Talk:If Americans Knew

message: Please only vote if you have have contributed more than once to the article as of March 11, 2009
CAMERA No FAIR Yes StN (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I vote more than once? IronDuke 23:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Speaking of which, I can't find the quote "selective and biased use and interpretation of information" anywhere in the CAMERA article. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm very sorry, CO, but you don't have franchise here. StN was quite clear about who gets to vote and who doesn't. I'll also say that I, for one, am glad we can settle this with a mindless vote, rather than tiresome discussion and compromise. IronDuke 16:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Jay, if you click on the link for FAIR and see where it leads, there is no byline that I can see, and a disclaimer at the bottom of the page: "FAIR does not endorse every opinion expressed or vouch for facts presented here, except by ourselves." Is the opinion in question even expressed by them? IronDuke 15:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

text: And in this particular case...? IronDuke 16:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As Jay quite simply points out, and the reply reinforces, please provide something which notes such a valid temporal or policy reason for your particular limitation of my 'franchise'. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a joke, actually. Sorry it wasn't funnier. Did you have a specific reason you liked this specific FAIR cite here? IronDuke 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Truly, not even close to funny. It is nothing fancy, but it is what that RS says, which is what IAK claims. That FAIR says it is easy to make the case for pro-Israel bias seems important, and largely unacknowledged in the mainstream, although several recent academic works point the same way. I also like their characterization of the other view, being 'usually grounded in terminological quibbles'. That pretty much nails most of CAMERA's output on the head, and a reason for my 'no' on CAMERA. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But who wrote what you quote? Byline? And what of the dsiclaimer: "FAIR does not endorse every opinion expressed or vouch for facts presented here, except by ourselves." Can you say for certain that the opinion expressed is by FAIR? IronDuke 19:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, seems too much OR to determine, and for me, it really doesn't matter. What I do know is that FAIR published it, and that is what it says [oops] implies. Might you ask the same question of a simple characterization cited from JVL, or CAMERA? In the real world, would a professor ask to know the specific author of a simple characterization from Britannica or Wikipedia. This section is not rocket science, it is 'praise', and it was only included, as I remember, because the criticism section alone had plummeted from the balance of NPOV, with some editors seemingly giggling with glee as they fell. As to the 'disclaimer', it looks like a typically American CYA catch-all, but since FAIR is generally considered to be 'pro-Palestinian' also, I doubt they really disagree, if that is your concern. I know I didn't answer your specific questions, but I don't have them. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The disclaimer is indeed, quite troubling. If FAIR does not stand behind what it publishes on its website, or vouch for the "facts presented here", then it considerably reduces its value as a Reliable Source. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: "I have no idea..." I think you should have an idea before weighing in here. You are now !voting to include a cite whose validity you've no real sense of. IronDuke 02:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The website allows anonymous browsers to post comments. So what the disclaimer means is basically: "FAIR does endorse every opinion expressed or vouch for facts presented there by themselves but if some random loon posts a comment it's not our fault." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.60.179 (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any evidence to support this assertion? IronDuke 02:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the disclaimer supports that assertion. Try reading it. For the hard of thinking, here it is again with the relevant bits either in bold or struck out and an additional sentence that you've curiously left out for some reason. "FAIR's blog spotlights some of the more interesting media criticism and media news we've seen on the Web lately--as well as recent reporting that we thought merited comment. We don't endorse every opinion expressed or vouch for the facts presented, except by ourselves. Not all outlets archive material indefinitely, so some links may have expired. Registration may be required by some news sites." They're not talking about their website, reports or studies as a whole, they're talking about their blog 86.8.60.179 (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

text: That sounds like FAIR 'claiming', rather than the expressed concerns about 'disclaiming'. Sounds good enough to me. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors' vote on CAMERA and FAIR 

message: There is an excessively long excerpt in the Positions paragraph that is hardly encyclopedic. This needs to be re-written in an acceptable manner.Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positions 

message: The last paragraph of the praise section is a bit strange - it states that Weir received applause after giving a speech at a public library in Connecticut. Is this really encyclopedic? Does it really provide any information to the reader? I really don't understand why we're including this. GabrielF (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applause at a speech 

message: A Third Opinion has been requested.  I count at least three registered editors and an unregistered editor who have offered comments.  The unregistered editor may be one of the registered editors logged out (if so, please remember to log in; if not, you are advised and welcomed to create an account).  In any case, this dispute is not eligible for a Third Opinion; there are already at least three opinions.  If the editors wish to resolve this collaboratively, they may request moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on If Americans Knew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206153630/http://www.adl.org/main_Israel/wheels_of_justice.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Israel/wheels_of_justice.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203080916/http://www.adl.org/Israel/anti_israel/alison_weir/anti-Semitism.asp?m_flipmode=3 to http://www.adl.org/Israel/anti_israel/alison_weir/anti-Semitism.asp?m_flipmode=3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119043047/http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/cni.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/cni.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm very confused about the claim that the renowned institution "If Americans Know" "has been denounced as antisemitic by both pro- and anti-Israel groups." I have never read anything by any decent human being criticizing the organization.
This claim appears to be sourced to an opinion piece by the extreme zionist Yair Rosenberg, who has frequently praised the slaughter of Palestinian civilians, in the zionist tabloid 'Tablet Mag'. This is far from a reliable source. Muhammed Ali Khan (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad sourcing 

message: While it is currently subject to an RfC and my edit was reverted after it was reopened, I think an argument could be made for inclusion, as the author is also the founder of the org, so I think it can remain unless someone objects FortunateSons (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  EI may be aboutself