influential policy analysts on the UAE’s policies regarding key regional issues, and underscore the close military cooperation between the two countries.” One of these military aspects being "a key role in the bloody war in Yemen, running a network of torture prisons in the “liberated” parts of the country." - Zaid Jilani, Alex Emmons of The Intercept[9] 47.40.52.156 (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikileaks 2016 Hillary Clinton Campaign Controversy

This section as it stands has WP:UNDUE length and is mainly referenced from POV sources (FoxNews, NewsMax, Washington Times, etc.) rather than neutral WP:RS giving a balanced view of the controversy. Let's improve it, for the honor of Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)HouseOfChange (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You left out the Washington Post, the BBC, and CNN, which corroborate what the other sources said. I see no WP:UNDUE or any problem with the sources when taken in total. Anastrophe (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, our article should be based on WP:RS. I added my suggestion to the article, if you have improvements, feel free to add them. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Times is a reliable source. Fox News is a reliable source. The BBC is a reliable source. CNN is a reliable source. Please don't remove reliable sources while claiming that you're improving the sources. Please review WP:RS. Anastrophe (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The Moony owned WT is a bad source, barely RS if at all. I agree that the section is too long. And why does it say Podesta didn't respond in the email thread but not mention that Podesta responded. I'll admit I'm not sure what "Palmieri responded that she believes Murdoch, Thomson and many other conservatives are Catholic because they think it’s “the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion.” “Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals,” she wrote. Podesta did not respond in the email thread." means exactly, but it does say she responded. But I repeat, it's all too long. I see it's not mentioned at Hillary Clinton email controversy. Doug Weller talk 07:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I tried to replace the long section with a shorter improvement, sourced to the WaPo, but it was reverted to the original version:

After the release by Wikileaks of stolen Podesta emails, the Center for American Progress was attacked based on emails sent between John Halpin, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, and Jennifer Palmieri, a Hillary Clinton campaign team member. The Washington Post characterized the comments as "joking"; Kellyanne Conway and others called them anti-Catholic attacks.(WaPo citation here.)

Rather than edit-warring on the topic page, I suggest we agree on an improvement here. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am here to discuss and reach consensus but getting no response. Two weeks ago, Anastrophe here reverted my proposed draft to the previous version, even though other editors besides me had said it was too long and too POV. Part of WP:BRD is Discuss. I put in a Bold draft. Anastrophe reverted it entirely. I am here to discuss and reach consensus but getting no response. What does WP:BRD suggest now? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not invested in the matter, so you can move forward (or backwards or sideways, as you please) without my involvement. Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Anastrophe, I will put a better version of my draft back in the article and then you or others can revise it if you want, but please don't just revert back to the original, which nobody liked. Anybody who wants to refer to it can easily find it in the page history. Honoring your concern about not losing RS, I also put back a link to the CNN article, even though it mentions CAP only briefly and focuses on attempts to blame Hillary Clinton campaign. I also left out information that both Palmieri and Halpin are Roman Catholic, because I thought that was a bit too pointy. That information, as well as the multiple comments by people who were offended, can easily be found by anyone interested. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

fyi - Broken link in citation

The section on Funding has a table showing top donors in 2015. The title of the table has a citation (#46 - Our Supporters) which is a link to a washingtonpost link which is broken. Would be good to fix this. (Apologies if this is the incorrect way to alert possible article editors to this problem - am not sure how to do this; suggestions/corrections welcome) Xmbecker (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ideology Edit War

This is about whether to refer to them as liberal or centrist in the lede. The Center for American Progress is not centrist, neither in its economic nor in its social views. It describes itself as progressive is squarely liberal in the US sense. It is allied with the Democratic Party and supports higher taxes on the wealthy

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2018/08/08/454553/indexing-capital-gains-inflation-will-rig-economy-workers/ https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/PGPF-Center-For-American-Progress-Solutions-Initiative-2019.pdf https://www.americanprogressaction.org/events/2019/08/27/174880/toward-tax-fairness/

And expanded welfare programs

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2018/03/07/447412/ensuring-basic-living-standards/

Also a jobs guarantee

https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2018/05/15/450544/release-cap-releases-major-plan-investing-communities-establishing-job-guarantee-hard-hit-regions/

"Influence Watch" describes them as liberal

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/center-for-american-progress-cap/

The sources included by Anonymous User 78.99.168.120 are biased against mainstream liberalism in a way that affects their accuracy.

The Washington Post noted that CAP pushed the Obama administration from the left, especially on economic issues. Quote "On Nov. 1, Tanden assumed the presidency of the Center for American Progress, Washington’s leading liberal think tank, which is an incessant advocate for a broad progressive agenda and as such a sharp thorn in President Obama’s left side." as well as "The danger of the road already taken, she argued, is painfully clear. “The administration created a series of expectations that created a political problem for the president,” said Tanden, referring to the administration’s emphasis on negotiations with Republicans insistent on cutting spending. Now, Tanden argued, “the president is no longer like ‘I’m sort of like these guys,’ ” she said, referring to Republicans. As a result, the 2012 election “will be a stark choice.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house/think-tank-post-puts-spotlight-on-veteran-democratic-operative-neera-tanden/2011/11/01/gIQAn6fpjM_story.html User1956a (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1956a (talk • contribs) 11:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post article is 8 years old, plenty of time for things to change. The organisation itself isn't really a good source for a statement of fact about its views although we can use it to say what it describes itself as.. I regret not having looked into this earlier, but ". Journalist Andrew Perez reported that according to financial disclosure forms, CAP donated $200,000 last year to the American Enterprise Institute."?? The American Enterprise Institute "is closely associated with conservatism and neoconservatis". That quote is from this 2018 source that's been used in the article.[10] This is a problem because it's not a progressive or liberal thing to do (well, it's the sort of thing an economic liberal group might do, I'm not sure). Yet The Hill calls the CAP left-leaning. I don't have time to research further but at the moment I'm inclined to say that we cannot characterise its position in Wikipedia's voice. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

AllSides describes them as left-leaning: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/center-american-progress So does the Washington Post in 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-show-how-advocates-at-liberal-group-back-channeled-advice-to-clinton/2016/10/15/c2da85e6-923f-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html And even the New York Times called them liberal in their critical article from earlier this year: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/us/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-candidates.html

The American Enterprise Institute and CAP teamed up for a joint cross-ideological project specifically on liberal democracy and authoritarian populism and nothing else https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2018/05/10/450613/release-cap-aei-team-defend-democracy-transatlantic-partnership/ and they received a joint grant for this one project, which is the money Perez was referring to.

If you still think we can't designate the ideology, I think we should say "Democratic-party aligned" instead or change it to "describes itself as liberal" or "describes itself as progressive" (which is the label they themselves use the most frequently), which I would also be ok with; the organization is generally described as the leading liberal think tank, calling it centrist on Wikipedia is certainly not backed up by facts, only by opinion pieces from biased sourcesUser1956a (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Beast calls them "Democratic Party's think tank" in their articles this year (example here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/center-for-american-progress-a-top-democratic-think-tank-will-keep-russia-project-after-talks-of-killing-it) and they also refer to them as "part of the progressive ecosystem" - if we cannot agree on how to describe their ideology, I do think calling them "Democratic Party-aligned public policy research and advocacy organization" instead might be the least contentious solution User1956a (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

One last addition: in this 2018 article about CAP's signature conference, they are also described as liberal. Quote "The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank that has made notable leftward moves since the 2016 election" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/01/democrats-including-some-2020-hopefuls-to-gather-at-ideas-conference/ User1956a (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Since there is dispute over how to classify CAP in ideological terms, I propose replacing "The Center for American Progress (CAP) is a public policy research and advocacy organization which presents a socially liberal[2] and centrist[3][4] viewpoint on economic and social issues" with "The Center for American Progress (CAP) is the leading Democratic Party-aligned public policy research and advocacy organization." That is accurate as well as neutrally phrased and will get Wikipedia out of the problem of assigning ideology, which seems unlikely to produce consensus, or simply relying on CAP's self-description. If there are no objections, I will make the edit. User1956a (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

BRD: Reconsidering "Israel Controversy" section

Since June 2020 at least, the article had a three-paragraph section on two Israel-related controversies (in 2012 and in 2015.) On February 3, Publius In The 21st Century expanded the section in a way I thought UNDUE, changing its title to "Israel controversy & antisemitism allegations." Another editor EnlightenmentNow1792, new to this article but apparently tracking my contributions after an earlier dispute, has now twice reverted my reversion, so let's seek consensus. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Delighted to seek consensus. Hadn't noticed your reversion until I received this ping. A few things jump out at me.

1. Gharib is plainly mentioned in the JPost article ("The anti-Israel scandal saw two CAP writers, Jilani and Ali Gharib, issue apologies for asserting that American Jews and a non-Jewish Republican senator serve the interests of the Israeli government over the security of the United States.").

2a. Jilani and Gharib are both prominent media figures. From my perspective, readers can only benefit from having more than less detail, particularly since this detail has reported in RS and is newsworthy. What I am struggling to understand is the case against providing readers valuable detail that has been reported by the sources cited. I'd be curious to hear your rationale here.

2b. Identifying as precisely as possible employees involved in the episodes discussed on this page seems to be the norm here. Why, for example, would it be inappropriate to name Jilani and Gharib in this section, but appropriate to name John Halpin and Jennifer Palmieri in the next section, or Benton Strong in the section after that?

3. Regarding the title of the section: the controversy is not only about Israel, but also antisemitism. Faiz Shakir certainly thought so ("Yes, I agree ‘Israel Firster’ is terrible, anti-Semitic language.) This is also clear from both sources, one of which includes antisemitism in its headline ("E-mail reveals anti-Semitism at US think tank"), the other in the first sentence ("The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank closely aligned with the White House, is embroiled in a dispute with several Jewish organizations over charges that some center staffers have publicly used language that could be construed as anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic.) Given that allegations of antisemitism are a) at the heart of the substance of the issue (as Shakir's email makes clear) and b) singled out as a defining feature of the issue by the sources, it is hard for me to imagine a case against including it in the title, though it's always possible I have been dull-witted or ignorant on some count.

4. Regarding the question of weight: at the moment, the episode with Jilani and Gharib has one paragraph, and this is roughly as long as the paragraph addressing the sexual harassment claims involving Strong. That seems like a fine parity. Both go into helpful detail addressing the specifics of the issue in question, and then provide further context and the response of CAP. Pace your assertion that that there are only two, not three, controversies addressed in this paragraph, so far as a I can tell, the two following paragraphs in the section each seem address to questions distinct from this episode and each other.

As for the second paragraph, it did strike me that paragraph two is a bit flimsy as far as the sourcing goes (I personally like, or at least respect, DemocracyNow, and The Intercept is certainly a solid source in many cases, AlterNet and the Nation are arguably bit more dubious for factual material, but for my part, I wouldn't link to any of these without something from a more mainstream source like WaPo, NYT, Guardian, etc). Perhaps you would trim there? Or the odd details in the third paragraph, such as the exact number of people who signed a rather random petition? Does Glenn Greenwald - who seems to be a fan favorite in this section - really merit his own quotation? Just for context, I added two sub-clauses that enriched the article with specific detail - if that is to be the straw the breaks this camel of this section's back, might I kindly ask what the reason is to cut helpful detail, which seems clearly to further the encyclopedic mission of the project, for the sake of preserving one journalist's opinions, which seem merely to push a POV? (For the record, I'm happy to keep both, but am responding to the stated concern about POV).

Looking forward to a reasoned discussion, as always Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Publius In The 21st Century for your civil and well-organized explanation. Per #1, Gharib's name is mentioned in the 1/7 Jerusalem Post article you added to the article. Instead of reading carefully, I grepped for "Ghaib" and leaped to the wrong conclusion.

Per #2, Because of BLP concerns, I wanted to avoid calling out Ali Gharib and Zaid Jilani for decade-old "accusations of antisemitism" which this article has no room to explain or clarify.

Per #3, This section discusses two discrete incidents (2012 and 2015), only one of which deals with anti-semitism.

Per #4, I was content with the amount of weight given to this topic in the stable version. I felt your addition was not an improvement for several reasons, so reverting it per BRD seemed quick and simple. I am fine with your adding the 1/20/2012 Jerusalem Post article as a reference, somewhere, but putting it right after the sentence cited to WaPo makes it confusing which one sources the quote there "publicly used language that could be construed as anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic." It useful to have it clear that WaPo said that.

If you want to suggest improvements to the other two paragraphs of the section, please start a new section to avoid the TLDR trap. Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, HouseOfChange - thank you, too, for your equally civil and reasonable response.

Regarding #1, no worries - I'm sure I've done the same at some point.

Regarding #2, given the prominence of both Jilani and Gharib, I take the relevant question of the BLP page to be the following: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" (BLPPublic), and I can't easily imagine being persuaded by an argument that all three boxes aren't ticked here (and that in quite a clear-cut way). Nor can I see any issues of NPOV, V, or NOR that would invalidate the text as it now stands. Finally, the date of the event in question does not seem to enter into the equation at all, and I am not sure why it would.

On the other hand, if in your view the article does not do enough to clarify or explain the situation, I would certainly be open to discussing further additions you'd like to make to that end. (For my part, I feel this is accomplished satisfactorily, but I just want to make clear I am open to discussing further additions, if that's what you'd had in mind.)

A sidenote here: I am puzzled as to why, if you are genuinely concerned about BLP questions on this page - and I have no reason to think anything but that, of course! - you have not yet intervened to change the text two sections below, where it seems that a private individual is named in the context of unsubstantiated allegations by a single outlet of less than blue-chip quality; I see from my first look at the page history that you have been active on this page for some years, and that the sexual allegation entry has been there for nearly a year. To be clear, I myself don't have a problem with the name of alleged accuser being in the article being in there, but since I see the case for including the names of Jilani and Gharib as being prima facie stronger per BLP rules than the case for including Strong, I am genuinely curious as to why you feel that different standards apply to Messieurs Jilani and Gharib than to Strong. It may always be, of course, that I am missing something important.

Regarding #3, the "and" is conjunctive - all sections involve either Israel, antisemitism allegations, or both (their being closely related here). Although it seems clunky to do so, if you prefer, we could also make separate sections for the first paragraph and for the next two; as I tried explaining in point 3 above, from my perspective, any title for this episode that doesn't include allegations of antisemitism does not properly capture this story or the way the sources reported it.

Also regarding #3, again mostly as a sidenote: I take it that there are two distinct issues in 2015 - i) something to do with censorship of comments in the CAP's work, and ii) the CAP's decision to host Netanyahu. Those seem like different things to me (and, presumably, to the author of the text: "Greenwald and others also criticized..."). But more generally, even though I find those sections pretty poor and a little bit silly for the reasons mentioned above, this doesn't really seem like a battle worth fighting. The only reason I bring it up is that it seemed to me that if you really feel this section is too lengthy or were worried about UNDUE, there seemed some obvious fat to trim first.

Regarding #4, I see that an almost identical situation has occurred in e.g. footnotes 46 & 47 of this page, and indeed it seemed like common practice in my experience to cite multiple sources when introducing a topic; if a quotation is used, the source quoted should ideally go first, as it does here. But if you prefer that the JPost article not be cited in the first sentence, that seems perfectly ok to me! On that note, your last edit seems like an improvement, and, for my part, I would be happy with the text as it currently stands.

With best wishesPublius In The 21st Century (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Publius In The 21st Century: At this stage of BRD, I'll wait for others to discuss. This article could use improvement in general, as you say, so if you want to work on more of it, that will be great. What do others think of the changed title, and other changes? HouseOfChange (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Separating two different controversies related to Israel

As suggested by Publius In The 21st Century I am separating the section about antisemitic language in 2012 from the section about alleged suppression of criticism of Israel in 2015. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If that's your preference, HouseOfChange, it is of course ok with me!

As to your invitation to modify other parts of the article, in my experience this last 18 months or so on Wikipedia, improving the quality of anything related to Israel, especially where e.g. someone has gone out of their way repeatedly to invoke/quote someone like Glenn Greenwald (and has not managed to cite at least one mainstream source while doing so, but has piled on more partisan sources), is unduly likely to lead to a long, drawn-out, and often quite ugly encounter which will not be a good investment of time; since I edit Wikipedia in my spare time, unfortunately I have to be more careful about my editing choices than I'd ideally like (even this exchange was lengthier than I had expected, but, given your extremely civil and reasonable nature throughout, it has of course been time well spent, and I thank you very sincerely for that). That being said, I feel very confident that any time in dialogue with you will not be wasted, if you also think that parts of what is now "Allegations of suppression of criticism of Israel" (aka the paean to Glenn Greenwald) could be improved and would support my doing so, I'd be very happy to take a stab at that and see what you think?

Thanks again for the unusually reasonable and productive process you've conducted here - in my experience it is all too rare, and I appreciate it very much. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)