Talk:Taylor Force Act

Edit request and consensus

Hi all- @E.M.Gregory: and @AmYisroelChai: and anyone else who might want to get involved. I am requesting what I believe is a simple and informative change to the page. Sander Gerber is repeatedly referred to, in reliable sources, as the "architect of the Taylor Force Act," and "instrumental in the passage of the Taylor Force Act." The fact that his name isn't here, on the Wikipedia page about the Taylor Force Act, is clearly an oversight that Wikipedia should correct. Please see below for the sources, and please check them and see how prominently Sander Gerber appears as an important person connected to the Taylor Force Act. Thank you so much for spending your time on this issue. 104.245.75.3 (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Building Consensus for a one sentence additon

Hi @E.M.Gregory:,@AmYisroelChai:,@Galatz:, @American In Brazil:,@Athaenara:, @Mk17b:,

I am trying to get other editors into the conversation about adding one sentence which states that Sander Gerber was the "architect of the Taylor Force Act" and was "instrumental in the passage of the Taylor Force Act." It is clearly an important part of any discussion on Wikipedia about this legislation, and there are precedents on other Wikipedia articles to mention the person or people who helped get laws passed in the US Congress. Bill Browder lobbied for passage of the Magnitsky Act and the Flatow Amendment was championed by Stephen Flatow. Since it is relatively rare to have a non-lawmaker push for legislation that eventually becomes law, it seems noteworthy to be mentioned in any discussion of such a law. I am asking that editors join in on the discussion about this so we can come to a consensus and insert the one sentence suggested above into the article. Thanks so much. 104.245.75.3 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• I have no expertise in this area and edited the article only once, in March 2018. If Gerber did have a significant and notable role which is confirmed by independent reliable sources, it should be mentioned. – Athaenara ✉ 09:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Sources say all he did was put together the data on the payments to terrorists and publicized it that led to the law he didn't write any part of the law or lobby for it before it was introduced in congress unlike Browder who publicized the case and lobbied for sanctioning russia and flatow it only mentions him to say why it is named so and the haaretz calling him that without any context means nothing עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I am in favor of mentioning the contributions of anyone relevant to the article, so long as those contributions are properly cited. According to AmYisroelChai (immediately above),the sources say that Gerber gathered the data together but did not write or lobby for the law. I have not reviewed the sources so I cannot verify. Whatever is relevant and is documented by reliable sources should be included. American In Brazil (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @American In Brazil: AmYisroelChai said that "all he did was put together the data... and publicized it" and that he didn't lobby for the bill before it was introduced in Congress. But the sources very clearly say otherwise: Gerber went to Washington in 2016 together with the Force family "to start lobbying on the issue. Not only was Gerber the most prominent early lobbyist for legislation on this issue, but there is a whole article on how Gerber was "behind the Taylor Force Act." He was the one who introduced the issue to Sen. Graham in the first place (Graham is quoted as saying: "Sander Gerber brought me this issue, explaining to me the Palestinian law is so corrupt"). And according to a quoted Washington insider, "Without Sander Gerber, this wouldn't have happened." I don't understand how it can be claimed that Gerber's role in the Taylor Force Act was anything other than integral. If I were able to edit the page, I would add: "Sander Gerber, a New York hedge fund executive, has been called the architect of the bill, as he conducted research on the Martyrs Fund and introduced the issue to Graham and other American lawmakers in early 2017." But feel free to use your own language. 104.245.74.123 (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

lobbing for a law after it is introduced in congress means nothing as lots of people lobby for laws once they are introduced in congress, if he had lobbied to introduce such a law in congress like browder did with the magnitsky act, that would be correct to mention him, the fact that he brought the issue to the attention of a senator doesn't make him an architect of the law, and the fact that haaretz called him the architect without any reason means nothing, so unless you can find an RS that says he wrote the law or lobbied for such a law to be introduced in congress no mention is warranted. עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not opposed to adding the sentence (or something like it) proposed by 104.245.74.123, so long as it can be documented by reliable sources, as AmYisroelChai reminds us WP:RS. I will research the sources and see what I can find. By the way 104.245.74.123, your comments are very thoughtful and you are just the kind of editor WP needs (you too, AmYisroeChai). Why not sign up for a user name. It takes less than a minute. Mine describes who I am and where I live but just about anything you like will do. American In Brazil (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The Jewish Week article^[1] linked by 104.245.75.3 / 104.245.74.123 above discusses Gerber's findings as published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. It provides considerable detail, and can be cited to support a clear description of his role in this.

The Haaretz page^[2] linked above by 104.245.75.3 merely identifies him as "Sander Gerber, architect of the Taylor Force Act" in a single paragraph quoting an email message he sent. That's not a substantial source alone for calling him that.

– Athaenara ✉ 11:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)