Talk:Adam Milstein/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about Adam Milstein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Undercover footage

Currently in the "Personal life" section we have this paragraph: "In undercover footage from The Lobby – USA by Al Jazeera, Eric Gallagher admitted to an undercover reporter that Milstein founded and funds the Canary Mission. However, Gallagher reportedly 'told Milstein that Al Jazeera had selectively edited his quote to make it appear that he was saying Milstein backed the operation.' Milstein claims the documentary's reporting is untrue." The sourcing is to an episode of an Al Jazeera t.v. show and two articles in The Nation. I think this content is problematic in a number of ways. It's telling us that undercover video said Milstein funded something. But it's also telling us that the person who allegedly said this says the video was selectively edited, and that Milstein also denies it. That doesn't sound like a very strong claim for a WP:BLP. It is a convoluted he said/he said. And I can't find any additional sourcing on the matter. I'm in favor of removing this content due to these issues. Marquardtika (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

There has been substantial coverage on this topic from a spectrum of outlets (,,,,,,,). See WP:BLP: "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." 81567518W (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

This is all based on an Al-Jazeera piece that never aired, which is relevant. I'm not convinced that this incident, if we can call it that, is particularly "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented." It's more like an un-incident. The Nation link you cite has a correction at the end: "An earlier version of this article contained a paragraph, now deleted, that said Adam Milstein, chairman of the Israeli-American Council (IAC), founded and funded Canary Mission and talked to Anthony Kleinfeld. The basis for those claims comes from the Al Jazeera documentary, which appears to show Kleinfeld talking to Milstein at a party, and which shows Kleinfeld's boss at The Israel Project, Eric Gallagher, telling Kleinfeld that Milstein funds Canary Mission. Milstein denies that he ever met Kleinfeld and says he did not found and has never funded Canary Mission, and now Gallagher states that he has 'no knowledge as to who runs or funds Canary Mission' and that the documentary was 'selectively edited to deliver a false and misleading narrative.'" So the documentary never aired, the person in the documentary who was secretly recorded says it was selectively edited and that he doesn't know who funds Canary Mission, and Milstein says that he doesn't fund it. I'm struggling to see what exactly is relevant here...a claim was made, everyone denies it, no evidence emerges...what exactly is the point? Marquardtika (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

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

https://forward.com/fast-forward/409081/pro-israel-donor-adam-milstein-denies-report-that-he-funds-canary-mission/

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2018-08-30/ty-article/.premium/parts-of-censored-al-jazeera-documentary-on-pro-israeli-lobby-leaked/0000017f-f2f2-d5bd-a17f-f6fa08640000

More reporting, the Haaretz piece can be accessed through archive today. Theofunny (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Two of those links are the same ones provided by 81567518W. Can anyone provide a reason why we should include this content given my comment above that "a claim was made, everyone denies it, no evidence emerges...what exactly is the point?" No one seems to be countering this. Marquardtika (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The claims in these articles were on weak grounds to begin with, and are basically hearsay, something we dont want in a BLP. So and so said Milstein was involved in X. Thats not reliable or verifiable at all. On top of that, he denied the claim, and it was retracted by one media outlet. This phantom documentary appears to have never been released, and this whole thing seems to be confined to a single event in 2018, which has no bearing on today. Given the conservative nature of BLP, it is critical to remove this. Also, there are a number of other issues with this article that need rectifying. It seems there is a concerted effort to sandbag the character of Milstein, which is undue. There is no justification for a controversies section when all of that material can easily be put elsewhere, namely the personal life section. I would agree some of it does not belong in the philanthropy section. Metallurgist (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. No one has offered a compelling reason why this problematic content should be in the article, so I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Marquardtika (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, see you already removed it. Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Reasoning has been provided above. See WP:BLP. 81567518W (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Coverage of the topic is not in dispute, but its notability is. As I said above, its basically hearsay, which is not acceptable for BLP. Metallurgist (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Please point to the relevant point in WP:BLP. I'm not seeing anything about "basically hearsay". 81567518W (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

There is simply nothing noteworthy here. A claim was made about an undercover video which never aired, and then everyone involved denied the claim. There is nothing of encyclopedic value to emerge from this series of events. Marquardtika (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Where in BLP does it say that we can cover anything and everything with no regards to notability or verifiability? Especially vague unverifiable eavesdropped claims. That would get laughed out of any court in the world. If you analyze what went on in that nothing-burger, it is literally nothing. You asked for outside input on BLPN like three months ago, and I pointed out the issues here and solved a few disputes, and I recall you agreeing with me at first. I dont understand what changed and why the insistency on putting this in. There is so much better stronger material out there than this. Metallurgist (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, it's notable because it's the subject of robust coverage, and was never publicly denied by the person who made the allegation. The journalist who created the documentary series is well-known and the decision not to release the episode is additionally notable. The noticeboard was made to discuss the use of the term "philanthropist" not the inclusion of any particular content on the page. 81567518W (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Scrubbing

There appears to be an effort to scrub this page of anything that remotely reflects poorly on the subject. Changes should be discussed here first before destructive editing, and if consensus does not emerge, then you can raise to a noticeboard as has been done here in the past with transparent goodwill. 81567518W (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS states "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Looking at what you're restored, it includes content cited to Mondoweiss. When I click through to their website, their banner ad is for "From the river to the sea" tote bags. We can surely do better for sourcing. Why don't we discuss each section of disputed content and reach consensus on what should be included and in what form. Marquardtika (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a single Mondoweiss citation used for a claim that is easily independently verifiable using court records available online. None of the other content relies on Mondoweiss, which is not even tagged as unreliable on the perennial sources page. 81567518W (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you understand WP:ONUS? It's on you to build WP:CONSENSUS for disputed content (the content you unilaterally re-added to the page). Marquardtika (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with User:81567518W, when Mondoweiss can back up all it says with online court records, there is no reason for not using them, (unless one wants to remove anything negative about mr Milstein), Huldra (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thats not correct. It is fine to put the conviction, which is quite minor really. Ive worked in restaurants with prep cooks who did more federal time than that. However, I am wondering what the relevance of the bit from Mondoweiss is. Surely there is a better source for that. Its not really clear where they pulled it from. Regarding WP:MONDOWEISS: "Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." So it is currently correct to attribute it, but their reliability is marginal. We really ought to be using higher quality sources than Mondoweiss. This didnt receive much press from sources that arent "biased or opinionated", so its notability is questionable. If the court records say as much, then link to the court records.

He isnt even mentioned in the scandal article, which shows how immaterial and not notable it was. Metallurgist (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, its fine to have these discussions and dispute what to include or not include, but to unilaterally ram in a controversies section, which is almost always consider undue and improper, is unnecessary. Especially when it can be included elsewhere. Metallurgist (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no universal policy against a controversies section, and in some cases it is warranted, particularly in cases where allegations of impropriety are included under a "Philanthropy" section, which is obviously a miscategorization. No one is "ramming" anything; the subject is primarily notable, by a simple survey of RS, for controversial political donations and a wiki article that does not include that material would be a poor one. 81567518W (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

"The subject is primarily notable, by a simple survey of RS, for controversial political donations"...huh? That does not seem at all accurate to me. That seems like your opinion. Do you have any citations to back up that opinion? Marquardtika (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The material is included. Creating a separate controversies section is unnecessary and undue. See WP:CSECTION:

An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic, as well as one dedicated to accolades and praises is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy.

And

Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title.

Finally, the Mondoweiss article is quoting Electronic Intifada, which is considered generally unreliable, so it would not be appropriate to include that since they dont originate any new information. The rest seems fine at present, but I will take a deeper dive at some point.

Its also worth warning against puffery, but a lot of that was removed and replaced with secondary sources. Metallurgist (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Please suggest a better formatting of the content if you don't like the use of a controversies section; I'm in a agreement that it could be better formatted and it's not necessarily me preference. I do ask, however, that you operate in good faith and do not simply scrub content that you think reflects poorly on the subject, as it's growing increasingly apparent that some editors of this page have an interest in protecting the subject from criticism and have been retaliating against other editors. 81567518W (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Nationality

As discussed previously, the subject appears to be a dual citizen and therefore per MOS:NATIONALITY can be referred to as Israeli and American unless there is a particular reason to emphasize ethnicity.

"In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word and reduces ambiguity." 81567518W (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hyphenation

Hi @81567518W Other editors seem to favor hyphenation, with only you supporting "and" afaict. I am wondering why you prefer the use of "and", instead of the more standard hyphenation. You had previously endorsed hyphenation. While the MOS does suggest "and" in some circumstances, it doesnt preclude hypenation. Israeli is a nationality, not an ethnicity. FWIW, Israeli-American has 1757 results vs Israeli and American having 184. Similarly, while Canadian-American has 6378 while Canadian and American has 1231. And for extra spice, Palestinian-American has 676 vs Palestinian and American having only 11. There are some nonBLP examples that skew this somewhat. Further, it seems all RS use Israeli-American. See Forward JPost. One could also argue strictly American labelling as his career is almost entirely as an American. Looking at past discussion on MOS:BIO, there doesnt seem to be any consensus in either direction, and it can mostly be boiled down to "doesnt matter" and "who cares", altho there is often edit warring on claiming sports figures. See here as one example. Given all of this, I think hyphenation is more supported, especially given the RS usages. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

It makes sense to follow the MOS precisely because we are talking about relevant nationality, not about ethnicity.

Not sure why we would prioritize RS over the MOS. Plenty of RS call, for instance, Arnold Schwarzenegger “Austrian-American” and virtually none use WP’s format, but it’s still what we use because it is more descriptive.

This issue was brought up here, not by me. 81567518W (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia functions as a community. Majority of editors who weighed in on this matter agreed upon "Israeli-American" in a previous discussion. The Israeli Americans page defines the label as "Americans who are of full or partial Israeli descent." Therefore, I believe "Israeli-American" would apply to Milstein by this definition. Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Was there a discussion about that on the Schwarzenegger page in either direction? There is no consistency on pages and most uses seem to favor hyphenation. All of the discussions on MOS:BIO are inconclusive on there being a preference, and the MOS is not conclusive or strict. The sources all support it and no policy opposes it. This is a local issue, which has had fairly consistent support from editors for hyphenation, which is more sensible and concise. What is your rationale for non-hyphenation other an interpretation of MOS:BIO? I will let this go to 30 days open discussion and then implement the change, or another editor may do so if they please. If you still disagree, we can seek another outside opinion on this at WP:DR. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY

A compelling reason to include ethnicity in the lead of this BLP has yet to be made. It appears we may need to pursue a noticeboard to resolve this. 81567518W (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

See noticeboard post here. 81567518W (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Chairman of IAC

That Milstein was chairman of the Israeli-American Council (IAC) from 2015 to 2019 seems like a basic and uncontroversial fact. Is it disputed? We could use WP:ABOUTSELF here if needed, see his own website. Marquardtika (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This is a texbook WP:ABOUTSELF situation for this claim. Longhornsg (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Why include $1,000 UCLA Hillel donation in BLP?

81567518W made a complete and total revert of the changes I had made made to the article. Per WP:BRD, and in an effort to reach consensus on the proposed changes, I have restored the article to this version, from April 9, as the status quo ante.

Milstein is widely described as a prolific donor to various causes, as seen in this source from The Intercept already in the article that says that he has given several million dollars to various causes.

Among all these donations, a contribution of "$1,000 to UCLA Hillel in 2014" stands out as trvially smaller than the others. As the article states "UCLA campus election code does not require the disclosure". There is nothing here that justifies its inclusion, which is why it had been removed. As a BLP article, the questions of WP:UNDUE and WP:ONUS have even greater significance than usual. By policy, you need some argument for inclusion beyond the mere fact that secondary sources have covered it.

In the absence of a clear policy-based BLP justification for inclusion, the details of this thousand-dollar donation should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree with @Alansohn. There was a previous discussion last year on inclusion of the undercover footage, in which @81567518W failed to achieve consensus to include the undercover footage. Pinging discussants @Metallurgist @Marquardtika @Theofunny. Perhaps an RFC is in order. Longhornsg (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is balance of aspects: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

The UCLA donation is the subject of extensive reporting by RS: , , , , , , , , not including the numerous UC student news pieces.

Given the general paucity of coverage Milstein gets in RS this topic probably deserves a more prominent place in the article than it currently has. 81567518 W 11:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Milstein has been widely covered in independent reliable and verifiable sources over a span of decades, yet all but one of the sources about the incident cover a span of weeks in July 2014. The only coverage after that provided as evidence is from The Intercept, a clearly biased source whose use here should be weighed carefully. Yes, we should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject., but given that even The Intercept describes the millions of dollars he has given, a single contribution of $1,000 that received a brief flurry of attention more than a decade ago and no meaningful coverage since in mainstream sources, should be accorded little weight, if any. 81567518W's analysis of the sources only weighs further to omitting it entirely. Alansohn (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

You haven't said anything new here or referenced a policy or guideline reason for excluding the content. It's clear that you think that the incident is not significant, but the policy here pretty clearly disagrees with you:

"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." The incident is clearly noteworthy (it is the primary subject of multiple independent pieces of reliable reporting), relevant (it is a donation, Milstein is a donor), and well documented (see sources). The policy could not be clearer -- it belongs in the article. 81567518 W 15:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

9 mentions
3 mentions
3 mentions
3 mentions
5 mentions
3 mentions
5 mentions
71 mentions

Most of these are about the UCLA student regent election and would be more DUE on his page if one existed. The only maybe useful sources are the first (Foraward) and last (Intercept). Thats not to say they arent reliable, just that they arent useful for this. I thought we previously had a consensus for a small passing mention. I am not against total removal of this non-notable event, but if it must be there, a sentence or two is sufficient. Also, in reality this is five sources not eight. The incident received some coverage, but most of it has little to do with Milstein and more to do with the candidate. Its not really clear how this is actually noteworthy in the grand scheme of things. It was a $1000 donation WP:TENYEARS ago. Who cares?

The "paucity of coverage" he gets might be an argument for AFD overall in fact. He seems to be a minor figure in everything he does or is aalleged of doing. Also relative paucity of coverage does not mean we should have multiple paragraphs on it, just that there is not much to say about him because he really isnt that notable. Only fringe, local, and Jewish publications seem to care he exists. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that a sentence or two is best; there's a lot of coverage here, so total omission feels to me like a nonstarter if we're going to have an article on Milstein at all, but there's no need for more than the basic acknowledgement that it happened. I just don't feel we can omit it entirely, since WP:DUE is relative and the coverage for this seems heavier than many things already in the article; it is true that there's not much coverage of the man in general, but we must be even-handed in terms of what we do cover. If we removed everything that had less coverage than this, there would barely be an article. Are you arguing for deletion or merger or redirection? That is always another option, if he has little coverage overall. --Aquillion (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree it makes sense to include based on the weight that RS give it, but no more than one sentence is WP:DUE per @Metallurgist and @Alansohn. Longhornsg (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Not really anything to disagree with. I think we had a version with a sentence or two a few months ago. Possibly this:

Milstein donated $1,000 to UCLA Hillel in 2014. According to the Daily Cal, Milstein requested other community members should send donations to Hillel earmarked for "UCLA Student Government Leaders."^[1] The UCLA campus election code does not require the disclosure of campaign funding sources. According to Milstein, neither he nor his foundation gave money to Avi Ovid or Bruins United.^[2]

An alternative I wrote earlier:

The Daily Californian, University of California, Berkeley's student newspaper, reported in 2014 that alleged leaked emails indicated Milstein had donated $1000 to University of California, Los Angeles' chapter of Hillel International, intending it to be used for student government leaders.^[3]^[4] UCLA Hillel Director of Development, Rachael Petru Horowitz, denied money was transferred to student association candidates.^[5]

This probably could use some additional refinement between the two. Mine is a bit overly descriptive.

As for AFD, I considered it when first encountering this article, but I imagine there would be 3 or more keeps, and insufficient deletes to overcome that. I am not sure how I even feel, but I did have the idea. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Could people please stop reverting blindly? I feel that there's sufficient sourcing to include these things at some level of depth, but, sure, it's BLP sensitive so it's fair to insist on discussion. But the blanket-reverts have been restoring a lot of other edits by the sockpuppeteer that I don't feel are defensible (and which certainly do not fall under BLP; obviously BLP does not require that we call someone a "philanthropist", an emotive term that per my argument at WP:PHILANTHROPIST requires extensive high-quality sourcing from neutral sources before we could put it in the article voice, and that it be part of the subject's primary notability before it could be given the level of clearly WP:UNDUE weight that the sockpuppeeter gave it.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree with your argument. There's no basis in policy for giving this one term extra special treatment. Let's go by how by RS describe him. That's actual policy and the best way to achieve WP:NPOV. Sources, across the idelogical spectrum, ncluding articles and authors who are no fans of Milstein or pro-Israel advocacy, mention his business activities and his donations, and refer to him as a philanthroipist. Obviously, his business activities finance his activitsm. Echoing this comment from @Isaidnoway, this approach is the most neutral, fair, and policy-compliant. It also avoids inserting any personal opinions -- whether from the SOCK or others -- about the subject of the article.

Please share additional RS so we can make a more complete assessment, but the sources would suggest we say "real estate investor, philanthrophist, and donor to pro-Israel and Jewish causes" to be WP:NPOV.
Business activities
- Article in progressive magazine Middle East Report by academic: "Israel-American philanthrophist"
- Washington Post: describes Adam and Gila Milstein Foundation as "philanthropy"
- Jewish Telegraphic Agency: "pro-Israel donor"
- Jerusalem Post: "prominent Jewish philanthropist"
- Jewish Telegraphic Agency: "pro-Israel donor"
- Jewish News Syndicate: "philanthropist"
- The Intercept: "prolific donor to right-wing, pro-Israel causes"
- The Algemeiner: "Philanthropist"
- Jerusalem Post: "philanthropist"
Business activities
- Washington Post: "wealthy real estate investor"
- Jewish Telegraphic Agency: "Real-estate investor"
- Jerusalem Post: "real estate agent"
- Jewish News Syndicate: "real estate developer"
- Electric Intifada: "real estate mogul"
- Jewish Telegraphic Agency: "real estate investor"
Activism
- Washington Post: "co-founder of the Israeli American Council, a prominent Jewish advocacy group"
- Journal article by pro-Palestinian activist and academic Yousef Munayyer: "head of the Israeli American Coalition"
- The Algemeiner: "chair of the Israeli-American Council"
- Jewish News Syndicate: "Jewish communal activist"
Sources brought up in previous discussions that I disregarded:
Longhornsg (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Algemeiner and the Jewish News Syndicate are neither RS per WP:NPPSG nor independent from Milstein (his org is a funder of these publications). As for Jersualem Post, he appears to be a paid contributor so we should take their description of him with a grain of salt. Most RS do not refer to him as a philanthropist, because his activities as a donor are not generally not altruistic, they are nationalist and political. I'd also refer to the last time this was discussed where we did not reach consensus to include the term. 81567518 W 11:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I mean, I wrote WP:PHILANTHROPIST long ago, so I'm obviously not singling Milstein out. And my argument, as it is there, is that the term is clearly emotive in tone and therefore falls under WP:LABEL; it is not only for negative labels. Now, as I've said repeatedly before, I do think we can use such labels in the article voice - but the threshold is high and is not met here. To wit, while you said that there are sources across the ideological spectrum call him a philanthropist, it's clear the vast majority of the sources that you cited that use the term for him are on one side of the P/I conflict and one side of Israel politics, which is an obvious issue when most of his "philanthropy" consists of political donations related to that conflict. The standard for a WP:LABEL like philanthropist isn't "some people call him that, so we use it in their short description" and certainly not "the people who agree with him call him that". Also note the distinction I made between calling one thing a person did "philanthropy" and defining them as a "philanthropist"; these are very different things. It is certainly not a WP:DEFINING aspect of the subject, which to me instantly rules out using the term in the short description, first sentence of the lead, categories, or templates. Again, to be crystal-clear, I place "philanthropist" under WP:LABEL, meaning I feel we should treat it the same way we would eg. denialist or terrorist or racist; it has a clear value-judgement associated with it over the more value-neutral donor, and therefore requires extremely broad and high-quality sourcing. Would you accept the level of sourcing you provided here to call someone one of those in the article voice? --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I somewhat agree and iirc thats how I ended up here in the first place. There was a dispute at BLPN over whether to include philanthropist. There is a wide spectrum of sources, including those unsympathetic to Milstein, that use it, so I was and am not opposed to inclusion. I agree it is a subjective term tho, and would support its total deprecation from all articles if we ever have an RFC on that. See Bill Gates and George Soros, where some would say they are philanthropists and others would say they are the direct opposite. And in the interest of neutrality on what is really a subjective puff term, I think we should not use it sitewide, but until then, sources and editorial support here back it up. Also agree lets work this out here rather than have a revert war. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

References

[1]
Hunt, Chloe (4 July 2014). "Funds to UCLA student political party came from outside sources, leaked emails show". www.dailycal.org. Retrieved 23 November 2025.
[2]
"UCLA Jewish regent accused of improper campaign donations". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 2014-07-02.
[3]
Hunt, Chloe (July 4, 2014). "Funds to UCLA student political party came from outside sources, leaked emails show". The Daily Californian. Retrieved 2025-07-16.
[4]
Murphy, Katy (August 15, 2016). "UC confirms Avi Oved as student regent designate". East Bay Times. Retrieved 2025-07-16.
[5]
Amron, Yardein (July 23, 2014). "Why Did UCLA Hillel Funnel Cash From Pro-Israel Donor to Student Candidate?". The Forward. Retrieved 2025-07-16.

I support including something about the $1,000 donation to UCLA as it represents a sizable enough proportion of the coverage Milstein has received in RS. However, the current wording is confusing to me: "According to Milstein, neither he nor his foundation gave money to Avi Ovid or Bruins United." Who is Avi Ovid? What is Bruins United? We need to work on explaining what the donation was for and why the media covered it so we can adequately explain that to readers. Marquardtika (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

How's this:

Milstein donated $1,000 to the Jewish student group UCLA Hillel in 2014 earmarked to help finance the campaigns of pro-Israel student government candidates. Despite the UCLA election code not requiring the disclosure of campaign finance sources, controversy over the donation resulted in a delay of the confirmation of one student regent-designate.

I don't think we need to attribute the specific claims as they haven't been denied by any involved and are reported without attribution by Jewish Journal, the Forward, and the Intercept. 81567518 W 16:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Marquardtika (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles