Talk:Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America/Archive 1

Untitled

The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter. Due to this, Gni was restricted from editing the article but may still post freely on the talk page. --68.253.50.109 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

• When was it founded and by whom?
• Does it mention specifically that it tends to only criticize bias (or percieved bias) against Israel?
• Where does its funding originate?

HHT. --Ben Houston 17:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: the second point, assuming "it" means the organization themselves: no, they don't say this themselves, but it is abundantly clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We now have when and by whom founded. The article seems to cover CAMERA's positions adequately. It's not clear where the funding comes from. --John Nagle 19:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The refusal of Charles Jacobs to disclose in an interview the sources of funding of and financial contributors to organizations that he founded and co-founded is mentioned in an article about the controversy at Columbia University listed in the David Project. --NYScholar 03:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Charles Jacobs did not found CAMERA. He served as its deputy director for its Boston Chapter, but he was not involved in its founding. Nehemiah123 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What conflict?

Why the change from "Arab-Israel conflict" to "Palestinian-Israeli conflict"? CAMERA also addresses Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, etc... I've changed it back to the former. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gni (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006.

NPOV

[pertains to the cleanup tag.] This article needs development of additional citations and examples to promote more NPOV. I made some additions today toward that end, but more are needed. NYScholar 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Further updated with NPOV in mind. NYScholar 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability?

[pertains to the cleanup tag] [Moved from body of article here; needs actual citation that can be verified:] Unable to verify the following:

• Alan Dershowitz

"As a life-long civil libertarian, I am committed to the proposition that the answer to bad speech is not censorship, but more good speech. The answer to false speech is not censorship but more true speech. The answer to half-truth is full truth. The only people who should and do fear CAMERA are those who should and do fear the truth."

Note that the dates given in previous versions of this passage are inconsistent. The text described it as a speech given in 1998, but the citation says that the conference occurred in October 1989 (perhaps a typographical error originally?). Where is a verifiable text of the speech published (either in print and/or on line)? See W:Verifiability. Except for previous Wikipedia articles on this subject (CAMERA), I cannot find a verifiable source for this exact quotation, so I have relocated it to this talk page (at least for the time being). Perhaps someone can give a source that enables people to verify the accuracy of the quotation.

I do find an allusion to Dershowitz's supporting CAMERA in a speech on the media representation of Israel at an October 1989 Boston conference launching the organization in another source cited in the same section, but not giving the exact quotation.

The Boston organization's coming-out party occurred in October 1989, when about 1,000 people, paying $25 a head, turned up at a CAMERA conference in the Park Plaza Hotel to listen to speakers decry unfair treatment of Israel in the media. The headliners included Harvard law professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz.

And I did find an subscription-based archived "Letter" in Commentary (NY) magazine for October 1989 (issue 4) mentioning the conference and Dershowitz's having been a featured speaker at it. NYScholar 10:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, thus far, the only references to the exact quotation that I have found is this article in Wikipedia or other articles or comments quoting it. (It seems to fall into the category of "no original research until a verifiable source can be cited.") Updated NYScholar 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added an alternative reference to Dershowitz that is verifiable.--NYScholar 07:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The original Dershowitz quote that was removed was recorded and published by CAMERA, and sent out in a mass mailing to its members along with other testimonials. Is that enough verification? If so, the original quote, which is about CAMERA in general, should go back up instead of the new quote, which is about a more narrow aspect of the organization's work. I will check back for comments. If there are none, I'll put the original quote back up. Gni 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Gni: You put it back before I saw your comment asking for discussion first. There are problems with doing so given your lack of a "reliable" published source that is verifiable. If, as you say, the "quote" (or the speech it comes from--which?) "was recorded and published by CAMERA," where is it published that other Wikipedia readers can actually access? A "flyer" or a "mass mailing" that was distributed only to the organization's own members is not a publication that is verifiable and thus considered a "reliable source" by Wikipedia. (It is basically serving as an advertisement for the organization--see Wikipedia policy on "no ads" in articles.) There is no way for other Wikipedia readers to verify a "flyer" or a "mass mailing" that was sent to the organization's "members." It sounds a bit like a letter from the organization to its members: is there an online version of it? (Plus that kind of "mailing" introduces problems concerning lack of NPOV; see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The way you have used a flyer relates to "WP:NOR"; even if one went to the speech and recorded it and cited that recording, that is not a verifiable published source that other people can fact-check/verify. (Again, where is the transcript of the speech published?) The organization's own flyer is neither a "reliable source" because (1) it may contain errors that cannot be checked against a published source; (2)it is not a published transcript of the speech produced by a neutral news organization, or even a news article reporting objectively on the speech, which other people can read in a library or online. A "mass mailing" from an organization is not issued by a peer-reviewed source. That is an objection to the quotation that has been restored. It is not verifiable and has not been verified by anyone except the previous user. A link to the full text of the flyer or to a pdf file of it, or to a jpg scan of it could be presented in this discussion page as proof of the quotation in the flyer, but that still is not verifiable evidence that Dershowitz actually made the remarks in a speech (though he could have). Basically, the "mass mailing" sounds like an advertisement for the organization. (See Wikipedia policy on "no ads" in articles.) I've sought a reliable source and not found it. Therefore, I provided the other development, which can still be restored. That additional development, which was from a reliable and verifiable source, and it is important information too. I'll see if I can find it to post it here for further discussion. One could still add it back into the article's section where I placed it before. Please do not remove sourced and verified information (Wikipedia editing policy); and if in doubt, move it to talk where it can be discussed. Don't just delete it entirely. Re: what constitutes "reliable sources" see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and W:Citing sources--NYScholar 09:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"No ads" certainly does not mean that we cannot quote from the materials created by the organization that we are writing about. Yes, if the only source for the quotation is the group's own materials it should be clearly cited as such and you are right that a PDF would be very helpful for verification of that; copyright may prevent reproducing that PDF on line, but it can be made available to anyone who doubts it. I would think that CAMERA would be a reliable source on a quotation from Dershowitz: he's certainly a supporter of theirs, and I can't see what they'd stand to gain by misquoting him. - Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading the above: when it comes to the fact that someone said something, not only NPOV sources are citable. The issue here is the intellectual honesty of the source in the matter, not whether they have a point of view. Otherwise, we could never even cite the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which was often very opinionated. - Jmabel | Talk 04:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is Wikipedia:Verifiability: see the section heading. A source has to be verifiable by ALL Wikipedia readers, not just someone who belongs to an organization that has sent out flyers to its members. Read the Wikipedia policies relating to citations and verifiability. They are clearly stated. A "flyer" that other people cannot access is not a "published" source that is "verifiable." The premise that the "flyer" even exists is based on hearsay (of a Wikipedia editor), not a "verifiable" "published" "source." Wikipedia editors themselves are not "verifiable sources"; the WP is No Original Research. Using flyers that one W editor or some W editors have personally as if they were "evidence" is not presenting "verifiable research"; it is "original research." Using such (purported) sources (as opposed to verifiable sources) is counter to Wikipedia policy. Many talk pages re: many articles discuss this point. The fact is that none of us other than the person or persons (?) posting the purported quotation has access to a verifiable source proving that Dershowitz has said the "quotation"; one does not know for sure that it is a quotation or an accurate quotation; we (other editors and readers of W) thus cannot "verify" it because there is no text to check it against that everyone can read. One needs a published verifiable source that everyone can access. --NYScholar 19:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an internet summary. Here it may still be an issue, but generally it's enough if a source can be verified by a reasonable fraction of the editors (including only Ph.D., only people in a specific city, etc). CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I am much more interested in the general issue of what is citable than with this specific instance, I've continued this with a comment at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I heard about this from Jmabel's comment at WP:V, and I find that I agree that the direct quote is insufficiently sourced. At a minimum, the title, the date, and a few sentences of surrounding context from the "fund-raising flyer" need to be provided; this information is undoubtably available to anyone with access to the flyer, so requiring it is not an impossible burden. If two known (i.e. ~ 500 edits) Wikipedians confirmed that they had personally reviewed independant copies of the flyer, and the provided details were correct, I'd be delighted to include it myself. Without that, I'd be leary, but I wouldn't object if someone else wished to include it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What I removed is below:

In a speech presented to a conference on "The Media, the Message, and the Middle East," convened by CAMERA at the Park Plaza Hotel, in Boston, Massachusetts, on [[October 29]], [[1989]], Professor [[Alan M. Dershowitz]], of the [[Harvard Law School]], has purportedly been quoted as saying: "As a life-long civil libertarian, I am committed to the proposition that the answer to bad speech is not censorship, but more good speech. The answer to false speech is not censorship but more true speech. The answer to half-truth is full truth. The only people who should and do fear CAMERA are those who should and do fear the truth."<ref>Dershowitz as qtd. in a fund-raising flyer distributed to members by CAMERA [n.d.], [(date accessed?)] [still needs verifiable citation; such a flyer is not a verifiable publication]. For information about the conference, see Jurkowitz: <blockquote>The Boston organization's coming-out party occurred in October 1989, when about 1,000 people, paying $25 a head, turned up at a CAMERA conference in the Park Plaza Hotel to listen to speakers decry unfair treatment of Israel in the media. The headliners included Harvard law professor and attorney [[Alan Dershowitz]] and a former US representative to the United Nations named [[Alan Keyes]], who would later go on to fame as a talk-show host and fringe African-American Republican candidate for the presidency. Keyes wowed the Park Plaza crowd with his passionate defense of the Jewish state.</blockquote></ref>

Alan Dershowitz comments re: CAMERA

Here is the information that User Gni removed from the article, restored from History page:

<< Responding to CAMERA On Campus managing editor Deborah Passner's questions "about issues confronting college students and how they can better defend Israel," Dershowitz says:
"Free speech should become part of the ammunition of the pro-Israel student groups. . . . There have been many efforts to try to divest from Israel. One has to try to keep up with that and fight it at every turn. Students can fight it with facts. The anti-Israel side relies completely on ignorance. And, the answer to ignorance is truth. And that’s the key. Get the facts out." >>

That information might be useful for the article on the David Project since it is only indirectly relating to his views of CAMERA per se. If one understands that CAMERA claims to be posting "facts" and "truth" as opposed to bias and lies, then it is a statement in support of CAMERA's goals too. One might want to read the source cited for more information about the case in which Charles Jacobs, CAMERA, and the David Project have been involved. Again, it deals w/ a controversy discussed in more than one of the articles on organizations that Jacobs has founded. --NYScholar 09:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[Please leave the Notes section at the end of this talk page; and please place new sections above this area. Thanks. --NYScholar 09:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• More appropriate to just let the Notes section follow this immediately. Otherwise, the "+" tool won't work right. - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the Notes feature, since the Notes are cumulative throughout this talk page (I introduced them to begin with, and since notes also follow this section. --NYScholar 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Commentary/Critique

I've removed the FAIR critique to keep a balance of critiques vs. praise. The Wash. Report. quote is anti-CAMERA. The Dershowitz quote is pro-. The Boston Globe quote is somewhat neutral. The FAIR quote would tip the balance and gives the impression of "stacking the deck" with anti-CAMERA quotes. Gni 14:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Put FAIR comment back in. You can add another pro-CAMERA comment if you wish, but removing criticism is probably inappropriate. It's deceptive to claim that CAMERA is neutral; it's pro-Israel, and there's not really much argument about that. Even the Jewish World Review says it's pro-Israel. [1] --John Nagle 16:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The FAIR comment was put in after there already was a balance in in commentary/critique section. I'm taking it back out. Wikipedia should not be a contest to see who can add more skewing information faster than others have a chance to counter with balancing statements.

For the record, since you mention "deceptive"ness, I'll add that it's deceptive to refer to CAMERA as representing "the right-wing of the Israeli political spectrum," as FAIR asserts. CAMERA may be considered pro-Israel because it feels the media is biased against Israel, but it is apolitical. It does not advocate any particular political position within Israeli (or American) politics. Gni 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also restored the quotation of the comment by FAIR. (The link to FAIR makes clear that it is a "liberal" organization and thus may exaggerate in its description of CAMERA; but it is still a critical description that exemplifies what other organizations and observers say about it; there is no reason to suppress or to delete it; it is a fact that that is what FAIR says about CAMERA, and it is an example as stated; see WP:Verifiability; this is a verifiable viewpoint on CAMERA; it does not have to be "true" according to WP:Verifiability.

If you look at the "contents" of the article, there are now four subsections in each comment and criticism section; with the additional information of the sourced quotation from Dershowitz, there is more balance.

There is still the WP:Verifiability problem of the first quotation. I've provided more accurate presentation of the quotations using transitions. It is important for readers to know that Dershowitz's speech was presented at a CAMERA-sponsored event, a conference CAMERA organized; see earlier discussion of this conference with the quotation from the news article about it. The article needs to cite published sources, not flyers distributed to the organization's members as part of fund-raising. One needs to see the quotation in the context of the whole speech also. Right now, without a transcript of the speech, there is no context for the quotation. But, clearly, Dershowitz was speaking at an event sponsored by the organization that had invited him to speak, and that context suggests that his comments might be pro-CAMERA, because they were part of a conference held in a way as a celebration of CAMERA. Those are non-neutral contexts. It is not that the comments (if he made them--and that too is not verified or apparently verifiable) cannot be cited; but the fact that he actually said them needs a citation supplied, a published, verifiable, reliable source, not a biased flyer-advertisement that Wikipedia's readers cannot access at all (See earlier comments). --NYScholar 10:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with NYScholar's point above (in the "Alan Dershowitz" section) that the second Dershowitz quote "is only indirectly relating to his views of CAMERA per se," I've replaced that quote with another from Ed Koch. Gni 21:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Note well

What's "Note well"? Is this an Englishing of n.b. (nota bene)? I don't think it's Wikipedia style, in that we don't usually say "pay attention to this".

"N.B."=Nota bene (Note well); this is not "Englishing"; it is the translation into English of the common Latin words (Nota bene) signified by the abbreviation (N.B.); such common abbreviations are listed in a Wikipedia editing page; see WP:Cite or W:Citations and so on; I can't remember precisely where the abbreviations are given. "N.B." is an extremely common abbreviation in notes and texts; "Note well" is fine too; they are the same and mean precisely the same thing, and both appear frequently in research-related and other common writing. Please look it up before criticizing it as if it were strange or wrong; it is neither. I've already explained what "N.B." is on a talk page relating to Charles Jacobs (political activist), the founder of CAMERA (see cross-refs.). --NYScholar 06:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC) [Updated]--NYScholar 23:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously from the very comment you are replying to, I am familiar with "n.b." and knew what it stood for; I was just surprised to see it rendered in English. By the way, neither WP:Cite or W:Citations makes even the slightest reference to it. As far as I know, I've never had occasion to look at the Charles Jacobs (political activist). But a have looked at several thousand others, and it is my impression that this is not Wikipedia style. Please understand, that doesn't mean it's "wrong" in some objective sense, just not the style of the project we are working on. - Jmabel | Talk 02:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the List of classical abbreviations (not translated); sometimes, when I am not sure that most readers would recognize "N.B." (or "NB"), I translate it into English as "Note well"; these are synonyms. Wikipedia gives this abbreviation here and elsewhere. See the W article Nota Bene; cf. Nota bene [as redirected]), and in relation to WP:Cite and W:Citations. All these references suggest to me that it is permissible in Wikipedia; as the article says, "Note well" is common English usage. There is no single "Wikipedia style" (as Wikipedia's editing policies regarding citations in notes frequently point out). --NYScholar 08:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In any event, the statement that "CAMERA criticizes the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs for 'promot[ing] a virulently anti-Israel position'" is doubtless true, but needs citation even though it is inside a ref. Unfortunately, {{citequote}} won't nest inside a reference. - Jmabel | Talk 03:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That did not originate with me; look back at History; I've been trying to correct alterations in the citations that previous editors recently introduced; they screwed up the presentation of the citations, and it's taken over 2 hours to try to fix them. Please don't introduce so many changes that alter what were already accurate citations. The format was okay before, but if you're going to make changes from a list of items (paralleling the earlier section of bulleted list of items), then try to keep the references intact and don't chop up sentences with citation numbers unless they are completely unavoidable. Most professional editors know that notes are placed best at the end of sentences; the sentences are more readable that way. So please keep readers in mind when editing. (These changes are still pending.) Thanks. --NYScholar 06:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Did I say that it originated with you? But it does need a reference. (By the way, when I go through editing an article, I rarely look neatly through the history to see who wrote what, unless something strikes me as likely vandalism. My comments above were on the article, not on some particular contributor.)

As for the other matter, the way the article was before my edits, it was little more than a string of quotations. That is hardly "keeping readers in mind." Wikipedia emphatically does not have a style standard against footnotes within paragraphs: it is clear in our policies that it is far more important to make it clear what material comes from where. Sorry, I see your issue was about footnotes within sentences, not paragraphs. There was exactly one of those in my version, where a direct quote was not at the end of a sentence, and required a citation for the source of the quote.

I just looked (via the history) at the version as I left it. I checked half a dozen footnote links, more or less at random. All appeared correct. What exactly are you saying I broke? Clearly, I did not break the mechanism in general. - Jmabel | Talk 02:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Koch "support" was an out of context quote.

New York's former Mayor Koch was quoted as a supporter of CAMERA. The quote cited doesn't say that. What Koch actually wrote was "I read the New York City newspapers every day. It happens that when the apology appeared, I was having my annual medical tests and did not see it.When back in my office, I recalled the incident and looked for the news story, but could not locate it. There is, however, one source you can rely on when it comes to keeping track of news stories on the Middle East — CAMERA — Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. CAMERA did indeed have both of Ricks’ statements, which are enclosed."[2]. Koch is actually praising CAMERA's search engine, as is clear from the full quote. Even CAMERA's critics agree that CAMERA does an effective job of tracking and logging stories about Israel.

Previously, the Wikipedia article just quoted the sentence that reads "There is, however, one source you can rely on when it comes to keeping track of news stories on the Middle East — CAMERA — Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America." Taking that quote out of context distorted what had been said. So I added more of the quote to the article and made the context clear. --John Nagle 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So why don't we let the context speak for itself, rather than presume he was talking about their "search engine". I've taken out your prefacing remarks, but left in the extended Koch quote so that people can decide for themselves what Koch meant by "you can rely on" and "keeping track." --Gni 08:53, 22 August 2006

The context is clear enough if it is restated as I have just done in the current revision. Anyone who wants to read the whole context can read the full text of the letter for it. I've also revised the "supporters"/"detractors" headings to a more general, more neutral format. The editor who introduced the "supporters"/"detractors" format following the quotation from Jurkowitz adopted Jurkowitz's pov as the only way to regard the commentary/critique examples. That proved problematic. As another comment points out above, that opposition (support/oppose) does not work consistently with the examples subsequently added by a number of editors. --NYScholar 17:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative comments removed by previous editor(s)

Someone removed the following, which is another example agreeing with previously-quoted negative comments on CAMERA: << Nuclear Spin presents CAMERA as "a Boston based powerful ultra-right pro-Israel lobby group that tries to suppress criticism of Israel on US media. It uses its financial and political clout to force media elements to tow Israel's party line.">> There seems to be a tendency among editors of this article to remove comments and critique when they don't want to see them in the article. That is not consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There is no policy that states that if, say, 2 negative comments are presented as examples, then they must be balanced by the same number (2) of positive comments (or vice versa). Apparently, people are having difficulty finding positive comments about CAMERA that are not being generated by CAMERA itself (those working for it). Its "supporters" (like Professor Dershowitz, e.g., apparently) tend to have its "bias," so that finding non-biased, actually "neutral" perspectives on CAMERA (both pro--positive--or con--negative) becomes especially difficult. Editors of articles on subjects like this one need to be especially cautious so as not to interject their own personal biases into the article. --NYScholar 17:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Other relevant material removed from this article

[Wikipedia editing policy is not to remove information from articles. See the policy and help pages relating to editing.]

This is another relevant passage that someone removed:

Harvard University Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, who "frequently lectures at colleges to make the case for Israel," addressed "allegations of intimidation and bias" at Columbia University in his appearance there, in March 2005, when he was interviewed exclusively by CAMERA On Campus managing editor Deborah Passner. In their interview Professor Dershowitz "examines the Columbia University case," specifically "issues confronting college students and how they can better defend Israel," telling Passner: "Free speech should become part of the ammunition of the pro-Israel student groups. . . . There have been many efforts to try to divest from Israel. One has to try to keep up with that and fight it at every turn. Students can fight it with facts. The anti-Israel side relies completely on ignorance. And, the answer to ignorance is truth. And that’s the key. Get the facts out."

There should be some way to re-incorporate some or all of the above information in this article's section(s) relating to CAMERA's involvement in the controversy relating to Columbia Unbecoming and Columbia University. --NYScholar 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See Charles Jacobs Discussion page

I just added an explanation there of material that I added to note 12 in this article. See discussion section on "Jacobs and Orientalism (book)." --NYScholar 18:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Founder issue

An anon, 64.115.149.138 (talk · contribs), recently changed the name of the founder of CAMERA from Charles Jacobs to "Winifred Meiselman", without providing a cite.

This may not be vandalism. In the 1999 corporate filing for CAMERA [3], Winifred Meiselman is shown as a director. (He's not listed in the latest filing.) So that name didn't come out of nowhere; she does have a documented association with CAMERA.

Winifred Meiselman is barely mentioned in Google; she's only in one blog, and not as the founder of CAMERA.

Multiple sources indicate that Charles Jacobs was at least a co-founder of CAMERA:

• This David Project press release says he did.

• This site [4] claims to quote the David Project site as saying he did. But the current David Project site no longer has bios of its people, just names and titles. (Archive.org is having server problems today, so checking old versions of the page isn't available right now.)

• This article [5] cites "The New York Times, August 2, 1988; also, The Boston Globe, March 29, 1989; interview with CAMERA president Andrea Levin, 12/6/99" as a source that he was. But I can't find those articles in the Boston Globe or NYT archives.

• A 2005 article in The Nation says he's the founder of CAMERA [6].

• So does Sourcewatch.[7] But the text in the Nation article is essentially the same as the text in Sourcewatch, so those aren't two sources.

• "Forming the nation’s foremost pro-Israel media-watchdog group would be enough of an accomplishment for most people to hang their hat on. As a co-founder of CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting In America, (camera.org), Charles Jacobs has the gratitude of thousands of lovers of Zion." Kansas City Jewish Chronicle - April 16, 2004. That's from the intro to an article about a talk Jacobs gave in person, so it's probably valid.

Note that this says "co-founded", so there are probably multiple founders. Anyone have any solid info here?

CAMERA itself doesn't say on their website. --John Nagle 05:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, got it. David Project "about us" page from 2004-02-05. "The President of the David Project is Dr. Charles Jacobs, founder of the American Anti-Slavery Group and co-founder of CAMERA." So I changed the CAMERA article to "founded by Charles Jacobs and Winifred Meiselman", and left the {{fact}} tag in place, because we need a cite for Meiselman. --John Nagle 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The multiple sources are wrong. Charles Jacobs did not co-found CAMERA. And yes indeed, Winifred Mieselmen did. Nehemiah123 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a cite. We have to go with published sources; an unsubstantiated claim is not enough. See WP:V. --John Nagle 05:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Another "vote" for Mieselman and a Wiki question: So what does one do when certain published sources are wrong? Jacobs did not co-found CAMERA, although he was involved early in the game. As noted above, it was founded by Mieselman. I would suggest tracking down the incorporation documents (or whatever they may be called--the official papers filled out when CAMERA formally came into existence. I will also try to garner a copy, which I have reason to believe will have Mieselman's and not Jacobs' name. But once/if I find these documents, how is one able to use them as proof. Is it necessary to post it online to convince the wiki community that it is a "published source"? (see dershowitz argument above) Gni 20:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can get the early years of CAMERA's corporate filings with the state of Massachusetts, scan them in, and put them on a web page somewhere, that would be good. The online records only go back five years, so we can't see 1982. The incorporation papers themselves aren't necessarily that significant; sometimes, a corporation is formed with some dummy directors (typically the lawyers involved) before the people who really run it come on board. (In Nevada, there's a mini-industry doing that. Finding out who's behind a Nevada corporation is tough. But CAMERA is incorporated in Massachusetts, which requires good corporate filings.) So we should see who the directors were for the first few years after 1982.

The most solid sources we have are directly traceable to Jacobs himself. One is from the David Project, which he runs, and one is from the intro to a talk where he was speaking in person. So at least he used to say that he founded the thing. He doesn't seem to say that any more; in recent quotes, he never mentions CAMERA. One wonders why. --John Nagle 17:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles Jacobs did not found CAMERA, but he did work as the Deputy Director of its Boston chapter in the late 1980s. I contacted CAMERA and suspect there will a detailed history of its founding online eventually. Will such a history be sufficient proof of foundership? Nehemiah123 23:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've found some info on Winifred Mieselman. There's a reference in "(L. Farnum Johnson, Jr. & Jeffrey J. Fairfield, Managing Co-Trustees of the Ruth C. Launders Marital Trust, David I. Meiselman and Winifred C. Meiselman, Trustees, and Meiselman Family LLC)" in a Fairfax County, VA public meeting agenda.[8]. So Winifred Meiselman may be the wife of David I. Meiselman, a moderately well-known free market economist. David I. Meiselman has a mention in the Milton Friedman article and is involved with the Cato Institute[9], as well as the The Israel Center for Social & Economic Progress[10]. But we can't yet be sure this is the right Winifred Meiselman. --John Nagle 20:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Nehemiah: I don't know about "sufficient proof", but certainly a citable source. Usually, if we have contradictory information in sources that would normally be considered reliable, we mention the contradiction; if there is consensus on what is most likely, that goes in the body of the article and the rest goes in a footnote. If CAMERA themselves say something about their own founding, I'd expect to put that in the main line of the article, but I'd still expect to mention in a footnote, with the citations that we have, Jacobs' claim to be a founder. If CAMERA specifically says he was not, then we'd have to work out exactly how to handle that. - Jmabel | Talk 20:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

CAMERA has added a history page to its Web site. This page clarifies the roles played by the various officials--Mieselman, Levin and Jacobs. I assume this settles the issue, so I've updated the article appropriately. Follow the citation link, or see http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=48 Gni 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's helpful, since it has actual images of old documents from CAMERA starting from 1988. Nothing back to 1982, though. It would be nice to see some documents from the founding years. Incidentally, this new page on the CAMERA site needs a little work; it was copied from page 44 on the CAMERA site ("Conference Signup Form") and still has the old title, description, and keywords, plus some form validation Javascript that's not used. Also, it needs to be linked from somewhere on the site and the site indexer run, so it will get indexed by CAMERA's internal search engine, which currently reports a no find for "Meiselman". Google hasn't yet indexed the page yet. How did you find it? --John Nagle 05:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The CAMERA site has now been fixed; the page title is now correct and the index (which is just Google site search) has now updated. Date of the new page is Oct 19, 2006. Thanks. --John Nagle 05:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see updated clarifications added to the talk page for Charles Jacobs (political activist) in the section added by JN on "reconciling pages": Charles Jacobs Talk. Thanks. --NYScholar 02:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm repeating the material that I added there below: The current version of this article now cites A Brief History of CAMERA", which makes clear that Charles Jacobs neither founded nor co-founded CAMERA. CAMERA has a single founder, Winifred Meiselman, identified as such in its account of its own history. Apparently, Jacobs' involvement with CAMERA began after the founding of the Boston chapter in 1988 by Andrea Levin, its executive director (head); he became the "deputy director" of the Boston chapter, which, after the retirement of "Win" Meiselman, the founder of CAMERA, became the national headquarters, etc.; Levin (not Jacobs) succeeded Meiselman. See W's article on CAMERA for more information as well. --NYScholar 02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are the relevant passages quoted from that "Brief History of CAMERA" just linked above and in the notes to the article:

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, or CAMERA, was founded in Washington, DC in 1982 by Winifred Meiselman, a teacher and social worker. Mrs. Meiselman formed CAMERA to respond to the Washington Post’s coverage of Israel’s Lebanon incursion, and to the paper’s general anti-Israel bias. Joining CAMERA’s Executive Board in the early days were such prominent Washington-area residents as Saul Stern and Bernard White. Win also recruited an Advisory Board which included Senators Rudy Boschwitz and Charles Grassley, Congressman Tom Lantos, journalist M. Stanton Evans, Ambassador Charles Lichenstein, Pastor Roy Stewart, and Rabbi David Yellin.

Under Win’s leadership CAMERA created chapters in major cities, including New York, Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and in 1988 a Boston chapter and office, founded and led by Andrea Levin. Ms. Levin had taught English in inner city Philadelphia, and later served as associate editor of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

CAMERA opens Boston chapter (click for full size). [photo on site]

In 1989, CAMERA took a large step forward with a highly successful conference organized by the Boston chapter: “The Media, The Message and The Middle East.” The event galvanized public interest concerning the media’s power to sway public opinion on Middle East policy – and the potential harm of distorted coverage. Held at Boston’s Park Plaza Hotel, the conference drew an overflow crowd of more than 1000 attendees, and featured such well-known speakers as Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary Magazine, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Professors Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University, Ruth Wisse of McGill University, Jerrold Auerbach of Wellesley, and David Wyman of UMass Amherst. Joining these speakers were Ms. Levin, who documented the Boston Globe’s bias against Israel, and the Boston chapter’s Deputy Director, Charles Jacobs, who critiqued a biased teacher’s guide which accompanied a PBS documentary.

. . . . In 1991 Ms. Meiselman retired due to health problems, and leadership of the organization passed to Ms. Levin. The Boston chapter became the national – and eventually the only – office of CAMERA, as the local chapters were allowed to reincorporate separately or to close. (Notably, the San Francisco chapter, headed by entrepreneur Gerardo Joffe, became FLAME, Facts and Logic about the Middle East, and exists to this day.)

A 1991 letter to CAMERA members signed by Ms. Levin and by Win Meiselman, CAMERA's Founder (click for full size).[Photo on site]

Under Ms. Levin’s leadership CAMERA’s membership grew within a few years from 1000 to over 20,000, and now numbers over 55,000, and besides the Boston headquarters the organization also has offices in Washington, DC, New York, Chicago, and Israel. . . . (bold print added)

--NYScholar 02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[Please add new discussion sections above the section for "Notes." Thanks. --NYScholar 02:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)]

Cleanup

The parenthetical reference -- (See Some examples of commentary and critique relating to CAMERA) -- unnecessarily clutters the page. The section being linked to is found immediately below the link! It is in effect a hyperlink to the next sentence. I've removed the sentence. Gni 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear spin verifiability

The entry states:

Similarly, in August 2006, Nuclear Spin presented CAMERA as "a Boston based powerful ultra-right pro-Israel lobby group that tries to suppress criticism of Israel on US media. It uses its financial and political clout to force media elements to tow Israel's party line." (That text was deleted from its database in September 2006.)[17]

Two questions: 1) Is it appropriate to point to a statement that has been withdrawn for reasons unknown? and 2) Does the statement meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirement since the assertion is not published? Gni 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Addressing only the latter, presuming that it was published, even if it was later removed from the site, I imagine that it can be verified through the Internet Archive (have you tried?). - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried www.nuclearspin.org on the "wayback machine," to no avail. I plan to remove the seeminglyh unverifiable reference to this particular critique unless someone can verify it. I'll wait a few days to give an opportunity to verify/respond. Gni 20:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Somewhere along the way, the lead sentence must have, maybe not, been moved down in the article. The first sentence should summarize the article. As it stood, the lead sentence said they are in Boston? If folks want to tweek the lead sentence, fine, but lets give the reader a good summary in the first sentence. Thanks and Cheers.--Tom 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed material that was unsourced. It seems that we should keep the lead sentence(s) as simple and sourcable as possible. There is some debate on how to handle all these sites that have agendas to promote. The other site is If Americans Knew. Anyways --Tom 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

The recent set of edits have reverted to a version with broken mediawiki markup, and more importantly, that is full of unsourced anti-CAMERA critique. That you feel this entry is "biased for CAMERA" is a reason to see what other users think, and not to 'balance' it with your own complaints. Perhaps we can stop the revert-warring now? Tewfik^Talk 21:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So the fact that all criticism on this article is reduced to one piece by the Washington Post doesn't bother anyone. This is deleting valid criticism and attempting to biased the article in CAMERAS FAVOR. Why do organizations like this always get off so easy on wikipedia, but organizations like CAIR get accused of terrorism.annoynmous 22:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's easy enough to answer-- it is because CAIR is accused of terrorism. (by Steve Emerson et al)

Well, it bothers me if "all criticism is reduced to one piece". However, you can't cite dead links as evidence I'm afraid, because we only have your word for it that the link said what you claim it did. If you want to add more criticism, fine, but you will have to find active links or other refs that conform to WP:RS. Gatoclass 16:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It does seem that criticisms of CAMERA were removed under questionable circumstances. It's certainly not hard to find cites to FAIR's criticism of CAMERA. Here's one example: "Those Aren't Stones, They're Rocks: The pro-Israel critique of Mideast coverage (March/April 2001) By Seth Ackerman". I'll put that back in as soon as the article becomes unprotected. --John Nagle 06:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs some reference to questionable motives

This article is laughably missing any criticism. This is particularily odd when compared with organisations such as "If Americans Knew". IFK is functionally "patriotic", whereas CAMERA's motivations are questionable, apparently seeking to put the interests of Israel ahead of those of the US. How come the former is treated as if it's motives were questionable, whereas this organisation is not? PalestineRemembered 17:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a more neutral lead which discusses the way CAMERA is cited within the media. It may still make sense to make a represenative and attributed criticism section. --68.72.37.26 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be too much for the lead paragraph. Also, realize that this is a highly controversial article, and if you're going to edit it, it's best to register a Wikipedia account. --John Nagle 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I shortened the lead as you suggested. My username and password are buried somewhere and rather then retrieve them I usually just edit on the fly since the main point of an account is supposed to be greater anonymity. Since this is a highly controversial article, I'll try to keep your concern in mind and find my info for the future.. --68.72.37.26 17:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

what's wrong with wikipedia

Is this article very encyclopedic? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the bulk of the article is a list of quotes...and it's not like the quotes say anything new about CAMERA; the opening two lines pretty much cover it. It seems the article was written by someone who loves CAMERA, edited by someone who hates them, then back, etc. The result is sections names like 'Some examples of commentary and critique relating to CAMERA,' chances for people to put up their favorite or most hated aspects of the group while giving us no better understanding of them (Except that they hate all media except Fox News, apparently.).

In my opinion, it's articles like this that drag down Wikipedia's credibility (and there are a LOT of them). People put up very POV stuff on both sides then try to make it look NPOV. No hate to anyone who wrote this, really; maybe this would be better suited for Wikiquote. Not sure what other people think, maybe I'm completely off base, but I would delete everything after 'Structure and Staff.' Maybe write something like 'CAMERA has criticized, among other groups, NPR and Encarta for their coverage of Israel' and cram it in the history section...okay, I'm done.

--Marco Passarani (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Marco, I tend to agree with your sentiments and see it as something broader and approaching systematic bias. I appreciate your NPOV eye, and please keep your eyes open. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cameralogo.jpg

Image:Cameralogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

NPR/Dvorkin

Another mention from Jeffrey A. Dvorkin here. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Commentary and Critique Section -- deck should not be stacked

Is this a joke?? The deck should not be stacked for positive, or for negative comments about CAMERA.

It goes from this:

• Positive:

Professor Alan M. Dershowitz, of the Harvard University Law School, presented a speech praising the work of CAMERA to a conference on "The Media, the Message, and the Middle East," convened by CAMERA at the Park Plaza Hotel, in Boston, Massachusetts, on October 29, 1989.[14]

Nearly two decades later, after finding on CAMERA a "news story" that he had had initial difficulty "locat[ing]," former Mayor of New York City Ed Koch describes CAMERA as "one source you can rely on when it comes to keeping track of news stories on the Middle East. . . ."[15]

More recently, in his April 6, 2006 "Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt 'Working Paper," entitled "Debunking the Newest – and Oldest – Jewish Conspiracy," Dershowitz cites Alex Safian's "Study Decrying 'Israel Lobby' Marred by Numerous Errors" posted on CAMERA for support five times.

• Negative:

In the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs — an organization that CAMERA claims "promotes a virulently anti-Israel position"[16] — Mitchell Kaidy writes that "CAMERA depicts Middle East issues in black and white, with no gray areas of doubts or complexity. According to CAMERA, Muslims are the villains, because they are Muslim; they hate Jews because they are Jewish. Have historians therefore been consistently wrong in concluding that Islam, which honors many Hebrew prophets, has been more tolerant of Jews than Christians have been? CAMERA thinks so."[17]

To this:

• Positive:

Former Mayor of New York City Ed Koch described CAMERA as "one source you can rely on when it comes to keeping track of news stories on the Middle East. . . ."[19]

• Negative:

In the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Mitchell Kaidy writes that "CAMERA depicts Middle East issues in black and white, with no gray areas of doubts or complexity. According to CAMERA, Muslims are the villains, because they are Muslim; they hate Jews because they are Jewish. Have historians therefore been consistently wrong in concluding that Islam, which honors many Hebrew prophets, has been more tolerant of Jews than Christians have been? CAMERA thinks so."[20]

Mitchell Kaidy writes in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs — which CAMERA claims "promotes a virulently anti-Israel position" — that "national president" of CAMERA "[Andrea] Levin . . . indicts the National Geographic, Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East, Webster’s New World Encyclopedia and even the Encyclopædia Britannica for 'unabashed inventions', and 'mutilations of fact'. She offers no documentation or authority for these attacks. . . . Levin urges CAMERA supporters to 'make a point to visit bookstores . . . and to note the lineup of books and periodicals available on the Middle East.' If they find works by Noam Chomsky or Edward Said 'posing as Middle East experts,' they should 'talk to the manager.' . . . CAMERA promotes even more aggressive tactics against university libraries. The publication CAMERA on CAMPUS has advocated that students scour campus libraries for 'offensive' books, and pressure universities to remove them."[21]

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) — "the largest liberal media watchdog" according to Michael Scherer in the Columbia Journalism Review — describes CAMERA as "media criticism from the right-wing of the Israeli political spectrum."[22] Similarly, in August 2006, Nuclear Spin presented CAMERA as "a Boston based powerful ultra-right pro-Israel lobby group that tries to suppress criticism of Israel on US media. It uses its financial and political clout to force media elements to tow Israel's party line." (That text was deleted from its database in September 2006.)[23]

Writing about attempts by CAMERA to get a local Pasadena, California church to cancel an appearance by Palestinian activist Reverend Naim Ateek, Rob Eshman, Editor-in-Chief of The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, writes "I'm always leery when Jewish groups ride in from out of town to try to save us from the bad guys. We have plenty of sharp-eyed Jewish defense groups locally who can tussle on our behalf. It's just a bit condescending to think we rubes, out in America's second-largest Jewish city, don't know how and when to fight. Or whom."[24]

I will therefore put back in some of the positive comments which were removed, and remove some of the negative comments which were put in. If anyone has any other suggests, do feel free to offer them up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.135.162 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've removed the following passage from the intro section. Criticism belongs in the comments and critiques section. If people insist that the criticism should stay in the intro, it would seem only fair for that to be balanced by positive commentary in the intro.

News media cite CAMERA as an advocate of Israel and discuss the organization's mobilisation for the support of Israel in the form of full-page ads in newspapers , organizing demonstrations, and encouraging sponsor boycotts. Critics of CAMERA call its "non-partisan" claims into question and define its alleged biases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.135.162 (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to make substantial POV-related changes to a controversial article, please register for a Wikipedia account. Otherwise, this looks like a sockpuppet account. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Even the Koch quote is pushing it. The full quote is: "I read the New York City newspapers every day. It happens that when the apology appeared, I was having my annual medical tests and did not see it. When back in my office, I recalled the incident and looked for the news story, but could not locate it. There is, however, one source you can rely on when it comes to keeping track of news stories on the Middle East — CAMERA — Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. CAMERA did indeed have both of Ricks’ statements, which are enclosed." So Koch is praising CAMERA for its tracking and search capabilities (currently powered by Google), not for the accuracy of its statements. --John Nagle (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hail Google. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, your suggestion that Koch is praising CAMERA because it allows people to use google to search the CAMERA website doesn't really make that much sense. Nobody is saying that he specifically cited "the accuracy of its statements. Or, for that matter, the web design, the clever titles, or anything other specific. The article is relaying, verbatum, what is clearly praise by Koch. Gni (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There are continuous edits to this section that seem intent on shortening the praise portion as much as possible while lengthening the criticism section. I've removed the supposed nuclear spin comments for that reason, and also because they aren't verifiable. Here's the removed txt:

In August 2006, Nuclear Spin presented CAMERA as "a Boston based powerful ultra-right pro-Israel lobby group that tries to suppress criticism of Israel on US media. It uses its financial and political clout to force media elements to tow Israel's party line." (That text was deleted from its database in September 2006.) Gni (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly "praise" from the NYTimes (and the quote is doctored)

I'm sorry but how exactly is the following "praise?"

The New York Times has characterized CAMERA as "temperate" and as a "muscular pro-Zionist media monitor."

first of all, the Times never calls CAMERA "temperate", it discusses in the next sentence "Less temperate groups on each side..." so please let's not doctor quotes to give a false importance to a source; secondly, the Times is referring to how groups discuss the Times, which hardly characterizes the Times as offering some NPOV praise (but you'd never know from the Wikipedia version) and finally, how on Earth is "the muscular pro-Zionist media monitor" a term of praise." Would "the muscular pro-terrorist media monitor" be a term of praise, or "the muscular pro-eggplant media monitor." Please, anon, don't revert back in without addressing this. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dershowitz praise

I tagged this recently as needing a source. If anyone can provide one, please do; I'll wait a few days and lacking a WP:RS, I'll remove the entry. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion of this subject above Gni (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I looked. Do you have a WP:RS for Dershowitz praising this group? Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There's now a link. Gni (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA website testimonials. Pretty weak sources. Boodlesthecat (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It seems to be a perfectly legit source. Gni (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak if these claims have received no coverage other than on CAMERA's website. And one can assume Dershowitz was paid to appear, yes? Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "one doesn't assume" on wikipedia Gni (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.135.162 (talk)

Of course not. But a word of "praise" that received no WP:RS coverage, and is quoted only on the praised organization's website is pretty weak as a source. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything in the Wikipedia guidelines that would even come close to disqualifying this source. Gni (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say disqualified, I said "weak." WP:RS says

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

In WP:V, we have

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

WP:V says that

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Note the bolded areas (emphasis added). Hence, weak. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but it seems that the above prohibitions don't apply to CAMERA. CAMERA isn't a "questionable source" since it certainly isn't "widely acknowledged as extremist"; and it is "reliable," and has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

And it seems clear that the site doesn't fall under the category of "self-published." In WP:V, section 2.3 Self-published sources (online and paper) makes clear that this term is used to describe a situation where just "Anyone ... create[s] a website or pay[s] to have a book published" -- personal websites, blogs, etc.

So, not being self published or questionable, the bulleted list above doesn't apply to CAMERA.

Finally, it's worth noting that if one were to hypothetically count the CAMERA site as weak source, then the entire article would be quite week. Every heading in this article relies on information found on the CAMERA Web site. History, Activities, etc... Gni (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You are reading selectively, even though I bolded the relevant bits--WP:RS says to rely on "reliable, third-party published sources," of which the CAMERA website is not one.

And I also bolded the relevant point in the bulleted list, which you missed--self-serving--which is what promotional material on a website--especially material, like those quotes, that haven't been published anywhere else--is. But I agree with you--without the CAMERA website as a source, the article would be practically non-existent--which is exactly what makes this article weak. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

An organization should not be cited to provide praise about itself (it doesn't make the praise look very reliable or notable anyways). I think it would be easier to replace the quote with a praise of CAMERA found somewhere else.. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm reading this very carefully. I'll repeat what I said above: The bulleted list, and thus the bullet point with "self-serving," refers specifically to "Material from self-published and questionable sources." Since CAMERA does not fall under this category, then the list is irrelevant to the topic at hand. And yes, WP:RS does say sources should be "reliable." It does not, however, say sources must be on the same side of issues as Boodlesthecat, and thus deemed reliable by him. Gni (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, please read carefully--I bolded to make it easier. Questionable sources include those that are are promotional in nature. CAMERA's website falls smack dab into that category. Boodlesthecat (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"is pro-Israel" vs. "cited as pro-Israel"

Dear Boodles, Anon at 68 aka 69, and Casual Observer 48.

Fourth request. Please respond to the points I made 9 March and 20 March. It is not dialogue if we do not engage one another’s arguments. You have for the most part ignored my comments. When you did reply, your remarks were not responsive, using strawman and ad hominem arguments. My responses to your specific comments are inserted below them.Jamesegarner (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, perhaps we should discuss this here before further revisions to the first sentence. (i.e., I'll leave your undo alone so as to avoid a revert war until, hopefully, we can get this sorted out.)

It seems clear that the latter option in the above headline is more accurate, and more NPOV than the former. Yes, we now have to citations of journalists labeling CAMERA pro-Israel. We surely can find more. But what this means is that "News media cite CAMERA as an advocate of Israel," as the second sentence rightly asserts. It does not necessarily mean that they "are" pro-Israel. That said, it seems that the appropriate way to have the opening here is to remove the redundant "is pro-Israel" and leave the "cited as pro-Israel" portion of the opening, with whatever citations we need there. Gni (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post and the Jewish Journal (LA) say they're "pro-Israel". Those are reasonably reliable sources for whether an organization supports Israel. It's not as if only their opponents say they're pro-Israel. Here's another cite: "How You Can Help Israel", a list of pro-Israel organizations from the Orthodox Union. CAMERA is on the list. What more do you want? --John Nagle (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, c'mon, this is silly. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

None of this addresses my point above, but all of it wonderfully support the second paragraph's assertion that "News media cite CAMERA as an advocate of Israel," which actually is NPOV and should certainly satisfy you since it conveys the info you want out there. I find it extremely interesting, Nagle, that you weighed in on this exact same type of controversy apropos of If Americans knew by saying on their discussion page:

I've been busy the last few days, and took a look at this again. After a three day revert war over the lead paragraph, we're again back to where we started. Can we agree on "The site is generally critical of US policy with regards to Israel"? That's consistent with the cited reference, and not overly strong in any direction. --John Nagle 08:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it that you find this somewhat more nuanced, equivocal description appropriate for an organization that's virulently anti-Israel and blatently pro-Palestinian, while you at the same time insist on putting a black and white POV -- even if it's a pov that the Orthodox Union shares with you -- in the lede of this article? Let's be consistent. All that aside, it is redundant to twice convey this same concept in the first two paragraphs. I will change it back pending further discussion -- note that the "pro-Israel" comment in the lede was inserted by an anonymous user without any discussion. (Actually, looking again I notice it is doubly redundant. The initial paragraph also says that the organization was founded "to respond to perceived anti-Israel bias in The Washington Post." This, combined with the "news media cite" comment is more than enough to convey your point with NPOV statements.) Gni (talk), 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, changed to "generally pro-Israel" in the lede. Please don't remove citations. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nagle,

As its name shows (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), CAMERA’s explicit mission to be fair and impartial. Therefore, to label it pro-Israel or pro- anything is an accusation of hypocrisy, an accusation presented as an accepted fact. Such accusations belong under the criticisms section, not in the lead paragraph summarizing the story. This is a general rule followed throughout Wikipedia.

Take for example the opening paragraph (below) of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs article, the organization of Mitchell Kaidy, the major critic cited in the CAMERA article.

"The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs states that it does not take partisan domestic political positions, and that as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242´s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents. According to its web-site, the Washington Report 'supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination, and fair play.'"[1]

This paragraph basically repeats the organization’s explicit mission statement. To be consistent with the treatment of CAMERA, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs should be labeled “anti-Israel” in the opening paragraph. But to follow this practice throughout would cause Wikipedia to collapse.

Every organization that deals with political topics is accused of bias. And these accusations should be aired, but under the criticisms section. But we’re not going to open the article on the New York Times or CNN with accusations of bias by conservatives. There is a time and place for everything. The opening paragraph is not the place.Jamesegarner (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting first edit by a new user. Welcome to Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Casualobserver'48 seems intent on a revert war. Here's what I removed, per the discussion above: pro-Israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gni (talk • contribs)

Gni (talk · contribs) has again removed solid citations from news sources. The only support for that position has been from single-purpose account Jamesegarner (talk · contribs). I'm looking for better cites and have ordered some books. More later. --John Nagle (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it rather odd that Casualobserver'48 reverts Nagle's change, and yet Nagle condemns me. Wen I amended Casualobserver'48's change -- which he justified with the not very helpful "It is pro-Israel, period, if any adjectives are included 'generally' is not the on" --I pasted those citations above for the convenience of anyone wants to put them where they belong -- in a "how CAMERA is viewed section," and/or after the sentence: "News media cite CAMERA as an advocate of Israel." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gni (talk • contribs) 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The organization's director has discussed why she thinks the group's pro-Israeli media watching induces better adherence to ethical journalism and strengthens American democracy. The organization was founded to respond to anti-Israel bias. The organization has a program called CAMERA Fellows that offers intensive training for students in effective pro-Israeli activism, and is also a member a of the Israel Campus Roundtable, a coalition of representatives from 13 organizations that collaborate to provide Jewish students in the New England Area with support for Israel programming on campus. The organization's rationale for its activities should not be censored from the reader. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

These changes are ridiculous. It is sloppy, redundant, and POV to argue 3 times in the first few sentences that CAMERA is pro-Israel. It's partisan, and it's bad writing. It is, to say the least, ironic that the first sentence of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs article, and of the If Americans Knew article, both relay neutral descriptions of those organizations, being that these article's have been heavily edited by people who are taking part in this revert war. (Nagle and CasualObserver'48) Indeed the WRMEA article gives it straight from WRMEA's own description of itself, and keeps comments about it's perceived tilt in a separate criticism section. How, then, can these editors argue against having the first sentence of this article relay CAMERA's own description of itself, immediately followed by two strong statements about how it is perceived and why it was formed? It's a double standard. It's hypocritical. Gni (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved with those editors, I would just point out that the pro-Israel citation you keep reverting out is a quote from the director of the organization. Apart from the director quote, it is also worth pointing out the organization's founding mission, its grassroots college activities, and a quote on its website which says it is working to stop "frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel and of events in the Middle East may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice" all support the statement.[11] None of this comes from outside parties. I'm not involved in the other articles, but I don't see why CAMERA would want to hide its purpose (the director makes the case about not hiding the organization's purpose in the citation you keep editing out).. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that in this instance you're making an attempt to discuss this here. The director's quote that you keep claiming supports the comment that CAMERA is pro-Israel, however, doesn't actually say that "CAMERA is pro-Israel" or anything along those lines. She is, however, making a general comment about pro-Israel media watching: "It is for this reason that I think pro-Israeli media watching has an importance beyond the cause of Israel. Efforts that induce better adherence to ethical journalism in one subject area are positive generally in helping to strengthen American democracy, especially, again, as there are no enforceable codes of professional conduct in the media." I'm still at a loss as to why you and the other editors insist on making this POV judgment rather than let readers draw their own conclusions based on the facts. Perhaps the organization or others feel that stopping "frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel" makes CAMERA "pro-accuracy," or "pro-democracy," or even pro-Palestinian because distorted coverage of Israel emboldens Palestinian radicalism which then discourages Israel. My point isn't whether CAMERA actually is pro-Palestinian. My point is that we can and should relay the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions.Gni (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote is being provided in a question which sets CAMERA apart from other organizations which do not stay in one general subject area. Apart from this, Levin also mentions in the same article the CAMERA fellows program which "offers intensive training for students in effective pro-Israeli activism"[12]. There are also the issues of its founding mission to respond to anti-Israel bias, and various quotes on its website such as one saying the group works to stop "frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel and of events in the Middle East [that] may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice".[13] There is no reason to censor the group's stated mission of pro-Israeli media monitoring to stop anti-Jewish prejudice/anti-Israel bias. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny. I thought that a "stated mission" would be the "mission" that is "stated" by the organization: "Founded in 1982, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is a media-monitoring, research and membership organization devoted to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East. CAMERA fosters rigorous reporting, while educating news consumers about Middle East issues and the role of the media. Because public opinion ultimately shapes public policy, distorted news coverage that misleads the public can be detrimental to sound policymaking. A non-partisan organization, CAMERA takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Nothing there about being pro-Israel. Gni (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The beginning of the article can provide more than the "stated mission" from one part of an organization's website; it can also establish the context of the organization and summarize the most important points of the article. In this case, the beginning of the article can document where the group is based and when it was founded, what the director of the organization has said about the group, how the organization is mentioned in reliable third party publications, programs the groups organizes, etc. A self "stated mission" may be included, but there are many more aspects to a group than what it thinks of itself..

Also, the material you keep reverting is not out of synch with the organization's view of itself. The group's website document its pro-Israel monitoring in the quotes given above, and the director of the organization has not only discussed the group's activities but also how they relate to the organization's self stated mission. Also, the organization was founded for this reason.

In summary, the beginning of the article should provide a broad overview of the organization (more than just a self-stated mission) and the organization and its director agree with the text that is being censored from the article (so there is no conflict with the self-stated mission).--68.23.8.245 (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the lead paragraphs to remove a negative POV toward CAMERA and to reflect a neutral point of view, as required by Wikipedia.

First, as I have already commented (9 March 2008), to label a media watch organization, whose explicit mission is to be fair and impartial, pro-Israel or pro- anything is an implicit accusation of hypocrisy. While such criticisms should be aired, they belong under criticisms, not in the lead. The “pro-Israel” phrase is currently used twice at the beginning of the article. Some comments have already flagged this inappropriate repetition. Therefore, I have removed the one use in this edit, the first instead of the second because it required the less revision. I will await engagement with the issues I’ve raised today and 9 March before moving the other “pro-Israel” to a more appropriate section.

This implicit accusation relies mainly on a single quotation from JCPA by CAMERA’s executive director (already cited in talk) that “pro-Israel” media watch spills over to improve the integrity of reporting in general. But it ignores the rest of the article, which is comprised of copiously documented examples of media bias that CAMERA has addressed. All of these examples, ie, the entire article, show nothing except CAMERA restoring balance in reporting. Any fair reading of the article would see that it makes that point. We do not have to judge the accuracy of CAMERA’s claims to demand consistency. Either the article is a credible source or it’s not. It is a value judgment to say that just one phrase, out of context, is accurate, but the rest of the article is not reliable. POV is also inserted by picking and choosing sources. CAMERA’s web page can be cited as credible in another context, but its own mission statement, which explicitly rules out pro- or con- positions, is ignored in this context.

Second, the lead is phrased in a way to imply that CAMERA might be misrepresenting itself as a media watch organization. Again, inconsistency, picking and choosing, is the key to this. While the lead declares without qualification that CAMERA is “pro-Israel” it then switches mode to say “it describes itself as a media monitoring…” Yet both assertions come from the same basic source, statements by CAMERA staff. Either both statements should be made without qualification or both should be qualified. The allegation that CAMERA misrepresents itself as a media watch group is further implied in the second paragraph stating that it “mobilizes support for Israel” with ads, demonstrations, etc., when these are obviously protests targeting unfair media coverage, not mobilizations of support for Israel. There is no evidence anywhere that CAMERA is anything other than a media watch organization. I have edited the second paragraph accordingly.

Third, while the CAMERA history comes right from its website, there is a curious change of wording. While the website refers to the Israeli “incursion” into Lebanon, the article substitutes the word “invasion.” The latter is loaded with POV, and I have replaced it with the former.Jamesegarner (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The beginning of the article can provide more than the "stated mission" from one part of an organization's website; it can also establish the context of the organization and summarize the most important points of the article. In this case, the beginning of the article can document where the group is based and when it was founded, what the director of the organization has said about the group, how the organization is mentioned in reliable third party publications, programs the groups organizes, etc.

It should be very clear to the reader up front that the organization is a pro-Israeli media monitor working against perceived anti-Israel bias because particular readers have been having trouble seeing this. The previously stated mission is documented by:

• the organization was founded for this purpose
• the director of the organization has explained how she believes the group's pro-Israeli activism helps journalism
• quotes on the the organization's website, such as the group is working to stop "frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel and of events in the Middle East [that] may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice"
• the organization is a member of the Israel Campus Roundtable and The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
• the organization provides campus activities to teach Israeli activism
• numerous outside sources support the organization (as well as the director's) view of itself

There is no reason to censor the group's view of itself, and the organization's view of itself (as well as the view prevalent in numerous reliable source) should be given up front to the reader so that they can be informed and make their own decision about the work of the group.--68.253.57.106 (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To address the three points above that you requested I look at below,

• 1)I don't see any inconsistency. I have further pointed out the context of the quote below. Finally, there are multiple reliable sources to support the statement now.
• 2)As stated, I don't see any inconsistency.
• 3)This doesn't appear to be in the article anymore anyways.

--69.210.15.59 (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Boodles & Anon. at 68,

We are obligated by Wikipedia procedure to engage in dialogue and work toward a consensus. If we ignore one another’s points, we have mutual monologue, not dialogue, and we have not met our responsibilities. Therefore, I’m asking you to respond to the points I made 9 March and 20 March.

Between the 2 of you, especially Boodles, without seeking consensus or even giving a specific reason on the discussion page, there are over 2 dozen edits on this article in the past 2 days. We should seek consensus before making our changes. WeJamesegarner (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)now have to do this after the fact. Please provide the reason for each change you made so that the rest of us can comment.

Boodles,

When you reverted my deletion of the redundant “pro-Israel” in the lead sentence, you made no entry in discussion. You did link to a CAMERA press release saying that an event was “pro-America and pro-Israel.” As I discussed above, picking and choosing from a quotation the part you like inserts POV. Either your source is credible, or it is not. At the very least, you should have said that CAMERA is “pro-America and pro-Israel,” and in that order.

Further, you simply ignored comments from other editors opposing using the phrase twice in the opening. While I believe the statement is inappropriate in the lead, my edit left it in there once.

As for your most recent comments, accusations of McCarthyism are out of place. So is the innuendo that CAMERA is somehow implicated in the death of Rachel Corrie. Let us stay focused on the article.

Your most recent proof that CAMERA is pro-Israel is not responsive to my remarks. Whether CAMERA is impartial or biased (ie. pro-Israel) is not something we editors are going to decide. At best, we can present the opposing sides of the argument.

Anon. at 68,

Your response to my 20 March comments repeat what you said 13 March. So I don’t see how you were responsive to my comments. I have numbered your comments below with my reply to each of them.

1. The beginning of the article can provide more than the "stated mission" from one part of an organization's website; it can also establish the context of the organization and summarize the most important points of the article. In this case, the beginning of the article can document where the group is based and when it was founded, what the director of the organization has said about the group, how the organization is mentioned in reliable third party publications, programs the groups organizes, etc. It should be very clear to the reader up front that the organization is a pro-Israeli media monitor working against perceived anti-Israel bias because particular readers have been having trouble seeing this. The previously stated mission is documented by:

Reply: This misrepresents my comments You refute a point I didn’t make. I never said that the lead is limited to the organizations own mission statement. Rather, I said that it is the implicit, if not explicit Wikiepdia policy that an article about a politically sensitive organization should not open with an accusation of hypocrisy and bias by its opponents. I cited the Wikipedia article on the used Washington Report on Middle East Affairs to demonstate this Wikipedia practice and demonstrate the disparate treatment CAMERA received. One would not open the article on the NY Times or CNN by saying they promote liberal opinion. Though the charge has been made, and believed by most conservatives, one would not open the article on the non-partisan League of Women Voters by calling it an advocacy group for liberal causes. POV claims should be aired, and replied to, but under a criticisms section, not in the lead. Otherwise, articles would deteriorate into a political donnybrook of charge and counter-charge, and Wikipedia would collapse. The present article is becoming an object lesson in how this can happen.

There are many articles on Wikipedia which include multiple reliable sources in the lead, but every article is individual so I don't believe citing them is the best approach for this article. I'm curious which specific sources you have a problem with. --69.210.15.59 (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with specific sources is not an issue I raised. I still await a response to the issues I did raise, not issues that I didn’t raise.Jamesegarner (talk)Jamesegarner (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

2. the organization was founded for this purpose

Reply: This begs the question. CAMERA says it‘s an impartial media watch organization, and denies being pro-Israel or pro-anyone. This is a controversy, tied to the much larger controversy about the Mideast. Whether CAMERA shows bias in favor of Israel, or exposes bias, is part of the much larger controversy of which side is telling the truth in the middle east. We’re not going to resolve that question in this article, or present it as a conclusion in the lead paragraph.

The group's website says it was founded in 1982 to respond to bias in the Washington Post and the article cites this. I'm not sure why this is controversial. --69.210.15.59 (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not claim that the quotation was controversial.Jamesegarner (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

3. the director of the organization has explained how she believes the group's pro-Israeli activism helps journalism

Reply: You have misquoted the article. Levin said “pro-Israel media watch.” Your change is important, because it goes to the question of whether CAMERA is a media watch organization. Whether Levin did not specifically it was her group’s media watch that improved journalism. You added that. This was pointed out to you once before, and you did not respond to it. You also disregarded my comment above that this quote is out of context. The thrust of the entire article is that CAMERA performs objective media watch. You insert POV when you affirm a small part of your source and then discredit the rest of it.

The heading and text appearing before the quote in the article, which I encourage you to read, show that Levin is comparing the group to other groups with similar purposes.--69.210.15.59 (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

4. quotes on the the organization's website, such as the group is working to stop "frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel and of events in the Middle East [that] may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice"

Reply: This plain meaning of this quote shows that CAMERA is a media watch organization, not a pro-Israel organization. I believe this quotation is in the article. Let the quotation speak for itself. Drawing controversial inferences from it inserts POV.

The quote speaks fine to me in the article as it is.--69.210.15.59 (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

5. the organization is a member of the Israel Campus Roundtable and The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations

Reply: This demonstrates nothing except guilt by association.

I don't know what you think CAMERA would be 'guilty' of, but the point of this is to show the reader that the group looks at things from an Israeli perspective. --69.210.15.59 (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely you know that this whole discussion is the opening paragraphs should imply that CAMERA is guilty of a pro-Israel bias or is impartial and objective as it claims to be. Clearly, by pairing CAMERA with groups that lobby for Israel, i.e. the Jewish lobby as it’s called by its detractors, your purpose is to show that CAMERA is pro-Israel rather than objective media watch group. Casual Observer 48 was quite forthright about this in his 9 March comments. He questions why these organizations are not required to register as lobbyists and why AIPAC, the biggest Jewish bogeyman of all, is not required to register as a foreign agent.Jamesegarner (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

6.  the organization provides campus activities to teach Israeli activism

Reply: This is your conclusion. CAMERA identifies these campus as media watch to counter bias, extended perhaps to bias in the classroom.Jamesegarner (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The CAMERA website provides "Guidelines for Activism on Campus" for countering "Israel's detractors". I'm fine if this isn't included in the article however.--69.210.15.59 (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Jamesegarner-- i'm not getting your point. The intro statement that CAMERA is pro-Israel is backed by a slew of refereences to CAMERA itself. Also, a suggestion--as a single purpose account concerned only, it seems, with this artcile, I think you'd get a more responsive hearing if you spent less effort composing lengthy, hard to follow complaints, and instead gave a simple summary of what you're attempting to point to. As a single purpose account which appears solely interested in backing the view of the other single purpose, CAMERA-connected editor here, I'm sure you can see why you'd have to overcome a credibility gap. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I’ve reread my comments. I believe that they are adequately clear and succinct. They length that you refer to might be my responses to the specific comments of other editors. I hope that you will reciprocate that courtesy. The fact that I have edited only this article is irrelevant. Your point seems ad hominem. It’s not me or my credibility that’s at issue here. You need to address the words on the page.Jamesegarner (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A slew of reliable sources--including multiple citations from CAMERA itself--indicate that it is pro-Israel, and not impartial. You should supply reliable sources indicating that it is impartial and not pro- one side or another, rather than attack other editors intentions, if you want to make your point. Wikipedia goes by what the reliable sources say. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Boodles about the multiple reliable sources from CAMERA and outside of CAMERA, and don't see CAMERA making the assertion that you do anywhere. I think it would be best if you reorganized your thoughts in a simple manner and put them all in one spot so that it is easier to have a discussion about them. --69.210.15.59 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a latecomer to the RFC, and there is a lot to respond to here -- I hope the invitation stands. I would say first of all that it would be an excercise in sophistry to say that CAMERA is not "pro-Israel." However, in the lede the NPOV approach would be something along the lines of saying it is "regarded as Pro-Israel." Now, it is true that in its mission statement, CAMERA claims to be entirely objective and neutral, whereas in reality they are anything but. But in politics, this is standard posturing, and I'm sure you will find similar behavior coming from both sides of the debate. To accuse CAMERA of not really being neutral is likely to elicit a response of "Duh." --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is still open I believe, so the input is quite welcome. I understand the concern about not qualifying the characterization, but I believe the difference here is the number of sources from the organization discussings its advocacy for Israel. Further, the director of the group has discussed what makes the group's pro-Israeli media monitoring different from regular media monitors. I'd welcome any further comment, specifically about these sources. --68.253.50.109 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

When there are a myriad reliable sources saying one thing and nothing saying the opposite, I am at a loss as to what the issue is. This is very disruptive. Will the users in question recognise that they are on thin ice, accept our policy on sourcing and move on before someone whom their organisation has bitten in the mainstream media takes notice. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Additions to History section

The following are the full passages from Rubenberg, concerning edits[14] to the history section:

<Cheryl A. Rubenberg: Israel and the American National Interest: A Critical Examination, University of Illinois Press, 1986. ISBN 0-252-06074-1> Rubenberg, p.339

Another pro-Israeli organization that was formed after 1982 to monitor the media is the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA).

Rubenberg, p.353-54,

The term “Israeli lobby” loosely refers to the approximately thirty-eight major Jewish groups that concern themselves with Israel and with influencing US Middle East policy to serve the interests of the Jewish state. (Since the 1982 war in Lebanon, there has been a proliferation of new groups, in addition to the thirty-eight, such as ASFI, CAMERA, and others.) Only one of these organizations is registered as a lobby --- the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It is of interest to note that AIPAC is registered as a domestic, not a foreign, lobby, having been exempted from the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Boycott and Firing Assertion

There is a dispute over the section referencing boycott and firings.

The langague in the first paragraph below is inaccurate, and has been replaced by the language in the second:

CAMERA staff members monitor media coverage of the Middle East coverage, and directly contact media organizations and reporters to refute information the organization perceives as "distorted or inaccurate." The organization also has brought various other types of pressure tactics to bear on media organizations it perceives as biased, including support for media boycotts and demands for the firing of staff members of media organizations that CAMERA feels have an "anti-Israel bias."

The cited sources only show one example of CAMERA's support for "suspending financial support" and call for a firing. Thus the text above, which by using the plural erroneously relays that this has happened multiple times, has been replace with the text below, which explains with greater specificity and precision what the cited sources say. The below text also more precisely relays what CAMERA expressed it's support for by using an actual quote from the cited source -- "suspend[ing] financial support" is used instead of "boycott."

CAMERA staff members monitor media coverage of the Middle East coverage, and directly contact media organizations and reporters to refute information the organization perceives as "distorted or inaccurate." In rare cases, the organization has gone farther, at one time indicating support for "suspend[ing] financial support" for NPR and calling for the removal of that organization's foreign editor.CAMERA staff members monitor media coverage of the Middle East coverage, and directly contact media organizations and reporters to refute information the organization perceives as "distorted or inaccurate." The organization also has brought various other types of pressure tactics to bear on media organizations it perceives as biased, including support for media boycotts and, in one instance with National Public Radio, demands for the firing of a staff member that CAMERA feels had an "anti-Israel bias."

Please do not merely revert this edit without sucessfully defending your case here on the discussion page. Gni (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Again (Boodlesthecat), please make your case in the discussion section before reverting. Gni (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated in the edit summary, the version below accurately conforms to sources. You seem to keep reverting out sourced, documented reference to CAMERA's support for boycotts. I'm not sure why, but in sny case, here is the version I am putting back in, which is supported by sources, and minus the unnecessarily leading characterization of "rare."

CAMERA staff members monitor media coverage of the Middle East coverage, and directly contact media organizations and reporters to refute information the organization perceives as "distorted or inaccurate." The organization also has brought various other types of pressure tactics to bear on media organizations it perceives as biased, including support for media boycotts and, in one instance with National Public Radio, demands for the firing of a staff member that CAMERA feels had an "anti-Israel bias."

I must add, though, Gni, your tendency towards phraseology on the talk page of demands that other editors "defend their case" before making edits you might not agree with is beginning to border on WP:OWN. I'd suggest having a look at that policy; no editor owns a monopoly on what can or can't go in an article simply based on their own preference. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it or is it not accepted Wikipedia etiquette to hash things out on the discussion page? That's my point when I requested that you "please make your case in the discussion section before reverting." Nothing controversial in that request, is there? And don't forget that WP:OWN applies to you just as much as it applies to me.

So thanks for your comments above. However, I see nothing in the cited sources that suggests CAMERA supported "boycotts," plural. If it's in the sources but I missed the relevant sentence/passage, please point that out. Secondly, I can't imagine how you could justify going with a less precise, arguable paraphrase -- "boycotts" -- instead of an actual quote from the footnoted sources -- "suspend[ing] financial support" for NPR. The latter is straight from the citation, and is more clear and precise. Please explain why you disagree. Finally, "pressure tactics" is an emotive and judgmental description. We should describe the facts, and let readers make up their own minds about whether or not this is a "pressure tactic."

Hence the changes I've most recently made, based on your 'template':

CAMERA staff members monitor media coverage of the Middle East coverage, and directly contact media organizations and reporters to refute information the organization perceives as "distorted or inaccurate." The organization also has backed "a call to suspend financial support" from National Public Radio, and in one instance demanded the firing of that organization's foreign editor.

Gni (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting sourced info and pushing the CAMERA POV in the article

Gni, please don't delete reliably sourced balance with edit summaries such as ""This section isn't for comments about CAMERA." If CAMERA is making a claim, that section is the appropriate place for reliably sourced balance. You also seem intent on inserting the CAMERA POV throughout this encyclopedia article, and others. While CAMERA may certainly wish to portray themselves a certain way, for tax purposes or for whatever reason, an encyclopedia describes an organization based on what reliable sources say. Eg, it is valid to describe CAMERA as pro-Israel, based upon overwhelming sources using that description, and it is valid to describe CAMERA as supporting a boycott--in both these instances, you seem intent on inserting repeatedly CAMERA's own, somewhat self serving formulations, rather than what is in reliable sources. Please try and familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV and other guidelines regarding these issues. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat, articles should be a)fair and accurate, and b)well written. Moreover, wikipedia articles should be bound by one standard. The changes that you have been pushing move the article farther and farther from these goals.

Unfortunately, there are little to no serious responses to these and other points I've raised and elaborated on in the discussion section to that article. Gni (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and on the Dvorkin thing -- aside from the fact that ad hominem comment doesn't relate to the specific charge, and so doesn't really belong in the article as a response to that specific charge -- you're misrepresenting what Dvorkin said. It's not quite true, as you claimed, that Dvorkin "described the pressure from CAMERA and other organizations as 'a form of journalistic McCarthyism.' His comment was more qualified: "In my opinion, the pressure on NPR from these groups can constitute a form of journalistic McCarthyism." So I would suggest that you yourself reacquaint with the Wikipedia guidelines. Gni (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA POV vs Reliable Sources

DISPUTE: While CAMERA (or any organization) may certainly wish to portray themselves a certain way, for tax purposes or for whatever reason, an encyclopedia describes an organization based on what reliable sources say. Ther article also has a section Accusations of anti-Israel bias made by CAMERA, comprised of a selective list of such accusations against NPR, major media, Steven Spielberg, etc. Gni keeps deleting balance added to this section (specifically, a response from NPR's ombudsman) with the somewhat idiosyncratic (and WP:OWN) claim that "This section isn't for comments about CAMERA." Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a separate section for criticism, and a separate section for "accusations of anti-Israel bias made by CAMERA." The purported "balance" that Boodlesthecat was posting in the "accusations of anti-Israel bias" section a) is not "balance." It is a general, ad hominem criticism of the organization as a whole, which does not at all address the specific criticism of NPR; so if anywhere, this should be in the criticism section. b) It is a misquote. You're misrepresenting what Dvorkin said. It's not exactly true, as you claim, that Dvorkin "described the pressure from CAMERA and other organizations as 'a form of journalistic McCarthyism.' His comment was clearly qualified: "In my opinion, the pressure on NPR from these groups can constitute a form of journalistic McCarthyism." Misrepresentations don't belong anywhere in a wikipedia article, let alone under the wrong subheading of an article. Gni (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, NPR's response is not "criticism," it is a response to a campaign against it by CAMERA. It goes in the section about CAMERA and NPR. The quote about McCarthyism that you are nitpicking about has already been replaced by another; please spend less time being contentious and combative and reverting well sourced information and more time focusing on what other editors are trying to do to improve the article. Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

With CAMERA, even their supporters and the Israeli press say they're pro-Israel. (See article footnotes 5,6,7,8). But CAMERA, for whatever reason, doesn't admit this. Their "About" page says "A non-partisan organization, CAMERA takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict." That's why we have so much trouble with this article.

How about this:

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is a American, nonprofit, tax-exempt organization based in Boston which describes itself as a "media-monitoring, research and membership organization".[3] CAMERA is generally described as a pro-Israel lobbying organization[5][6][7][8] noted for its mobilization for the support of Israel in the form of full-page ads in newspapers[9], organizing demonstrations, and encouraging sponsor boycotts.[10].

The organization was founded in 1982 by Winifred Meiselman in Washington, DC in response to perceived anti-Israel bias in The Washington Post.[4]

--John Nagle (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems with the above formulation is that none of the named sources [5][6][7][8] actually call CAMERA a 'lobbying organization'. It's fair to say they describe it as pro_Israel. I'm also not sure that the 3 examples called out are what it is best known for. I suggest the following:

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is a American, nonprofit, tax-exempt organization based in Boston which describes itself as a "media-monitoring, research and membership organization".[3] CAMERA is generally described as pro-Israeli [5][6][7][8], and is noted for its criticisms of what it perceives as inaccurate media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and its sponsorship of letter writing campaigns to complain of such coverage. In addition, it has taken out full-page ads in newspapers[9], organized demonstrations, and encouraged sponsor boycotts.[10].

The organization was founded in 1982 by Winifred Meiselman in Washington, DC in response to perceived anti-Israel bias in The Washington Post.[4]

Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current formulation? It's seems reliably sourced and accurate. Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just explained 2 things that are wrong with the current version:(1) It says CAMERA is generally describes as a lobbying organization, and cites 4 sources for that claim - but none of the 4 actually call CAMERA a lobbying organization. (2) it makes an unsourced claim that CAMERA is best known for a few activities (full page ads, calls for boycott) , which are not the bulk of its activities and not, I think, what it is known for. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Withstanding whether one of the previous sources called the group a lobbier as Boodles claims, the article now reads pro-Israel advocacy which the articles do support. The claims about full page ads and boycott calls are cited and attributed to SFGate and The Guardian (refs 11 and 12). The group's view of its activities have been spelled out below (founded to respond to anti-Israel bias, director quote, etc.). Finally, it is up to reliable sources and none of us to determine what the group is notable for. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, it has been fixed now, but it was not fixed when Boodles asked what was wrong with it. It's true that we should leave it to reliable sources to describe what the group is notable for. The current source for the claim that it is notable for full page ads does not make that claim. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"He said the network has been targeted by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, which ran a full-page New York Times ad calling NPR's coverage "false" and "skewed" against Israel" from [15] (ref 11 in article). --68.23.8.245 (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he didn't say "CAMERA is notable for running full-page ads". I am not disputing that CAMERA, occasionally, runs full page ads. I am disputing that this is what it is notable for. If you want to claim that, you have to find a source that says that, precisely and explicitly. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The previous sources show CAMERA being noted for its pro-Israel advocacy (references 7-10), while references 11 and 12 elaborate on some specific ways CAMERA mobilizes support for Israel. The citations, or reference tags, appear directly after the statement they support to make it clear to the reader where the information came from. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this tendentious hair-splittng. the article says "noted for its pro-Israel advocacy,[7][8][9][10] including it's mobilization for the support of Israel in the form of full-page ads in newspapers,[11] organizing demonstrations,[12] and encouraging sponsors to withhold funds."[12] The ads are one of three subset examples of the pro-Israel advocacy, which has 4 sources of its own. What is the problem? Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that the organization is, as far as I know, best known and notable for its media criticism. It also, occasionally , does other things such as the ads, but it is not "notable" for them. This is not hair splitting, and most certainly not "tendentious" (what was that you were saying about tone moderation?) it is opposition to what I see as an attempt to paint the organization as a lobbying organization, rather than as a media watchdog. To do that, you must find sources that exactly and explicitly support the claim. Otherwise, You may state that it took out Ads, called for a boycott, etc.. - but you may not say that this is what it is notable for. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What about:

CAMERA has been noted for its pro-Israel media monitoring and advocacy.[7][8][9][10] CAMERA states it releases reports to stop "frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel and of events in the Middle East" that it believes may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice.[Camera:About Us] The group also mobilizes support for Israel in the form of full-page ads in newspapers,[11] organizing demonstrations,[12] and encouraging sponsors to withhold funds.[12]

--68.23.8.245 (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. Thanks! Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To Canadian Monkey: If the sources don't call it a lobbying organization, I don't see a problem with changing that paritcular part; however, it should be very clear to the reader up front that the organization is a pro-Israeli media monitor working against perceived anti-Israel bias because:

• the organization was founded for this purpose
• the director of the organization has explained how she believes the group's pro-Israeli activism helps journalism
• quotes on the the organization's website, such as the group is working to stop "frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel and of events in the Middle East [that] may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice"
• the organization is a member of the Israel Campus Roundtable and The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
• the organization provides campus activities to teach Israeli activism
• numerous outside sources support the organization (as well as the director's) view of itself

If people have problems with the current version, I can try to come up with a version as well (if there are any other concerns, try to list them so we can work them all out at once). I see no reason to censor the group's view of itself or the way it is viewed by numerous outside sources though (which doesn't necessarily include lobbying). --68.23.8.245 (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a previous POV'd editor screwed up most of the refs. It is currently incorrect and inaccurate; see how ref[3] is used, versus the actual quotes here. It is very sad when editors are more interested in trying to make Wikipedia say what they want, rather than being NPOV. I have also added the noted relation to the 1982 Lebanon War. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That comment is interesting coming from you, CasualObserver'48? You are the person whose animus toward CAMERA is so great that you attempted to remove CAMERA from the Camera (disambiguation) page. And I would think that seasoned wikipedia editors should be over the transparent practice of accusing anyone who disagrees with them of "trying to make Wikipedia say what they want, rather than being NPOV." Especially editors who seem to have such strong POV's Gni (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is an unfair accusation, if you look at the edit summaries. What I did was to redirect the CAMERA page to Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, rather than to the 'camera' disambig page[16], then edit out 'CAMERA', a specific acronym, from the 'camera' disambig page [17], then I deleted it [18].

I later noted that you had reverted that deletion, thought about it, figured it possibly should have been left it there also, since someone might search for ‘camera’ when looking for ‘CAMERA,’ and accepted your revert.

In light of that, one should always get their facts straight, otherwise it might seem like a lack of good faith. Concerning my saying "trying to make Wikipedia say what they want, rather than being NPOV," I can only note that you removed a sourced book quote, saying 'pro-Israel' and replaced it with something called 'pro-accuracy,'[19] spoken directly from CAMERA's horses mouth; that, to me, is not NPOV. Any comments from other editors concerning which is NPOV?- I'm really open to comments on this. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Pro-accuracy"?

As opposed to what--anti-accuracy? This is getting silly.Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought the discussion for this was above, but I suppose it could also be moved down here..

I am just having trouble grasping why this is controversial or an issue at all. The pro-Israel citation being reverted out is a quote from the director of the organization. Apart from the director quote, there are other citations from the group and its director: the organization's founding mission, its grassroots college activities, a quote on its website which says it is working to stop "frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel and of events in the Middle East [that] may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice", etc. all support the statement being left in the article and not reverted out. None of this comes from outside parties, it comes from within the organization itself.

The group conducts pro-Israeli monitoring to combat perceived anti-Israel bias in the belief that it induces ethical journalism and strengthens American democray. Sources inside and outside of the organization support this reading very clearly, whether we agree with the organization's mission or not. We are doing a disservice to the reader if we ignore this for whatever reason. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Very silly, indeed and I am getting tired of it. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Website testimonials vs "praise"

In the absence of reliable sources for these quotes independent of the CAMERA website, the appropriate heading would be "website testimonials." Comments made at CAMERA events (where the commentators may very well be receiving honoraria) are not accurately described as praise. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There clearly are reliable sources for these quotes, and not limited to the CAMERA website. The Koch quote is available on National Review Online. This Koch quote, which has been discussed on this page in the past, and about which a consensus had been reached, was wrongly removed in order to change the heading to "website testimonials," which is an inorganic and unnecessarily narrow. "Praise" sections are ubiquitous across wikipedia, and that organic label allows the section to evolve naturally without changing the heading. (Or, for that matter, without deleting praise by Koch.) Gni (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the quotes from CAMERA's site, WP:V advises against using material from a self-published source if it is unduly self-serving. The quotes would make a stronger case for CAMERA if you were able to track down the original source where they appeared, so that they appear more reliable and so that more context can given. To me, the Koch quote seems a bit tangential; however, it seems fine as long as we try to provide the context of the article. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think self-published applies to CAMERA any more than it applies to any other published material. Gni (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Koch is quoted from a letter to the editor discussing an entirely different subject--commenting, as an aside, that CAMERa has info on file is hardly characterizable as praise, particularly since he isnt even discussing them. As for your claim "There clearly are reliable sources for these quotes", can you please supply them. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? Consider this hypothetical example: If a mayor wrote a letter about gun control, and in that letter wrote that "the senator from (wherever), who is one of the best legal minds in the country, feels that guns should be (whatever)," it would then clearly be okay to add in a "praise" section of an article about the senator from (wherever) the comment that the mayor feels that the senator is one of the best legal minds in the country. 24.91.135.162 (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"No it wouldn't" isn't an especially compelling argument. I've reinserted the old status quo language suggested by NYScholar (see above) regarding the Koch praise. Comments on this dispute by a variety of editors are encouraged. Thanks. Gni (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So again, WP:V advises against using material from a self-published source if it is unduly self-serving (i.e. We wouldn't cite CNN praising itself for its accuracy in the CNN article). The quotes would make a stronger case for CAMERA if you were able to track down the original source where they appeared, so that they appear more reliable and so that more context can be given.

Noting this, I think that the Koch quote could be a bit less tangential but that it is verifiable and that it does qualify as praise from a third party source. I am also a bit leery of using it, but JCPA calls CAMERA "a leader in the field of pro-Israeli media watching". I think these are a step in the right direction since they are quoted from outside parties.. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that ""a leader in the field of pro-Israeli media watching" is praise. seems like a description. Like "the Red Sox are the top team in the NL East" Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think it's ideal praise either.. it's just about the best compromise that I could find and attribute to a third party source in a reasonable amount of time.. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The JCPA seems fine for a descriptive section as a RS. I don't think we're terribly unbalanced as it stands--seems pretty generous to include a section of website testimonials that have no independent sourcing as it is (as I pointed out above, it's not a stretch to assume these speakers offering praise may have received honoraria). The Koch thing I still feel as I said above--it's ambiguous if it's even praise (noting they keep good files?) but more to the point, if the context is something else altogether and its just an aside, it doesnt seem very strong. I think we'd be deceiving the reader, unless we printed the entire statement. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This last question raised by Boodlesthecat had been addressed many months ago by NYScholar, who noted that "The context is clear enough if it is restated as I have just done in the current revision. Anyone who wants to read the whole context can read the full text of the letter for it." I had reverted to his suggestion, since this was the status quo until this latest dispute, but Boodlesthecat simply reverted this. To Anon at IP 68...., you indeed have raised the questions about unduly self-serving material from self-published sources, but you have yet to address my comments about CAMERA not fitting into Wikipedia's description of self-published sources. As CAMERA is not a self-published source, then your point here seems moot. Gni (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The source of the quotes is weak because they do not come from a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", because the organization is providing the praise of itself, and because the insertion of the edits apparently resides from the organization itself (if posts at WP:COI/N are to be believed).

On the other hand, I am not suggesting the outright removal of the material, I am simply suggesting that the quotes would make a stronger case if a third party source could be used to provide stronger verifiability and more of the context of the quotes (hence why Koch or JCPA praise seem good, but not ideal, to me). The presence or dispresence of the quotes is not a pressing issue for me though, so I'm going to essentially end my input in the discussion. I would encourage you to look for third-party praise of the group though. For example, [20] praises groups like CAMERA for "[making] the media subject to certain checks and balances" and [21] praise the work of groups like CAMERA for "[enabling] aggregates of public opinion to speak out". Both are a bit tangential, but they mention CAMERA by name, offer praise, and are from third sources. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd imagine many would disagree with your claim that an organization whose predominant focus appears to be fact-checking and accuracy should not be considered one with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But leaving that aside, and leaving aside the COI allegations, which are addressed in WP:COIN, I welcome your openness to discussion and compromise on this issue. Since you feel Koch's praise is good (even if not ideal), perhaps this would be a reasonable compromise: What if the Koch praise is put back in under a "Praise" heading, using NYScholar's wording, and the quotes from CAMERA's website would keep the current "Testimonials..." header, which would be a subheading under the praise section? I'll boldly edit the article as described, and this way everyone can visually see what I tried to describe. Gni (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that the Praise and the Criticism sections are already subheadings marked off by 3 equal signs, which seems to mean that I can't make "Testimonials" a subhead of the Praise subsection. What I did, then, was have three subheads under the "Praise and Criticism" major heading. These are: Praise, Testimonials, and Criticism. Gni (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Gni, I would strongly recommend that you heed the recommendations of admins (see below) and not continue to add pro-CAMERA commentary to this article. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat, please take note of the discussion on this page, not only by me, but by editors who tend to share your point of view. This change was an attempt at compromise, per WP:DR, which is consistent with Anon 68's thoughts above. As to whether or not I have the right to contribute to this page, I'll be happy to take this to formal mediation.Gni (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, I believe Anon 68 was strongly recommending finding 3rd party sources for praise, which you haven't (and note that an unpublished letter reprinted on a blog is not a reliable source). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes clear that "'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. ..." So the National Review blog is indeed deemed reliable. As to your "reason for edit" claim that you were merely moving the Koch quote to it's appropriate section, this doesn't seem to hold any water. You yourself made clear in your first post above that the "website testimonials" heading is meant to alert readers to the fact that these quotes come from the camera.org site. As you know, the Koch quote does not come from the CAMERA.org site, and thus your refiling this quote under the "website testimonials" heading is misleading and inappropriate. Gni (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having taken a closer look, it is clear that your edit introduces a substantive falsehood to the section, which is introduced: "Testimonials on CAMERA's website include ..." Again, the Koch quote is not from the CAMERA website, it is from the National Review website, and so should neither be filed under "website testimonials" nor introduced with the patently misleading phrase "Testimonials on CAMERA's website include ..." Gni (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

<---1. Re: WP:V on blogs: Not sure how you translate "may be acceptable" to "is indeed deemed reliable." 2. The blog does not report on Koch supposedly praising CAMERA (that would be something like the author saying "Koch praised CAMERA yesterday"), it is merely reprinting an unpublished letter to the editor (which wouldn't be a reliable source even if it was published). 3. Even if the blog author was saying (which she isn't) that Koch "praised" (your word, not anyone else's) CAMERA, could you verify the that the NRO "writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."? I am reverting based on the pretty clear unreliability of this source. Find a reliable source saying "Koch praised CAMERA," and it should be fine. Although I again super duper recommend that you not continue spamming promotional editing for CAMERA given your COI difficulties at the moment. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely prejudicial and uncivil to suggest that I am "spamming for CAMERA" while the COI is yet to be resolved. As someone who has complained about others being uncivil -- even though you yourself have been blocked for similar reasons -- you probably want to avoid such language. Gni (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't see why you fail to consider Anon 68's assertion above, which certainly should carry some weight in the attempt to resolve the issue being that Anon68 and I don't tend to agree. There seems to be a rare, precious moment of consensus which you aren't taking into account. He stated that:

"On the other hand, I am not suggesting the outright removal of the material, I am simply suggesting that the quotes would make a stronger case if a third party source could be used to provide stronger verifiability and more of the context of the quotes (hence why Koch or JCPA praise seem good, but not ideal, to me). ..."

In other words, he is suggesting that the Koch quote works as a third party source that provides stronger verifiability. Gni (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Now find a reliable source, as he suggested. The blog isn't one. As for "spamming," I apologize for that word, and replace it with "promotional editing," as in the admin commented on your COI case: The evidence for promotional editing on the articles listed at COIN is so strong that we should be warning the COI-affected editors about possible blocks if they don't desist. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And, recalling that "using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is frowned upon," what of the point that your change is extremely misleading, as it will lead readers to wrongly believe the original source of the Koch quote is the CAMERA website when in reality it isn't? Perhaps the Mediation Cabal could help us work through this. Gni (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a convincing argument. Most people will assume something existed before it was sourced. It's no excuse for using something that is in no way a reliable source. And in fact, the original source for the quote being used as a claim that Koch had something positive to say about CAMERA is CAMERA. On the blog, it's just a reprinted letter that isn't about CAMERA, with no reliable source making the claim that Koch "praised" CAMERA. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is very puzzling and inconsistent. Koch's positive words about CAMERA are "Praise," just as Kaidy's negative words about the organization are "Criticism." By your logic, Kaidy's comments on CAMERA shouldn't be categorized under the Criticism section because there's "no reliable source making the claim that Kaidy 'criticized' CAMERA." On the other point, you suggested above that the reason for your 'testimonials' section was so that readers will know the praise is quotes are found only on camera's website. You wrote: "In the absence of reliable sources for these quotes independent of the CAMERA website, the appropriate heading would be "'website testimonials.'" i.e., you have that heading because you feel it will make people not assume it existed before it was sourced. But there clearly is a reliable source independent of the CAMERA website for the Koch quote -- namely National Review Online, yet you you still insist on bundling that quote with the other testimonials. Gni (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll reiterate for the third or fourth time, since you keep ignoring words right above the ones you write. The NRO blog is not a reliable source for a claim that Koch praised CAMERA. Leaving aside the likely issue that this particular blog isn't particularly a reliable source at all, all the blog is doing is reprinting a letter Mr. Koch sent (that apparently wasn't even published) in which as an aside he mentions CAMERA as a place where you can find stuff. (If I said that my deli downstairs if a place where you can always find milk, is that "praise?" It's what they do.) If the blogger wrote "Koch praised CAMERA....", that could work, if this obscure blog was deemed a WP:RS. Now, on the CAMERA website, Koch's (somewhat edited for maximum impact) quote is included in a section on "what theyre saying about CAMERA." Even though they used the quote out of context to make it sound like Koch was talking about CAMERA, we've included it in a website testimonials section, mainly for balance, since there's a severe paucity of reliably sourced material that has anything positive to say about CAMERA. So Gni, if, in all your files at CAMERA you can find reliably sourced "praise" about CAMERA (not an obscure blog that is simply reprinting a letter that is not about CAMERA) please include it. What with all the praise about the filing system CAMERA has, I'm sure you can come up with some reliable source. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you are refusing mediation on this issue speaks volumes, as is your unsupported accusations and your disinterest in assuming good faith and abiding by the spirit of Wikipedia in general. As an aside, your tactic of dubbing any source you don't like an "obscure" and unreliable source is transparent and, again, counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. Gni (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't again distort what I said for your own purposes. I wrote on the mediation page that I wasn't going to participate while there is an open conflict of Interest case regarding your serious conflict of interest as someone who has surreptitiously been editing this article on behalf of CAMERA. I stated there that it's my feeling that your arbitration request seems to be nothing but a distraction from the more serious issue at hand here. As for your perennially uncivil pwersonal attacks questioning my good faith and my abiding by Wikipedia standards--if you feel that is the case, take it to the ANI board. Oh wait, you already did, and they told you you should stay away from this article. Yet here you are. Hey, your choice.Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, your uncivil and patently false accusation that I am "editing this article on behalf of CAMERA" (ironically, in a post where you accuse me of personal attacks and questioning good faith. If you feel that I've violated COI, then -- if I may borrow your sarcastic tone -- take it to the WP:COIN. Oh wait, you already did, and the accusation got no traction. Gni (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The COIN report established exactly what it is meant to establish: that you have been editing an article on CAMERA from CAMERA's offices. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm reinserting the attempt at compromise language for the following reasons:

• The edit was legitimate, period. Moreover, it was an attempt at compromise by keeping Boodlesthecat's preferred subheading about "testimonials" where the quotes of praise were cited to CAMERA's website, and using the more general subhead "praise" -- i.e. the opposite of the existing subhead "criticism" -- where the praise is cited to, and originates from, a different source. This despite the fact that the "testimonials" subheading is unnecessary, as the text that follows makes clear that some quotes are from the CAMERA website. ("Testimonials on CAMERA's website include...)
• I had hoped to wait and resolve this through mediation (using the Mediation Cabal), but Boodlesthecat declined to participate in mediation at this time.
• The rationale for reverting my edit is inconsistent and does not withstand scrutiny.
• Boodlesthecat explicitly defended the "testimonials" heading as being needed "In the absence of reliable sources for these quotes independent of the CAMERA website..." Yet even when a quote (the Koch quote) was cited to a reliable source independent of the CAMERA site, he continued to insist that it be described as "testimonials," continued to insist on misleadingly describing the quote as coming from the CAMERA website, and would in effect revert attempts to add opposite the existing "criticism" section a "praise" heading in which to categorize Koch's quote, while eliminating the footnote pointing to the National Review Online (NRO).
• Boodlesthecat also bizarrely insists above that "Comments made at CAMERA events (where the commentators may very well be receiving honoraria) are not accurately described as praise." This assertion that praise is not praise if it's offered at a CAMERA event is groundless. (Also, it seems to be a non sequitur, as the suggestion that the the listed praise all comes from a CAMERA event seems to come from out of the blue and be unsubstantiated.)
• Boodles then attempts to argue that Koch's assertion publicized by NRO isn't actually praise: "commenting, as an aside, that CAMERa has info on file is hardly characterizable as praise," he claims. But Koch's assertion that CAMERA -- that "there is ... one source you can rely on when it comes to keeping track of news stories on the Middle East" is clearly praise. He goes on to cite CAMERA's analysis. Since Boodlesthecat removed the footnote from the article, Koch's comments can be found [here http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2YxMjZmOGMwYWE1Zjc4NGU5ZWMxZTU1ZjdmYzIzNjA=].
• Boodles then justifies reverting by deciding that NRO isn't a "reliable source." (e.g. "I am reverting based on the pretty clear unreliability of this source" and "Now find a reliable source.") This argument is on its face specious (as anyone who understands the world of political periodicals such as National Review, New Republic, The Nation, The Atlantic Monthly, etc. would know. See, for example, this discussion about the reliability of The Nation. Note also that The Nation and WRMEA are used as sources for the criticism section.) But Boodlesthecat's insistence that the source isn't reliable also discounts the stated views of other editors, including some who normally disagree with me and thus are clearly not allies of mine. User 68.23.8.245 asserts above: "I think that the Koch quote could be a bit less tangential but that it is verifiable and that it does qualify as praise from a third party source" (emphasis mine). NYScholar also indicated by rewording and reposting the Koch quote that he views this quote as acceptable.
• The argument that the source is unreliable because it's a letter to the editor falls flat as well. It is a reprinted correspondence between a former mayor of New York city and a journalist, published on NRO by Kathryn Jean Lopez, the editor of NRO (who is also a nationally syndicated columnist distributed by the Scripps owned United Media. And while a published letter may not be a reliable source for certain things, it is certainly a reliable source about what the author of the letter has stated.
• This said, there is no good reason for the Koch quote to be misleadingly categorized as a testimonial from CAMERA's web site. Gni (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your post is too long to really read through for such a minor issue. However, the bottom line is that there is no reliable source that says "Koch praised CAMERA...". All there is is CAMERA's website testimonial, and separately an NRO blog reprinting a letter to the editor that was never published that isnt about CAMERA. As you, Gni, are editing this article on behalf of CAMERA, I understand your desire to offer this as a separate "Praise" section. however, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not the wishes of the subjects of an article. As a compromise, though, I think it's fine to put a link to the letter in the footnote. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Some notes on edit warring

Gni (talk · contribs) was blocked for 8 hours for 3RR. Please, try to back off a little on this.

It would be appreciated if the anon(s) editing this article would register for Wikipedia accounts. Then we can tell who's saying what.

The lede paragraph still reads rather badly from a stylistic point of view. I agree that "pro-Israel" should only appear once. But with all this edit warring going on, I'm not going to try to fix it right now. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

All my edits on this article are from this IP.. "pro-Israel" should be presented up front to the reader since pro-Israel media monitoring to combat percieved anti-Israel bias is the purpose of the organization (see bulleted list of sources from within organization above). I don't see a reason to place an arbitrary cap on the frequency of words in the lead; however, if the group's history or specific activities don't need to be covered in the lead that's fine (though I am not sure what would replace it, if anything).

Perhaps we could come up with an acceptable version here.. I think the first thing we would need to do is to determine what would and would not go in the lead, so I would encourage others to provide their input..68.23.8.245 (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gni has apparently been editing directly on behalf of CAMERA. Details are posted on the COI noticeboard here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

So any input about what would and would not go in the new version of a lead? --68.23.8.245 (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A minor touch up. 2nd par:

:CAMERA has been noted for its monitoring of media reports on Israel and the Middle East, and it's advocacy of more favorable coverage of Israel.[7][8][9][10] CAMERA releases regular reports which it describes as being aimed at stopping "frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel and of events in the Middle East" that it believes may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice.[4] The group also mobilizes support for Israel through full-page ads in newspapers,[11] organizing demonstrations,[12] and encouraging sponsors to withhold funds.[12]

I'm mostly alright with what you have suggested. There seemed to be some concern about the frequency of "pro-Israel" and I would like to address it.. The first sentence of the entire lead should identify to the reader that the organization conducts pro-Israel media monitoring to combat percieved anti-Israeli bias/prejudice because:

• the organization was founded for this purpose
• the director of the organization has explained how she believes the group's pro-Israeli activism helps journalism and democracy
• quotes on the the organization's website, such as the group is working to stop "frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel and of events in the Middle East [that] may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice"
• the organization is a member of the Israel Campus Roundtable and The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
• the organization provides campus activities to teach Israeli activism
• numerous outside sources support the organization (as well as the director's) view of itself

Clearly we would like to avoid overkill and not all of this should be included in the lead. The question is what should be removed (if anything), what might we reword a little bit, and what other information might be included in the lead (name of director, size of organization, etc). I feel it the organization's purpose should be very upfront to the reader though. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that inferring Israel is as a fact pro-Israel from your bulleted list is WP:OR. It is certainly fair to assert in the article any of these bullet points that can be substantiated. (Although bullet point #2 doesn't seem to be true. The director was referring to pro-Israel activism in general, not to "the group's" pro-Israel activism. But we should by all means have some of the above bullet points reflected in the article -- just without anyone's original research that interprets these statements as meaning something larger about the whole organization. Gni (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am open to using a specific quote which conveys the meaning of the group's purpose and allowing the reader to decide for himself or herself, but it should be very upfront to a reader who hasn't seen their material before. Specifically, in regard to your questions about bullet #2:

• The quote was given when Levin was "asked about media-watching groups that do not focus on Israel". Levin is distinguishing CAMERA from other groups, as the header of these two paragraphs makes very clear.
• In a wider context, the interview is with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs's Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism Program
• The summary of the article calls CAMERA "a leader in the field of pro-Israeli media watching".

CAMERA says that in the interview Levin discussed "the organization's goals, tools, strategies and successes". So CAMERA is aware of the interview and supports it by posting it on their site. This interview, which CAMERA endorses on its site, is also just one of the organization's many endorsements of the characterization (others of which have been outlined above). The fact that you appear to be unaware of the organization's purpose is exactly why the lead needs to do a very good job of introducing it to the reader (and not censoring it as some who side against the group might wish). --68.23.8.245 (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

--68.23.8.245 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Gni (talk · contribs) writes: It seems that inferring Israel is as a fact pro-Israel from your bulleted list is WP:OR. That doesn't make sense. --John Nagle (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant to say "CAMERA," not Israel. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Does GNI have any comments on the allegations that he has been editing on behalf of CAMERA? --134.68.77.116 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To Anon: Yes, I strongly deny that that I have been editing on behalf of CAMERA. To Nagle and Boodlesthecat: I indeed meant to say "CAMERA" instead of Israel, thanks for pointing that out. Any thoughts on the assertion that using such inferences to support a statement of fact is Original Research? Gni (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So Gni, can you explain why the IP address you edited from is registered to CAMERA? See report here. Until you can give an explanation, I will have to revert your contentious edits, which consistently go against against consensus. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat, a) there is no consensus on the use of the Koch quote. As I noted above, "'No it wouldn't' isn't an especially compelling argument. I've reinserted the old status quo language suggested by NYScholar (see above) regarding the Koch praise. Comments on this dispute by a variety of editors are encouraged. Thanks." Your reverting of this without any discussion is unhelpful and appears indifferent to the danger of yet another revert war. b) Your assertion that I must satisfy you with any sort of explanation before editing seem absolutely incompatible with with Wikipedia policies. What gives you the right to unilaterally censor my contributions? c) it is interesting that you seem only able to ask questions of an ad hominem nature, but never to answer questions directly related to the dispute over the content of the article (e.g. "Any thoughts on the assertion that using such inferences to support a statement of fact is Original Research?," etc). d) Additionally, if I had edited a couple times from a computer with an IP address listed as CAMERA, this in no way proves a conflict of interest. It in no way shows that I don't "place the interests of the encyclopedia first," and indeed, the history of my edits -- despite the fact that you personally opposed to them -- show a consistent adherence to Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. e) Regardless, you might direct your attention to Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest page, which states that "using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is frowned upon." Gni (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

GNI--a. I've discussed above extensively why the Koch quote is not "praise," and why website testimonials are being characteried as such, since there are no reliable sources for the quotes. It is you who has been initiating edit wars. b. Your apparent conflict of interest on this page is completely germane to how your editing history is to be considered. c. I've discussed this article extensively on this page, so your claim that I never" answer questions directly related to the dispute over the content of the article" is false, and uncivil. d. You continue to refuse to give an honest and direct answer about your relationship to CAMERA. When I asked you directly here, you denied working for them and answered with a personal attack. e. Until you can provide an honest answer about your relationship to CAMERA, your appeals are hard to accept, particularly given your editing history under "Gni" and your IP's (see : Gni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/ 67.158.119.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/ 24.91.135.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ), which show a consistent and long-standing effort to insert the CAMERA POV into a number of articles, including this one, often contentiously, without ever declaring your interest. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You've leveled your accusation at, it seems, every COI message board you could find. I've sufficiently responded in detail at those message boards. By continuing that crusade here, you certainly seem to be "using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute," which Wikipedia notes "is frowned upon." Gni (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's serious conflicts of interest that are frowned upon. And no, it's not a crusade. As long as you post false things about me on this page (e.g., claims that I don't discuss edits, depite my having 30 comments on this page in the past month or my "unilaterally" reverting you, despite the fact that a number of editors revert you, and your having been 3RR'ed for edit warring as a result), I will respond here. For example, your uncivil claim that I've "accused" you (actually, I presented a well-documented case, based on your own contentious, single purpose edits and your posting from CAMERA headquarters) on "every COI message board" I could find (actually, it's on one COI message board--namely, the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard). Do you have a problem with my following Wikipedia guidelines on handling conflict of interest cases? for your part, you notified the Administrators noticeboard to complain about my COI case. An admin responded to you there as follows

User:Gni's privacy should not be unnecessarily invaded. But his protestations about not promoting Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America don't appear convincing. The evidence already presented at WP:COIN seems to show that he (Gni) edited Wikipedia from a computer in CAMERA's offices. If you feel like addressing this further, you are welcome to offer your views in the COIN thread. The evidence for promotional editing on the articles listed at COIN is so strong that we should be warning the COI-affected editors about possible blocks if they don't desist. Coyness about personal identity sounds incongruous when it comes from the advocate of a political action group that is extremely forceful in putting its own views forward.

Another admin noted that you were "stalking" me to seek revenge and advised you to "avoid editing the CAMERA article, or any articles related to that one, as your edits there have gotten you into some trouble in the recent past." The record speaks for itself. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to cast doubt on the idea that using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is frowned upon. Please note that I didn't invent this sentence; it is taken directly from Wikipedia's WP:COI page. Also, since you've selectively cited parts of the discussion from the Admin noticeboard, I'll simply refer people to the full thread, and the WP:COIN thread. But rest assured, you've made clear you beliefs on the COI issue. Now, while this is being resolved on the relevant pages, perhaps we can all try to remember and practice the WP:DR suggestions for resolving content disputes. I'm sure people are getting tired of our bickering. I know I sure am.Gni (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, WP:DR recommendations include "Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard. I did that, and you called it a "crusade." I have no idea what your point is with your last comment. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a good enough source for "pro-Israel"?

Here on CAMERA's website we read

Apply NOW to Be A CAMERA Student Representative—EARN A FREE TRIP TO ISRAEL AND $1000! September 25, 2007

CAMERA is looking for fifteen passionately committed undergraduate students with excellent communication skills who can organize pro-Israel events on campus. Students earn $1000 and a free exclusive trip to Israel in June by becoming a CAMERA Fellows Representative.

CAMERA Fellows Representatives will:

• Organize three programs over the course of the school year
• Promote and recruit for CAMERA programs and initiatives
• Distribute CAMERA magazines and literature
• Form relationships with campus influentials
• Participate in regular meetings with other CAMERA Fellows Reps and CAMERA staff
• Present a short talk on media bias
• Monitor and respond to problematic articles in the campus and local press
• Work with CAMERA when problems arise on campus
• Go to Israel in June for intensive leadership training

Gain valuable experience while defending Israel on your campus. (emphasis added)

It's baffling that editors who edit from CAMERA's office have actively argued against the notion that CAMERA is pro-Israel, but merely "pro-accuracy." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The "pro-accuracy" reference was an attempt to make a point, which seems to have been lost on you. I'll elaborate here, because it is exactly relevant to what you are arguing above. CAMERA's literature seems to refer to ensuring accuracy much more often than it refers to encouraging students to organize pro-Israel events. You seem to be seizing on the latter and ignoring the former. My point with that edit, though perhaps a better forum would have been here rather than the article page, was to say that if one can label camera "IS pro-Israel" by extrapolating from various comments on its website and elsewhere, than certainly one should be able to label it "IS pro-accuracy" based on that same logic. I was trying to highlight the logical flaw in your insisting on dubbing the group "is pro-israel" rather than describing its activities and noting how it has been described and concluding -- i.e. doing original research -- that it "is" pro-Israel, rather than letting readers draw their own conclusions. Also, my point was that you are deciding this POV assertion should be the defining factor of the organization, based on this original research, and trying to minimize the organization's stated and demonstrated concern with accuracy.Gni (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the quote I found from the director of the organization[22] which discusses CAMERA's pro-Israeli media monitoring "[inducing] better adherance to ethical journalism" and "helping to strengthen American democracy" makes the point best.(CAMERA endorses the interview as well here) There's a lot of other quotes on their site (plus numerous ones appearing in reliable sources) which all make the same judgement. The way the group is viewed internally and externally shouldn't be censored, but rather should be presented to the reader up front. This source, along with some about CAMERA on Campus, discuss most of their campus activities which I cited above. --68.253.57.106 (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm increasingly baffled by your arguments, Gni. You vehemently argue and edit war for presenting a description of CAMERA based on it's public relations pitch of itself, as presented on it's website. But when information on that same website that describes what the organization actually does (e.g., recruits kids to "organize pro-Israel events on campus") is sourced for a description the group, you holler "Original research!" As for it's "demonstrated concern with accuracy," you're welcome to supply WP:RS's to support that. Note however, that an organization saying "we're concerned with accuracy" is not a convincing source for DEMONSTRATING a concern for accuracy, any more than my saying that I'm concerned with accuracy on Wikipedia demonstrates that I really am. My edit history (or any editor's), e.g., would be a better source for making such a determination. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Boodles that more important than CAMERA's self-stated view is the opinion of reliable third party sources. The groups are not fringe angencies but mainstream news outlets. The reason the news articles aren't currently being used in the lead is to demonstrate that CAMERA itself recognizes itself as a pro-Israel media monitor working to combat percieved anti-Israel bias/prejudice. --68.253.57.106 (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

One point that I don't think has yet been made is that noting CAMERA's pro-Israel stance is providing non-obvious information to the reader. Presenting CAMERA as pro-accuracy seems redundant, as I think that this would be assumed by any reader, and would only be notable if this was not the case cojoco (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC).

Other things that CAMERA does

I've been holding on to this for a while, but it might be the right time to bring it up. CAMERA and their members may do as they desire, of course; it is a free country. But what they do, goes a long way, in my book, toward an understanding of 'who they are' and what we should describe. I ran across this in Nov07, Take a look. Read it and contemplate it a bit.

It is titled: CAMERA's Launches Media Curriculum for Middle and Highschoolers. Although it appears to be targeted mainly toward their co-religionists, which is their right, it really bothers me as a parent, that some people appear more interested in POV'd indoctrination (or worse, brainwashing), for their children's political correctness, than in teaching their religious ethics. I would venture a guess that this may be happening on the other side too, but this, something that CAMERA does, deserves some consideration in the editors discussion of what CAMERA is and what its intentions are. But they tell us that, right? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Casual Observer,

CAMERA has high school educational programs. Where’s the smoking gun? As I said to Boodles above whether CAMERA is impartial or biased (ie. pro-Israel) is not something we editors are going to decide. At best, we can present the opposing sides of the argument. I ask that you too respond to the issues I raised 9 March and 20 March. If we keep talking past each other, we'll never reach a consensus.Jamesegarner (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I only noted a 'what they do' snippet from they website, I wasn't talking about guns, smoking or otherwise. I totally agree that 'is not something we editors are going to decide', I was making a parental-type comment. It is, by Wiki-policy, left up to RSs, unless editors who are tied-at-the-hip to CAMERA, get their way. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. And as you note, certainly not unique to any "side." And probably not the most disturbing thing one encounters in public schools, much less a small number of yeshivas, madrassas or Christian academies. But as I'm sure you know, I'd be adverse to cling to the terminology of "sides," which is the notion that must be evolved beyond if the greater Israel/Palestine is ever to become a celebratory, joyous center for its rich multicultural spiritual value rather than a ticking time bomb. As well, in my view, organizations that use what some critics have, according to reliable sources, described as "McCarthyism" to bully their positions into the public psyche are (as McCarthyism always has been) an indication of weakness of position. What else are we to make of such efforts as "Jewish Defamers of Israel", if not, at bottom, an indication that one's attempts at indoctrination are threatened from within, especially among a younger generation. Even in death, sadly enough, I've heard with my own ears Rachel Corrie described as a "defamer" who got what she deserved. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Both commentators above might want to consider whether the above will be seen as a violation of the official policy that Wikipedia is not a soapbox: WP:SOAP.Gni (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Gni, you might have a slight point, maybe a little soapy-slippery, but it is on the talkpage. It is not even close to what you have done, with a direct WP:COI (conflict of interest) edit on the article page by removing 'pro-Israel' at every chance you get. A little soap on talk is nothing compared to a direct COI edit on the article page. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused, as it looks more like this is an expression of personal opinion than adovcacy violating NPOV, an opinion piece in an aritlce, self-promotion, or advertising. This certainly would need an NPOV reading in the article if it were to be included, but some might argue that WP:SOAP applies to CAMERA posting praise about itself on its site and then trying to include it in the article. --69.210.15.59 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." But if history is any judge, you'll ignore this policy, and use an uncivil allegation of COI -- a false allegation that hasn't gained much traction on the COIN page -- in a transparent attempt to distract from my content-related discussion. Gni (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess my point was that the article very much fails to completely describe what CAMERA does, as well as how they do it. I am not going to push this on the article (there is no RS reference to it). I just considered that editors interested in NPOV, should be aware of the lengths to which CAMERA will go to get their POV across. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No SOAP here, or just a tad. I'm simply providing on this talk page some contextualization as to why CAMERA has been engaging in campaigns that some notable sources have termed McCarthyistic. For example, conferences such as "Jewish Defamers of Israel" (good lord, did David Duke come up with that title?) Or even why they feel the need to surreptitiously edit this article for the better part of two years. Basically, as I noted, it's because it seems (from what various sources indicate) that their POV is not finding many adherents within the ?Jewish community. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent history edits

This edit[23] by anon editor ’68…, Richardson, Texas’, lost 20-year-old book references to CAMERA in Rubenberg; the complete quotes were already here on the talkpage[24]. I have re-inserted the references, but have ‘soft-peddled’ them as footnotes, rather than as how I first included them [25].

In light of other events emanating recently from activities on this page, it is being watched by many others. I will be defending RS'd material which complies with NPOV, and let the POV-pushers war-on as they appear to be bent on doing (or just bent). Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to edit it out, we were just looking to keep the lead brief at that point. It looks fine where it is and I think the blockquotes are helpful. --69.210.15.59 (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you wanted this, but here's a link that shows Freidman's article is a review of Tivnan's book here. It only provides an introduction to the article, but I think you would be able to find the whole article for free somewhere. --69.210.15.59 (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was reasonably sure it wasn't intentional, I looked at your adds here and your contrib history. Do I presume too much to guess UofT, Dallas? The ref has good follow-on as the article is edited. Thanks (both of you) for the ref info, but Highbeam is too much like driving into oncoming traffic. I will keep looking and leave the hidden comment there for a while. The use of that kind of edit might of use to deter drive-by edits, esp after consensus on critical edits has been achieved. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My ISP is based in Texas for whatever reason, but I actually live in and go to school in Indiana. Some of my edits were 68.253... as well. --69.210.15.59 (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask if you were 68.253... you might want to consider creating an user name for consistency, especially if your IP shifts. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a review essay of the Tivnan book; havent been able to locate a free version. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 12:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

general comment

I was asked by MBisantz to comment. I think the present article overall is reasonably balanced. What one thinks of this organisation will depend on what one thinks of the underlying issue. It makes no attempt at present to disguise its political orientation, and will be applauded by those who support that position and opposed by those who oppose it. Frankly partisan news organisations have their place, for among them thee is an improved chance that all things that need discussion will not remain hidden. Saying such an organisation is partisan is not condemning it.

What I have some problems with is historical perspective. One can accumulate any number of instances to praise or discredit this orgnaisation's reporting. It's been going for quite a while now; most of the material is from the internet era, not surprisingly, but there should be some attempt to discuss the history of the organisation. At least the list of examples should be chronological. With respect to one recent disputed addition, the Friedman quote is a little old, and just unsupported opinion from someone without (I think) a WP article. There should also be some indication of where other organisations making comments about them stand--its better not to rely on other WP articles to be NPOV. And using the references section to insert longish quotes is discouraged.

But it's not unreasonable to keep a NPOV tag on an article on a subject like this as long as there are any unsettled problems. The effort spent in arguing over the tag s better devoted to the article. DGG (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First, welcome and thanks for the comments. I agree with there being a need for some partisan news organizations, and think covering the organization from a historical perspective is an interesting idea.

The only thing I would respond to in a different way is the length of some of the quotes in the references section. I agree that longish quotes should be discouraged, they have just become necessary to verify to some editors that CAMERA and a variety of reliable external sources recognize the group as a pro-Israeli media monitor (or "partisan news organization" as you call it). I am of the feeling that the quotes could be trimmed if other editors also feel that the characterization is documented and clear enough without inline quotes. --68.253.50.109 (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The organization's homepage currently features a rather shockingly slanderous anti-Palestinian cartoon. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Which image? Wageslave (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think boodles is talking about the blog and the "All we are saying is give jew-hating murderers a chance" cartoon. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The one I was referring to is gone from the CAMERA home page; it was the one titled "Trouble in Tibet" which is archived here. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

i found the cartoon to be a political statement against the olmert government.Davidg (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA's "plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia" article

Regarding this passage;

"CAMERA also attempts to use Wikipedia to covertly disseminate discredited pro-Israeli propaganda. Electronic Intifada uncovered private email messages between CAMERA staff and volunteers that outlined an attempt to subvert Wikipedia editorial controls and leadership structures."[26]

I imagine will start a debate shortly. So, I've added this item.

To note, I agree that it should remain as added.

Wageslave (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That passage needs to be NPOV'ed. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Boodlesthecat. Bangpound (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds quite un-Wiki-whatever to me, based on the five pillars. CAMERA was also active on this article in February or March, with Gni, et.al. I believe it can be ref'd from here, during that period. That incident also seems like it should be included here, if this section remains. Are there rules about sections 'on Wikipedia' being 'in Wikipedia'? I dunno. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that the edits reflected [here] are POV. I find Boodlesthecat's original to be fair given the information we have so far. Furthermore, Electronic Intifada is an online publication. It's not an activist site. There's also no independent confirmation yet of the emails. Can we turn the tone down just a bit? Bangpound (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada is not an activist site! Why do they call it that then?Juanita (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like an accurate description of EI's article. Wageslave (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Would the UK Indymedia be considered a reliable source? Seems we need one other than EI itself, given that the section was deleted. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Indymedia is not an RS. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[This edit] definitely bothers me. If people are being sanctioned on Wikipedia for the contents of the emails, why are they not credible enough to support the fact that CAMERA participated in a campaign to subvert Wikipedia administrative structures and pass off discredited research as fact? The text that was removed was full of POV. I find [this version] to be the best so far. Bangpound (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

EI is good enough as long as what is said is attributed to it and not wikipedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest holding off in this area for a few days. It's too soon. The story will probably be picked up by the mainstream press, and then we'll have verifiable sources. --John Nagle (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. It doesn't establish any relevance. EI links should be kept to the "Pro-Palestinian advocacy and watchdog sites" external links section of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, where they belong. John Nevard (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Absolutely not an RS source.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Update on this issue here. Carol Moore 03:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'd like to have better sources on this. The story is being mentioned in blogs, but the mainstream press hasn't picked it up yet. Give it a few days. --John Nagle (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The major spanish newspaper El Mundo has, or at least their online supplement: [27] I agree that there is no need to rush. <eleland/talkedits> 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit from U.S. Department of Justice

For some reason, someone at the U.S. Dept. of Justice deleted info. on CAMERA's activities regarding I-P articles.
--NBahn (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Now that's funny!
:-)
--NBahn (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that's wierd. Here's the diff: [28]--John Nagle (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

IP address [149.101.1.130] resolves to "wdcsun30.usdoj.gov". A whole series of "wdcsun*.usdoj.gov" machines appear in various logs, so it's probably an outgoing web proxy. If you try a traceroute, you get a "destination unreachable" at exit from QWest's network. That machine seems to be a source of miscellaneous browsing traffic by DC employees; "wdcsun30.usdoj.gov" comes up in blogs for Mini Cooper owners. --John Nagle (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I undid yet another edit from the U.S. Dept. of Justice. This is positively bizarre.....
--NBahn (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on WP:AN about this. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are complaining about someone removing a section of text sourced by the primary source only (EI), in whose interest it is to protect this wikipedia text, and backed up by a piece on a site with the disclaimer FAIR does not endorse every opinion expressed or vouch for facts presented here?. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'm removing it, in absence of any contrary input at the ANI page which I requested under the section 'reporting this on wikipedia', and the lack of agreement in the section above, that this text deserves any place on wikipedia as notable third party sourced information. MickMacNee (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-added with the el mundo as a source, and yes we can use non-english language sources on english wikipedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you speak spanish btw? Have you any clue what their article says? MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be quite hilarious if in fact the Spanish article said that there had been a whole bunch of drama about a complete non-issue on wikipedia who were made to look like dramatic fools in trying to uphold their NPOV policy by dancing to the tune of a POV organisation on the back of exposing a bunch of kids on an email group, and what a complete laugh the whole of wikipedia looks in light of all this, but I am absolutely confident that you speak perfect Spanish, and haven't included this source purely on the basis of containing the words Wikipedia, Electronic Intifada and CAMERA. MickMacNee (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to take a position on whether this material should be added/kept or not. But since I do read Spanish, I will say that the El Mundo article says nothing at all along the lines of MickMacNee's speculation; it reports the story exactly as it has happened (or, perhaps I should say, it corresponds to my own understanding of what has happened). The rendering of Zeq's quotation into Spanish is accurate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, complete with a lovely editorial comment on how the Jews infest Wikipedia. That would be just great to add to the article. John Nevard (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What an absurd thing to say. What the article actually says is that it appears, from a quick survey of recent changes to the most controversial articles, that many of those changes seem to have been made by Jews - a judgment made on the basis of usernames, comments on talk pages, and other edit behavior. Now, I think that is an extremely distasteful and quite possibly inaccurate claim - not to mention utterly irrelevant to the whole question, which is a matter of politics not religion. But: "Jews infest Wikipedia"? That's just not what it says, and your exaggeration/misrepresentation - particularly the false claim that the word "infest" was used - is unhelpful, to put it mildly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I didn't mean to imply that the article was openly anti-semitic rather than a more charitable conclusion, like that it was very poorly researched. I sincerly apologize. John Nevard (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Any of your charitable conclusions lack any charitable support. As such, your apology is sincerely accepted. --68.72.46.218 (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know why the same standards which apply to Albanians, Armenians, Azeris, etc don't apply to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nobody would bat an eye if a breakdown were taken of Chinese/Japanese/Korean usernames editing Liancourt rocks, and I've seen AfDs on ethnic conflict articles where the votes were actually broken down into "Russian," "Eastern European," "Everyone Else." Or, to take another example, our articles on whiteness and black people are an awful mess, and it's not unreasonable to conclude that the vastly disproportionate whiteness of Wikipedians has something to do with it. That's not an "anti-white" statement, it's a reasonable conjecture about the likely systemic biases that naturally grow from our contributors' demographic groups.

So, no, you don't get to play the antisemitism card here, thank you. <eleland/talkedits> 21:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken the edit consisted of deleting the public exposure of private email addresses of innocent people who wished only to help make wiki balanced in POV. I would not even be surprised if such a thing were illegal ie the publication of these emails and their addressess. Juanita (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry no, publishing emails is not illegal. Are there any other laws you'd like to make up while you're at it? 207.245.2.34 (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there's nothing illegal about publishing emails. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no sympathy for CAMERA's attempts to insert a pro-Israeli bias into Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And if they operated in the open then this never would have happened. What a shame for innocent members of CAMERA that other members in the group ruined the organization's reputation and got private e-mails exposed. --68.72.46.218 (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pity? The Israelis have attempted similar things in the past, as have the Palestinians; I have no sympathy for either of them. CAMERA in particular is, as far as I can tell from this article, exactly the sort of organization which would be involved in such, and are pretty clearly a pro-Israeli, not pro-accuracy, group. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"as far as I can tell from this article" - Jesus H Christ. MickMacNee (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Returning to the main topic, edits from a DoJ computer, that really is a problem. It may be some employee misusing Government resources. It may be that DoJ has an open proxy server, and someone from the outside is using it. Does DoJ have an abuse address? --John Nagle (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been delt with as the info has been passed on to the communications dept. at Metawiki see here --> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee/Notifications#US_Department_of_Justice_blocked_for_ongoing_vandalism if you have useful info then drop those people a line. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

71.178.102.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- Removes same info Diff -- What about this edit, made previous to the U.S. Dept. Justice IP address, from a similar location? Cirt (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of testimonials section

I removed the "website testimonials" section; it is just plain old inappropriate for an encyclopedia, completely non-neutral, and very out of place. While I like the quote in "perspectives on CAMERA", I don't see where it fits in and it certainly does not warrant its own section. I also edited the criticism section to make it read better. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-added, I don't see where you are coming from with the 'completely innappropriate' comment.MickMacNee (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My edit comment got garbled. I was comparing it to publisher's blurbs, which should be avoided as they may frequently be taken out of context. When the major source of praise is comments of this sort provided by the source, it is best to minimise dependence on them. See Talk:Eric Lerner for a current discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This communication [29] you removed does not look like it even remotely resembles 'publishers blurb', which I presume you mean to say self promotion. If there is any sense of self promotion here, it is editors who admitted their bias at ANI/wikilobby in support of EI writing things in the article of the form 'EI said on its website....' and referencing said website. MickMacNee (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the linked discussion at a completely different page, to which I had already contributed, and which formed the basis for my decision. I note that the principle seems to apply here, as Ed Koch in his full letter implies that he found it difficult to track down an ephemeral statement which CAMERA, because of the comprehensiveness of its coverage, found; when taken out of context it comes across as much more of a "testimonial" than it actually is. Also, perhaps you should calm down about this issue? You seem to be everywhere at once; that sort of reaction always makes one lose perspective, IMHO. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That discussion seems like an extrordinary attempt at censorship of comments that are attributable to notable persons and exist in the real world. MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I previously had misgivings about the Koch quote. What he was praising was CAMERA's Israel-related article tracking and indexing system (powered by Google, incidentally), not their political positions. --John Nagle (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the older editors of this article had previously discussed this matter above.

My feeling on the matter was and is that Wikipedia:SELFPUB says that questionable sources should not be used as sources in articles about themselves when the information contained therein is unduly self-serving. Therefore, I felt that these sources were very weak and should be avoided if at all possible.

On the other hand, I was seeking to establish consensus with an editor who now appears to be indefinitely blocked. The sourcing is weak since it is an organization providing praise of itself, but this doesn't mean that no third party positive reaction can be included. I tried to give a few examples of positive and third-party praise above (though they are not very ideal). If other editors feel positive reaction should be included, then I would encourage them to find reliable third party sources with the positive reaction included. --68.72.46.218 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The communication linked above is a third party source, but it appears it falls below some new 'book cover' guideline introduced on the back of a few comments at another article, now being claimed as a reason for removal. MickMacNee (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The section violated WP:WEIGHT, was self-published, and added absolutely nothing to the article. We do not and should not be listing endorsements of random groups on Wikipedia; I know this is hard for people to understand, but this is an encyclopedia, not a battleground, and our goal is NPOV, not "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestine". Our goal is to present reality and allow the reader to make up their mind. The goal of the endorsements section is to make up the reader's mind for them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me right here right now how a letter between two independant people is self-published? And if you think the section "EI exposes CAMERA" - source EI, is all about letting people make up their own mind, then you must be on drugs. MickMacNee (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Which drugs are you referring to? Please check all that apply.

• Caffeine
  
• Alcohol
  
• Nicotine
  
• Aspirin
  

--NBahn (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Was this meant to be a serious post? I find your facetious reply here, considering your complete lack of a reply to other questions elsewhere, quite disingenuous. MickMacNee (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you honestly expect a legit response after your "you must be on drugs" slur? Garbage In, Garbage Out, kind sir. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your erasing of this section seems to ignore comments made by a number of editors in support of some or all of this positive testimonial. You seem to have parachuted out of nowhere, without reading the discussion, and erased a whole section. That doesn't appear to be reasonable behaviour. Meellaahh (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"You seem to have parachuted out of nowhere" - on your very first Wikipedia edit?? God I love irony. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. The deletion by new user Meellaahh (talk · contribs) at [30] is, indeed, not a typical first user edit. --John Nagle (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of CAMERA folks recently got banned, so he may be a sock. Or just a random member of CAMERA, or maybe even just a random person. Let's not get paranoid, folks. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, almost all of the previous support for including this section came from the users that were indefinitely blocked. I agree with the deletion, and find the support for the section weak. I think its atleast best to suggest a good WP way to accomplish what other editors seem to be concerned with though..

So, many other articles about similar types of groups contain a response from the group (if the group has published any) or limited support for their work which is directly stated and published in reliable third party sources. Just because other articles are like this it may not apply here, but I think that is atleast a reasonable suggestion (assuming that any response or direct and reliable third party support can be found)..

Thus, I think if any of the concerned editors can find information of this sort (and not indirect or self-published support), then they could consider adding this to the article instead. --68.72.46.218 (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To settle this, I'd suggest keeping the Rep. Tom Lantos endorsement (he's on record as being very pro-Israel), and maybe the Russian dissident endorsement if it can be sourced. The Koch endorsement was always iffy; the out of context quote makes it look more supportive than it is. Dershowitz is already cited in another reference. --John Nagle (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Lantos and the Russian dissident is that the only source for them is CAMERA itself. I agree that Koch seems a bit tangential. I think it would be ideal if someone could track down the original Lantos and Russian dissident quotes, though I didn't have much luck when I tried awhile ago. --68.72.46.218 (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Two third party sources mentioning CAMERA positively which I proposed months ago:

• [31] praises groups like CAMERA for "[making] the media subject to certain checks and balances".
• [32] praise the work of groups like CAMERA for "[enabling] aggregates of public opinion to speak out".

That being said, I only propose the sources because they offer third-party support which is slightly more direct than Koch. They are still a bit tangential, and I am indifferent as to whether they are included.--68.72.46.218 (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I simply do not see the relevance of such a section of back-slapping and congratulations; it serves no purpose other than self-aggrandizement, an attempt to show how legitimate they are just because famous and unconnected people/organizations like them. Now, if there was a section on awards or accolades, i.e. Pulitzers, Scripps Howard, etc...that would be more than appropriate.

I poked into a few random media outlet articles and don't really see many that have similar sections. The few that do, such as CounterPunch#Praise, should be excised as well. Tarc (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, It's the exact same as the relevance of a criticism section. And Nagle, judging by the discussion section here, you seem to be aware that my edit isn't a 'deletion'. It is reinserting language that was deleted. I don't see how some of you can justify removing documented praise from this article while leaving in the criticsm. I think there's some sort of wikipedia guideline against that, isn't there? Meellaahh (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, its not even remotely the same as a criticism section actually, as the "Website Testimonials" was culled from CAMERA's own "see who likes us" section of their web page. That isn't objective or WP:NPOV in the slightest. The criticism/controversy style sections of articles generally come from other journalists, media organizations/watchdogs, etc... independent of who and what they are criticizing. The opinions of a Lantos, Dershowitz, or Sharansky? Not so much. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And given that some were culled from talks at CAMERA events, we can not rule out that they were paid for! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc, it has nothing in common with a criticism section. A criticism section often has many quotes in it, but this isn't so much because it is a section of quotes but rather because sometimes quotes are succient, and specifying the source of criticism is often important. If it is nothing BUT quotes, it probably needs to be fixed up and improved, and I think the criticism section of this article could use a bit of work, though it really all boils down to critics basically saying "This group isn't a media watchdog, they're actually an Israel advocacy group." Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting edit by User:68.72.34.126

The reason I'm doing so is because I feel that there is insufficient explanation as to the rationale. I am not asking for a rationale that I agree with; I am asking for a rationale that I understand.
--NBahn (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The rationale was that multiple users have been expressing concern about the length of the reference list. I would rather keep the blockquotes, but trimming the online ones would make sense since they are only a click away. It seems important to keep the others since they aren't as easily accessible.

That being said, this seems like a minor issue and leaving them as they are also seems acceptable to me.--68.72.34.126 (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On another note, this article was picked up yet again by the press here. --68.72.34.126 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA: How and Why to Edit Wikipedia

It appears CAMERA is appealing for editors on their site now. [33] While it is encouraging to now see this being done in the open, I am still not sure how to take this when one of their members has been banned for previous COI issues. --68.72.34.126 (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Boston Globe has now published a story on this matter: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2008/05/03/war_of_the_virtual_wiki_worlds/ -- ChrisO (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

use of word purported is POV

I'm commenting on this diff. The use of the word purported is very POV. Purported suggests falseness, and nobody has denied the authenticity of the messages. Bangpound (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bangpound--

I'll be more than happy to fix it for ya! It's been sticking in my craw, too, but at the time it was written all of the attention was on debating disciplinary measures and I didn't want to jump on this and seem overzealous.
--NBahn (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

reverting edit by User:64.230.95.56

I respectfully submit that if you're going to label a website as posting hate speech, then you must cite reliable sources. I looked at the website cited -- and I'll look again to make sure -- but I didn't see anything stating that CAMERA posts hate speech. I'm no fan of CAMERA, but with something like this, it really would be prudent to make certain that you are citing reliable sources.

--NBahn (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oboler

In regards to your concerns about facts coming before commentary, this is fine. However, the beginning of the WP section establishes notability and notes the first chronological event in the incident. The event wouldn't be notable if CAMERA had simply set up a Google group. CAMERA's position/reply should be and is given, but it should be done after relevance has been established to the reader.--68.72.34.126 (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi 68.72.34.126, I was in the middle of adding references so had to do a merge before leaving the editing session (sorry about that). I believe that what you refer to as notability is actually POV, it happens to be the POV in the article (so relevant), but it is still POV. Chronologically, the first incident was what CAMERA did, not how it was reported. I was much happier with an earlier edit of yours before you "simplified" the section. The simplification (though based on the register) is very leading. At least on the page about CAMERA, the information on the group reporting the story is relevant and a key part of the story... this also makes it notable but also more increases the level of truth. Sorry again about having to merge like that... the alternative was losing the edits. I did come straight here afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oboler (talk • contribs) 22:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't realize you were in the middle of editing or I would have waited a few minutes. What was the previous wording? It may work better, the idea was to keep this section from becoming too long..--68.72.34.126 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean this previous wording?:

"In an April 2008 article on the pro-Palestinian news site Electronic Intifada, e-mails purported to have been sent between CAMERA members were published, which laid out a plan to cooperate with prominent editors of Wikipedia, the open-content online encyclopedia, to correct perceived anti-Israel bias on the site"

If this is what you meant, it seems acceptable as well.--68.72.34.126 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the one, though I think this new version is now the best of the options and would prefer it. It actually isn't much long (additions are in footnotes), it is about consistent with other sections in the article, and it gives the most information. Can you live with this one? (Incidently, while I believe putting EI in context is important, it definitely needed some citations! I thing those are pretty decent ones, what do you think?) Oboler (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Either version seems acceptable to me. And while I hadn't heard of either of the sources, they both seem fairly reputable to me.--68.72.34.126 (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, so we have a stable (for now) version. Thanks for the help and the chat. Oboler (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Sceptre's edit

User:Sceptre has inserted the {{confusing}} tag (see below).

Unless User:Sceptre identifies what s/he finds so confusing about that section, then I will remove the tag.

--NBahn (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I ended up rewriting it before I saw this, and removing the tag myself. The section reads better now, I suppose. The reporting of the incident still seems a bit contradictory to me, but I believe this is because there are different accounts of it. I'm not sure how the text should handle this..--69.210.8.93 (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and syntax made it confusing. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you still find it confusing?
--NBahn (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

69.210.8.93, I've merged your changes to the formatting of the first paragraph back into the previous version of the text of this paragraph (with some additional minor changes for clarity to address the concern raised by User:Sceptre). The previous version had been improved through discussion between myself and 68.72.34.126. If anyone has a concern with any point in that discussion and the agreement we reached, please comment in the talk immediately above and we can try work through it. Given this is the page on camera, their stated intention is critical to this article IMHO. Oboler (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to provide their reasoning as a response to the accusation?--69.210.8.93 (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think not in this particular case as this IS the CAMERA article, so they should be the focus . The most logical format therefore is SUBJECT did X, Y responded with Z, this resulted in A, B, C. In another article ofcourse the subject would be different, so if this was in the EI article, then your proposal would make a lot of sense (though there is still the argument that it is out chronological order). Oboler (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Some sources that can be used in this article re: CAMERA efforts on Wikipedia

Sources

Here are some of the related sources covering the above-mentioned info. Cirt (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• McElroy, Damien (2008-05-08). "Israeli battles rage on Wikipedia: The conflict in the Middle East has spread to the internet with Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups using Wikipedia, the electronic encyclopedia, to push their message". The Daily Telegraph. Telegraph Media GroupLimited. Retrieved 2008-05-08.
• Shamah, David (2008-05-06). "Digital World: Internet Independence Day". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2008-05-06.
• Ini, Gilead (2008-05-03). "CAMERA: How and Why to Edit Wikipedia". CAMERA - Media Analyses. Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. Retrieved 2008-05-04.
• Beam, Alex (2008-05-03). "War of the virtual Wiki-worlds". The Boston Globe. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-05-04. -- note: same article covered in the International Herald Tribune [34]
• Leahy, Brian (2008-04-30). "Department of Justice Temp Banned from Wikipedia". G4 - The Feed - The Only News You Need to Know. G4 TV. Retrieved 2008-05-04.
• "US Dept. of Justice IP address blocked after 'vandalism' edits to Wikipedia". Wikinews. 2008-04-29. Retrieved 2008-05-04.
• Weiss, Philip (2008-04-24). "If You Don`t Want to Be Labelled a Cabal, Don`t Act Like One". Israel News. www.israelenews.com. Retrieved 2008-05-04.

Nice list..--69.210.8.93 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Founder issue, revisited

Back in 2006, we had a big disagreement over who founded CAMERA. See "Founder issue" on this talk page. Multiple sources said one of the founders was Charles Jacobs, but Gni (talk · contribs), whom we now know to be a CAMERA employee, insisted Jacobs wasn't a founder. At the time, Gni wrote: CAMERA has added a history page to its Web site. This page clarifies the roles played by the various officials--Mieselman, Levin and Jacobs. I assume this settles the issue, so I've updated the article appropriately. Follow the citation link, or see http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=48 Gni 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (That link is now [35]; CAMERA has a content-management system that doesn't maintain permalinks).

Now that we know that Gni writes for CAMERA, it seems likely that the CAMERA history page was created by him or at his instructions. So he was citing his own web site as a reliable source.

So we have at least two clear cites of Charles Jacobs saying he was a founder of CAMERA, and we have the the CAMERA writer saying he wasn't. All parties agree that Charles Jacobs is no longer associated with CAMERA. We're probably seeing the fallout of some internal disagreement within CAMERA. --John Nagle (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

More or less true. I think both statements could briefly be mentioned in one of the first two sections of the article..--12.226.185.197 (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP edits and Electronic Intifada-CAMERA dispute on Wikipedia

Per this diff:

I have reverted this diff and similar diffs, since:

1. The presentation of the EI-CAMERA dispute in the above diff presents only one side of the story and is in blatant violation of WP:NPOV.
2. The material presented in the above diff is already covered in the section entitled Wikipedia.
3. Because the material has already been presented in another section, the repetition of the material is in violation of WP:UNDUE.

Subsequent attempts to insert this material will be similarly reverted. If the attempts do not stop, I will seek semi-protection for this article. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 04:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is deeply worrying to see the removal of this important section on what CAMERA tried to do to Wikipedia. The material in question puts the case rather mildly, this was not playful tag-team interference, but a full-blown attempt to subvert the workings of the project. It is of great importance that we document what happened for everyone to see.

• CAMERA was caught attempting to subvert Wikipedia’s transparency philosophy by secretly recruiting members to join and publish pro-Israeli POV, and later attempt to become administrators.
• Gilead Ini, who works for CAMERA as a senior research analyst, sent out an e-mail calling for 10 volunteers to publish Israeli POV on Wikipedia. 50 volunteers replied.
• Secrecy was emphasized. Ini sent a follow up e-mail which said, "There is no need to advertise the fact that we have these group discussions. Anti-Israel editors will seize on anything to try to discredit people who attempt to challenge their problematic assertions, and will be all too happy to pretend, and announce, that a 'Zionist' cabal . . . is trying to hijack Wikipedia."
• Another e-mail written by a volunteer said, "We will go to war after we have built an army, equiped (sic) it, trained." The need to become Wikipedia administrators was also discussed.
• After exposure of the scheme, a panel of three Wikipedia administrators sanctioned or indefinitely blocked and banned five members of Ini's group, declaring, "Wikipedia is based on open, transparent editing in an atmosphere of mutual respect between editors. This goal is fundamentally incompatible with the creation of a private group to surreptitiously coordinate editing on Wikipedia by ideologically like-minded individuals." PR^talk 08:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, there is already a section on the event. Please see #Wikipedia. In the future, please do not make me repeat myself. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 09:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The existing section on CAMERA's subversion attempt 1) is at the very bottom of the article, downplaying its seriousness, 2) is POV, and 3) obfuscates the issue. In saying that the CAMERA editors were sanctioned, it ignores that the reason was SECRECY, and instead falsely suggests that the reason for the sanctions was that CAMERA set up a private group. It falsely implies the other side is guilty the same behavior, a secret attempt to subvert Wikipedia, without any evidence. The material Michael Safyan keeps removing is NPOV from a respected, main stream media organization. Claims that an honest description of events "is in blatant violation of WP:NPOV" ignores the fact that CAMERA got caught violating Wikipedia's fundamental philosophy of openness. Removing a clear description of the facts about this is WP:VANDALISM.68.37.255.64 (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have issues with the way the event is currently described, the solution is NOT to write another version of the events, and stick somewhere else in the article. Instead, please make a case for requested changes here on Talk, and gain consensus for it. NoCal100 (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Best to rework the current Wikipedia section, and briefly summarize the controversy in the lead.--76.214.163.242 (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The controversy is now noted briefly in the lead, and the detailed section seems to do a reasonable job of relaying what the sources say..--76.214.115.168 (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is pretty decent. It could be argued that more "defense" quotes are needed from CAMERA or CAMERA supporters. I don't believe that any mention of the events are necessary in the lede; we are talking about an organization that has been around since 1980 and has campaigned against... well, pretty much everybody, at some point or another. If we were talking about some other important website (say, they started a Google bomb or a campaign to suppress certain YouTube videos) then I really very much doubt we would put that in the lede. So it seems to be a case of WP:SELFREFerencing an on-wiki controversy in a WP:UNDUE weighted manner. Given the high-profile nature of this incident we should be doing our best to avoid even the appearance of "getting back at" the CAMERA folks, as much as some of us might feel they deserve it. <eleland/talkedits> 02:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning the Wikipedia incident might be necessary for readers to provide context about CAMERA's relationship with Wikipedia, but that being said it doesn't seem like it has to be in the lead.

That being said, the argument for the inclusion of more "defense" quotes seems completely off as support is already being offered from Andre Oboler, David Shamah, and Gilead Ini (three times!). I'm not even sure if any more "defense" quotes could be located, but it appears to be that the section has already gone out of its way to try not to look biased.--69.208.132.88 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Pro-Israel" vs. "Pro-Accuracy"

This discussion sometimes seems to have bogged down in arguing about what is relevant. One example of this is the characterization of CAMERA as pro-Israel, instead of pro-Accuracy. However, one point that I don't think has yet been made is that noting CAMERA's pro-Israel stance is providing non-obvious information to the reader. Presenting CAMERA as pro-accuracy seems redundant, as I think that this would be assumed by any reader, and would only be notable if this was not the case cojoco (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an astute observation (previously noted), and I agree. I think you are on to something and I believe it is worth some discussion. Based on what CAMERA’s web page says, they watch-dog only anti-Israeli media, people and events. That seems very much different than what their name, ‘Accuracy in Middle East Reporting’ implies. You call it ‘providing non-obvious information to the reader,’ maybe false or deceptive advertising might be more appropriate, certainly, from my bias it is that. The word propaganda comes right to mind, if a POV is hiding behind a name. I believe that this incongruity should be noted in the article; its name says accuracy; but its POV is absolutely not that. That seems to be an obvious NPOV violation from the get-go that should be covered in the lede. Should Wikipedia not state the obvious? This seems to be quite common generally, among pro-Israel watch dog groups, based on this readily available list. We have a number of these innocently, neutrally named watchdogs that only watch one side of the news. Many on the pro-Israel side contain no mention of Israel or the MidEast; Honest Reporting is my particular favorite. I can also add Facts and Logic About the Middle East to that, (or at least when it started early 1980s), based on my recollection.

I think this quite obvious pro-accuracy, pro-honesty propagandizing equality to pro-Israel groups is somewhat less than forthcoming and deceptive on their part. It seems to be very common amongst the pro-Israel PACs as well. You might want to look here[36]]to see the names of the largest pro-Israel PACs. They too are certainly not named to indicate who they represent and support. This is completely different than other types of PACs. This might give you an inkling of the breadth of your observation; it seems pro-Israel-wide on the Watchdog and PAC fronts to me. Comments? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is ok to categorize Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting as a pro-Israel organization; **HOWEVER**, I strongly object to your suggestion that they are nefariously trying to hide who they are or that they are maliciously using deceptive advertising. CAMERA and HonestReporting, along with their supporters, honestly believe that the media is biased against Israel. Furthermore, these organizations consider it important to be accurate (although what they view as accurate may differ from what you view as accurate), even if it means correcting pro-Israel content; for example, CAMERA has an article which states that a pro-Israel letter attributed to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is a fake [37]. These groups "watch-dog only anti-Israeli media" as you put it, because from their point of view -- with the exception of Fox News which nobody believes, anyway -- all mainstream news organizations are skewed against Israel. If you are going to hold NPOV and other wiki-policies to non-wiki organizations, then at the very least, please AGF towards them. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 01:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Safyan--
With all due respect, CAMERA's Gilead Ini did his level-headed best to subvert Wikipedia's processes. I do not believe that that reflects well upon their honesty/values. Ju$t my two cent$.
--NBahn (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to do a pretty fair job with describing CAMERA's work. If there is something that is in a reliable source it should be added, but discussion about personal opinions seems to be counterproductive.

So basically, if a reliable source has criticized CAMERA for the perception that it hides its intentions then add it to the criticism section; otherwise, it is probably a counterproductive discussion.--69.208.141.201 (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I found a quote which addresses some of these concerns further down in the article and moved it up.--69.208.141.201 (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael, based on CAMERA’s own words we can do nothing else; it is more than OK; it is required by NPOV. Additionally, some characterize it as right wing and zealous, which to my mind is heading toward the fringe. I have no doubt that the CAMERA crew honestly believes that some media are against them, OK. But, you write ‘from their point of view … all mainstream news organizations are skewed against Israel.” You use the broad descriptive ‘the media’ yourself. Give me a break! That appears like paranoia; maybe you should look here [38]; it describes ‘two tour-de-force works devoted to an analysis of the U.S. media as it reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Maybe we can work together and incorporate them into one appropriate page or another.

Accuracy is good, but with CAMERA so often making a big deal about minutia within media reporting; it seems like a self-serving attempt to document media bias everywhere and thus hide your target. This might very well lead to paranoia. One should be very careful about reading and believing one’s own propaganda. Propaganda is what CAMERA produces; it is professional zealotry, loud, and incessant. All from the guise of good ol’ American words like “Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America”. That is deception, (that is their right), but that is propaganda, because is not what their name says. How should Wikipedia NPOV this obvious obfuscation when it is stated in CAMERA’s own words. It is propaganda when CAMERA tells people one side of the I/P conflict couched from the lofty heights of ‘accuracy in Middle East reporting’, in America yet. And then, we have their euphemistic co-ideologues at Honest Reporting, Accuracy in Media, Just Journalism (oh, a double whacha-cant-spellit), Media Watch International, Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting (PRIMER) (cute) and all available to do the bidding of ‘the lobby’. Look at the names of the P-side watchdogs; are their names widely euphemistic, non-descriptive, neutral, informative? Generally not. At least they give an inkling of who they are, and they don’t appear to be selling honesty, accuracy, justness or promoting responsibility. Maybe they are, but apparently, we get to make those decisions for ourselves, without being told so. Ya, I’ll take that to the proper page.

I did not make the "suggestion that they are nefariously trying to hide who they are or that they are maliciously using deceptive advertising,” you did and you objected to it. OK, I said deceptive advertising, and that was wrong; it is propaganda. CAMERA watches every word, every nuance of America’s fourth estate and comes close to looking like the fifth.

I haven’t found the right RS quote yet, so you will have to suffer through a similar one about pro-Israel PACs. It is the same modus operendi, just a different lobe of the lobby.

Other PACs, established by corporations, trade associations, consumer organizations, and religious or ideological groups, identify their sponsors or purpose in their titles. Not so with pro-Israel PACs, the largest of which are the National PAC, Washington PAC, Hudson Valley PAC, Joint Action Committee for Public Affairs PAC and Desert Caucus PAC, each of which spent more than $200,000 in the 1988 election cycle.

Of the 124 pro-Israel PACs established since 1976, only six mention the Middle East, Israel, Judaism or Zionism in their titles. Of these, only two were active after 1984. Pro-Israel PACs are therefore unique in that since 1984, nearly all of them have deliberately sought non-descriptive titles to mask their purpose from the American public.

A fourth special feature…

You can check those 1990 names against what is currently listed. [39] Now, I will take it to the proper page too, and note that although the Israeli lobby is one of the most powerful, the fact only occurs as a ‘see also’. That does not seem very informative for an encyclopedia, I wonder how many times editors have tried. Warmest Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC) (?Why format problem last para)

CasualObserver'48--
The above is VERY well done. On another note, it seems to me that archiving is past due for a part of this page. Could I trouble you to direct me to a page with instructions on how to do this?
--NBahn (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Mike to clear up any confusion. There was a debate about pro-Israel or pro-accuracy, but it seems to have largely been settled. The article seems to do a pretty fair job with describing CAMERA's work and documenting criticism. I believe your concern may be with other articles, but if not please try to provide some specific issues with the article.--68.251.188.63 (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the help pages, I really don't know how, so tend to leave that to others. I recommend that you watch what gets archived, because a lot of unresolved, valuable data tends to be swept away. I find reading the archives can yield and resurrect some gems from obscurity and bring them back for discussion. Secondly, the pro-accuracy thing was largely settled when a user, apparently working for and at CAMERA was found to be editwarring on the page. He came up with that phrase and was eventually banned here for WP:COI. There is still very much to add. Most interesting is what is still missing concerning what they have done throughout their history, not addition of criticism. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Most interesting is what is still missing concerning what they have done throughout their history, not addition of criticism." - Then add it? Bashing perceived problems of an article in generic terms on the talk page doesn't seem to improve the article very much.--68.251.188.63 (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So much work, so little time; have different fish to fry. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no platform for lobby organizations

I have read CAMERA's emailed 'instructions' on for instance how to alter history and how to get opposing editors banned, instructions that circle among editors here, and these people should be banned from Wikipedia immediately. Wikipedia is meant to inform, not to spread propaganda, and in this case hasbara.Sonyes (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue was about 6 months ago and has been dealt with.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Still very scary, ain't it. I doubt it has been totally dealt with. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of the individual editors from the campaign are still running around, but there doesn't seem to be any super organized cabal yet taking over administrative structures.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So, is there any proof that it has been dealt with? I encountered the same kind of lobby at the Dutch Wikipedia. Political editors. When adding facts, I got responses like "some facts are not neutral". I wonder what can be more neutral than facts. Also, politicians have been caught deleting - straight from the parliament server... What to do? Sonyes (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe it depends on how these facts are presented; a well-selected ref can do wonders. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not saying that the issue won't crop up again, just noting that the relevant Wikipedia editors involved in this particular campaign were sanctioned.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is an on-going problem, but is worse from other sources. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Crime and Punishment

It disgusts me that any group would so blatantly try to subvert Wikipedia, and by extension history itself. But at the same time, I'm also perturbed that their page was turned into a pile-on of censure.
Reading this article gives the impression that the group is made up of howling loons whose raison d'etre is to subvert Wikipedia. It seems much more likely that this is an organization which ~happens to have~ some howling loons in it. You know, kinda like EVERY OTHER advocacy group.
Return the article to NPOV - eliminate the bulk of the cites which only tell us how evil they are; condense the "list of charges" and stop teaching the next group to come along how to stuff beans up their nose. For God's sake don't whitewash it, but as it stands this article is a tar-and-featherring.
Pre-emptive full disclosure: I have absolutely no relationship of any sort to CAMERA, or any of the parties involved. Nor would I want to. arimareiji (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The text merely relays the incident as reported by reliable sources. Attribution is given to the parties, and to me it actually seems CAMERA's stance is given a bit more.--75.2.37.86 (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There are

1. A handful of characterizations which describe them neutrally.
2. A handful of quotes from their website, which come across as the ones most vulnerable to criticism.
3. Gobs of cites in which their critics give value judgments such as "Orwellian-named," "McCarthyism," "McCarthyite," "myopic and vindictive."
4. Gobs of cites in which they are characterized as saying that a person or organization has it in for them or Israel - without giving specific objection examples for the reader to judge whether it's fair or unfair, leading to the impression that this is simply a list of enemies. Several characterizations (not examples) of their objections are amazingly trite.
5. Only one quoted value judgment from "their supporters," that they are "doing God's work, battling insidious anti-Israeli bias in the media." This is actually a quote of a critic's characterization of their supporters, not a quote from a real supporter.
6. The only genuine supportive note about them in the whole article is an aside during a criticism: "CAMERA, which in so many cases I find useful and correct, is in this case making things worse."

To sum: A handful of neutral value judgments. A load of negative value judgments. One positive value judgment enclosed in a criticism. Plenty of weak straw-men supposedly on their side. Few specific examples for the reader to make their own value judgments, except in the description of their assault on Wikipedia - which is so painfully detailed that it could serve as a how-to manual. arimareiji (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added a specific example for the reader to make their own value judgment.

Arimareiji, can you come up with an example in which CAMERA was clearly right in its criticism, as opposed to de gustibus complaints that the media was less supportive of Israel than they would like? Nbauman (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your example was right on the money; thank you. I'll start digging around to try to find more examples to find out the answer to your question (and mine). I have no particular reason to believe that there really is substance to their complaints, I just have an extremely cynical nature. Thus it aroused my suspicions that there was such a long list of things that put sand in their panties, with no good example to show whether it really were sand or they were just being histrionic about dust. arimareiji (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Nbauman) There are literally hundreds such examples, which the criticized media went on to correct, which can be found here. Looking just at the current content on CAMERA's home page, we find criticism of an LA Times story which falsely claimed that the IAEA concluded that the only explanation for uranium particles found at a suspected Syrian nuclear facility must have been "missiles dropped from the Israeli planes", when in fact the IAEA report made no such claim - rather, it was a claim by the Syrian government. The LA Times went on to correct this mistake, proving the criticism was right. NoCal100 (talk)`

The original article and correciton may be found here The correction could be a result of anyone correcting them though, so we should find a correction where the corrected source attributes the correction to CAMERA (if we want to attribute the correction to CAMERA's work).--76.251.244.66 (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a whole list under "Commentary and critiques by CAMERA," and I think that gives a fair sense of what CAMERA's views are and what CAMERA is trying to do. We also included some of the statements that some (but not all) of CAMERA's targets made in their own defense, which is required by WP:NPOV. If anything, the article bends over backwards to be fair to CAMERA by not giving rebuttals to every one of their attacks.

You complained about "trite" above. This LAT story is just an arcane technical debate. Newspapers make mistakes of attribution like that all the time, which is why magazines like the New Yorker have fact-checking departments. It doesn't demonstrate anti-Israel bias or skewed coverage of Israel at all. It doesn't belong in the article.

We have links to the CAMERA site if anybody wants a long catalog of their complaints. If you want to add a link to External Links for "Corrections that have been issued as the result of CAMERA complaints" then I wouldn't have any immediate objection. Nbauman (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ehhh? I'm not sure that it's an "arcane technical debate" that when Israel bombs the crap out of a site in Syria and uranium is found at the site by the IAEA:

1. The Syrian government says the uranium came from Israeli missiles.
2. People speaking on the side of the Israeli government say it came from a near-operation nuclear reactor.
3. The IAEA refused to explicitly affirm either.
4. The correction was that the Syrian government, not the IAEA, said the uranium came from Israeli missiles.

I don't think it's evidence of "anti-Israel bias," I think it's simply error correction. But I do think it's a noteworthy correction.

Finally, 76.251.etc didn't '"complain" about the article presenting CAMERA as being trite, I did. But I think it's interesting that you say CAMERA has attacks and complaints, in fact a long catalog of their complaints - while their "targets" have rebuttals and statements. That's almost exactly the type of bias I was saying I think is present. arimareiji (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

When CAMERA accuse journalists of "demonstrably false and baseless defaming of Israel," wouldn't you call that an attack? Is it biased to call that an "attack"?

CAMERA attacks and complains about the media. The media are targets. The targets issue rebuttals and statements. That's neutral language. What more neutral words would you substitute? Nbauman (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So when CAMERA says something nasty, it's an "attack". When one of their "targets" calls CAMERA "Orwellian-named," "McCarthyite," "myopic and vindictive" it's a "rebuttal." When CAMERA lists corrections that the media agreed with and made as an alleged accomplishment, it's a "catalog of their complaints"?

Please reconsider whether your personal viewpoint is affecting your perception of NPOV when it comes to this single subject. arimareiji (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent summary Arimareiji. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

arimareiji, you haven't answered my question. When CAMERA accuse journalists of "demonstrably false and baseless defaming of Israel," wouldn't you call that an attack? Is it biased to call that an "attack"?

Could you please answer that question? Nbauman (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Nbauman, I believe you're missing the forest for the trees. If two sides have nasty things to say about each other, but one side is the "attacker" who only has "complaints," while the other is the "target" who makes "statements" and "rebuttals," NPOV has been lost. arimareiji (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the most carefully-edited articles in all of Wikipedia in terms of NPOV, fairness, objectivity, and choice of words. It represents a broad, well thought out consensus. I think we used those terms in their normal, objective, well-understood sense. If you disagree, and want to change it, we can get back the people who wrote it last time and you can make your case to them. But until then, that's the consensus. Nbauman (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Consensus can change.
2. I've been primarily referring to your wording, though as I said I think it represents an excellent case-in-point for some of the issues in the article.
3. Again, I implore you - if you still can't see that it's not NPOV to consistently use pejoratives against one side and amelioratives for the other, then you may want to step back from this specific subject to get some breathing room. arimareiji (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone is free to work to improve an article as long as the information being contributed to the article is verifiable by reliable sources. CAMERA's critics suggesting the group is "Orwellian-named" is easily verifiable, and outside journalists have also described the group's work as "attacks".[40][41] Samuel Freedman, a Jewish journalist and professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, has called them a group of "professional scolds". It seems to be fairly documented outside of Wikipedia, and that is why it seems to be fairly well documented here.

That being said, it would be better for everyone to aim their efforts and concerns at the article instead of at the talk page. If you don't feel CAMERA or its supporters are being properly quoted, then perhaps you could find better quote(s) of them. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit (barring huge COI's, surreptitiously coordinate editing, etc.) Just find a few support pieces (not written directly by CAMERA) and provide examples from their site which you find are more illustrative of their work. I don't think anyone will argue with that.--99.162.56.16 (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I think it's fair to say at this point that there's reasonable consensus that this article is not immutable. Examples will be much more easily to discuss than theme. I would like to note this in passing, from someone who's better with words than I am:

"Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article." (from NPOV)

Arimareiji (talk • contribs) 16:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is CAMERA a valid source for characterizing their own views? arimareiji (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See this. NoCal100 (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I wanted to make sure before using them as such. arimareiji (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think CAMERA is the best source for presenting its own viewpoint (in its own article) or for defending itself. I would just not like to see it being used to offer praise/support to itself (and I only say this because I encountered this in a few other articles at one point)..--71.156.95.246 (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur, and can amplify by saying that CAMERA's statements should always be attributed as such.* Not proving something is not the same as disproving it, but I was completely unable to corroborate CAMERA's characterization of NPR's Loren Jenkins** despite multiple Googlings.

* - Footnote: Nbauman was the last to edit in this comparison, but was not responsible for the wording I was editing.

** - How to tell you're a semi-dyslexic ex-WoW player: You keep typing "Leroy Jenkins" into the search field. arimareiji (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the editing you were referring to was directly in the citation: [42]. If not, add a {{fact}} tag --71.156.95.246 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally skeptical because I made a serious effort and couldn't find neutral sourcing (i.e. not CAMERA or a blog), but I don't think that justifies adding an arguably-pejorative {{fact}} tag. I thought it was sufficient to edit it to make it clear that's it's CAMERA's view and not an established fact. If I'm not answering what you meant just now, please clarify. As I said below, I'm old and easy to confuse. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I was confused too ^_^. I couldn't find the source outside of CAMERA either, I was just pointing out that CAMERA had made the statement. If you want to more directly attribute it I think this would be good, but it does already attribute to them.--71.156.95.246 (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - I did the searches for Leroy Loren Jenkins because I was trying to directly attribute it. Like you, I'm a big believer in letting facts/quotes speak for themselves rather than taking someone's characterization of them. But I couldn't find anything other than 1) CAMERA, 2) people who attributed these statements to CAMERA's assertion, and 3) people who used almost the same wording and gave no attribution. To me that's all one POV source, to be attributed as "CAMERA says this happened." arimareiji (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==B-Class== 1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. There are 63 references. 2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. There are four reasonably detailed sections which occur in articles of similar nature. 3. The article has a defined structure. There is a lead and standard sections. 4. The article is reasonably well written. No major grammatical errors jump out. 5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. An infobox and blockquotes from references are provided. 6. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. The article does not assume unnecessary technical background. --68.251.188.63 (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)