Talk:If Americans Knew/Archive 1

message: The article is missing a criticism section, hence the tag. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism tag

message: I wrote to Alison Weir about casualty statistics. This is her reply:
:Thank you for contacting us about this.
:This allegation is quite false. If you'll go to our website, you'll see that we gather statistics on the number of people killed on both sides by the other -- we do not designate, on either side, which are civlians or which are combatants.
:Since they were not killed by the other side, we do not include in this listing suicide bombers, or Israeli soldiers who commit suicide, (which actually exceed the number killed by Palestinians or any other cause: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/suicide.html)
:Our statistics for deaths come from the Israeli human rights organization, B'tselem, (which, by the way, does not include suicide bombers among its statistics for deaths, which can easily be determined by going to its website, or by emailing them directly, which we do whenever we have questions about their numbers).
:By the way, while we find B'Tselem an excellent source of information, it is quite likely that they, unintentionally, at times undercount somewhat the number of Palestinian deaths. In one of our studies, we saw the numbers on their website of Palestinian deaths go up by approximately 100 over the course of a few months, as they were able to confirm more deaths.
:If you look at the Palestinian Red Crescent Society information -- also an excellent and reliable source -- you'll see that this organization often places the number of Palestinian deaths higher than B'Tselem's count, since PRCS (unlike B'Tselem) is located in the Palestinian territories themselves. We use B'Tselem, however, since this organization provides statistics on both Israeli and Palestinian casualties.
:Incidentally, Front page is an extremely unreliable source for information. For example, when I saw the article you refer to, I attempted to correct their report immediately, by submitting the following letter. They never posted my correction on their website. I will paste my letter below.  
:Finally, I hope that this information will suggest to Wikipedia that it reconsider using contributions from the person who submitted such fallacious information.
:Sincerely,
:Alison Weir
:Executive Director
:If Americans Knew
:http://www.ifamericansknew.org
:310.441.8580
-- Viajero 21:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you expect them to issue correction? B'Tselem is a controversial source and its numbers have been widely criticized. Both orgs are biased and they don't even hide it, but you present your article as if it is neutral, which of course it is not. You can't have it both ways. Either include criticism or POV tag. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added a line indicating the sources for this groups casualty statistics. As I am sure you are aware, there is discussion about the validty of B'Tselem's stats in that article. As for the rest, just because the organization has a clear ideological orientation (it is indeed an advocacy group), does not mean by definition that this article is slanted, but I suspect this distinction is lost on you. In any case, I will agree to a POV tag in this article if you agree to a POV tag in, say, Anti-Defamation League and The New York Times. -- Viajero 11:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article doesn't reflect that "the organization has a clear ideological orientation" and "it is indeed an advocacy group". OTOH, the ADL article clearly states their agenda and a half of it is dedicated to criticism and controversies. I don't care about the NYT, it's not a part of my camarilla. Please refrain from violating WP policies concerning assuming good faith, ad hom attacks and POV tag removal. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Two wrongs make a right" is not a very strong argument. Jayjg (talk) 18:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: The choice of articles promoted by the organization indicate what it advocates; I think it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise. Jayjg (talk) 18:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the writings represent a range of opinions. The general orientation of these opinions is obvious. However, picking one opinion out of that range (and another which is apparently not represented anywhere on the site, though I may have missed it), and to hold that up as the opinion of the organization, is equally disingenuous. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualty stats 

message: Under the Israel advocates make false claims if Americans knew is wher eI am disputing the neutrality. It actually favors if Americans knew which is anti Israeli propaganda. - Dendoi 05:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputing neutrality

message: 1. The article states that If Americans Knew is a "pro-Palestinian" organization. The organization is actually a media watchdog organization that focuses on Israel-Palestine and whose mission is to provide information largely unreported by the mainstream US media. Its founder repeated emphasizes that the goal is to uphold universal principles of human rights and journalistic accuracy, not to engage in the "football-team approach" to conflict, in which someone takes a particular "side."
2. The article claims that "They have been heavily criticized for not citing the actual causes of deaths in the conflict. Some of their documents have been accused of being misleading." In fact, the only groups to have made this criticism are pro-Israel ones. Others have found the organization's studies valuable.
For example, Project Censored, a highly regarded journalism organized published a [/ chapter] by If Americans Knew in its book CENSORED 2005: The Top 25 Censored Stories.
Similarly, a media monitoring organization based at Stanford, Grade the News, did a similar / statistical study which substantiated If Americans Knew findings.
Another highly respected media monitoring organization, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has also posted If Americans Knew information, terming it a "valuable organization."
3. The Wikipedia article states that "the list of Palestinian casualties includes Palestinians killed by Palestinians, as well as suicide bombers, none of which is specified." This is entirely false. If Americans Knew statistics on deaths and casualties only include those killed by the other side, and this is made clear on the website. Disturbingly, Wikipedia continues to parrot pro-Israel misinformation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate information 

message: The article by MiddleEastNow.com is anonymous and also contains inaccurate material, similar to that described above. For that reason it should be removed.
I will now attempt to make the adjustments I have explained above. I hope inappropriate edits of this material will not continue. - MedEastSpecialist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove unreliable and inaccurate external link 

message: A person seems intent on promoting Israeli-centric editing rather than accuracy-driving editing. He made a major revision in the IAK page without any accompanying justification. This is inappropriate. For more information on his potential bias see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leifern  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 January 2007
:I don't think there's anything on my User page that would make any reasonable person conclude that I'm a "Israel advocate," and my edits were simply a reversion of brochureware for the organization. I suppose my "potential bias" also includes Architecture, military history, geography, and Norway? This article needs a lot of work to be useful and unbiased, but we need at least a good starting point. --Leifern 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Your contribution history is much more revealing than your userpage. I'm interested that you wrote this: "Wikipedia benefits much more from the excitable editor who commits multiple 3RR and NPA violations than the sneaky editor who stays narrowly within the guidelines but pushes his/her POV at every turn." I agree entirely. I've been blocked for getting overexcited (well, drunk) and I get tired of multireverters who have no interest at all in creating a decent article but want only one that says something they can nod along to. But I'm wondering how you can square that statement with your behaviour? Grace Note 07:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate editing by Israel advocate 

message: We went through much the same issue with CAMERA, but from the other side.
CAMERA is a media monitoring organization with a pro-Israel slant; "If Americans Knew" is a media monitoring organization with an anti-Israel slant.
The CAMERA article ended up with:
:CAMERA is a non-profit, tax-exempt media watchdog group based in Boston chiefly monitoring media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and focusing primarily on correcting coverage that it considers inaccurate or unfairly skewed against Israel.
The current lead on "If Americans Knew" reads:
:If Americans Knew is a non-profit media watchdog organization that focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, United States foreign policy regarding the Middle East, and media coverage of these issues. Its mission is to provide information largely unreported in the US media. The group is highly critical of U.S. support, especially U.S. financial support, for Israel.
Those are relatively close in tone. Attempts to put the word "pro-Israel" in the introduction to the CAMERA article were vehemently opposed. The language shown above has been stable for some time, with both sites not entirely happy.
That's probably what we should aim for here. --John Nagle 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph issues 

message: People who appear to have a pro-Israel agenda -- eg Jayjig, Leinert and others -- continue to insert inaccurate, unsubstantiated material into the entry about If Americans Knew. Since they revert the article in teams, they do not trigger the blocking that this should receive. Moreover, they do not even deign to offer substantiating material -- or even any explanation -- for reverting the article. They simply do it, resulting in an inaccurate, defamatory entry.
I showed above, in detail, the problem with their entry and with the external links they keep inserting. These explanations can be found under the following sections above: "unreliable and inaccurate external websites" "Inaccurate Information" "Incomplete Article - leaves out a major portion of If Americans Knew focus" "Fix Article" "Remove unreliable and inaccurate external link"
Another useful comment is under the heading: "Lead paragraph issues"
Since Wikipedia's success as a source of reliable information requires accurate entries under all subjects -- even those that are controversial, and therefore vulnerable to subtle vandalism -- I am asking that others work to make sure that the entry about If Americans Knew is accurate and that it not include external contain inaccurate material.
I will fix the mistakes in the entry. I hope others will ensure that it is not replaced by fraudulent statements and inaccurate and malicious external links. - MidEastSpecialist —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 January 2007
: I've been trying to match the style to that of the CAMERA article. These "media monitoring" organizations are difficult to write about in a neutral way, because they claim to be neutral but are generally recognized as having a decided spin. What we seem to be ending up with are articles which admit the spin, but aren't too blatant about it. That's probably about where Wikipedia should be. The Fox News article has many of the same problems, so take a look over there and see how it was dealt with. --John Nagle 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I read through the CAMERA article and I don't believe it's fit for inclusion. The first problem with it is that it's predominately about other media outlets, not about If Americans Knew. Secondly, its statements against If Americans Knew are entirely unsourced and the context of the quotations (which are only quotations of phrases) are unknown. As such, it's terribly uninformative. It's pretty much an extremely general, unsupported criticism paragraph. .V. (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The subject is highly controversial, therefore criticism is relevant. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That there is criticism should be noted, Humus, but it's a frank breach of WP:NPOV to write more about the criticism than you do about the organisation criticised. Grace Note 05:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: Leifert makes unsupported accusations, ad hominem attacks, and re-inserts statements proven to be false. Perhaps I have misunderstood the Wikipedia description of vandalism (particularly "sneaky vandalism") but Leifert's actions, particularly the third, certainly appear to qualify for that designation.
He tries to label the entry I and a variety of others have added to of being "vanity" but does not support this accusation. Where is the inaccuracy in our edits? Why is Leifert attacking with unsupported pejorative adjectives instead of using facts to challenge us? I suggest it is because the facts don't support his edits.
I worry that Leifert's apparent affinity for Israel is getting in the way of honest editing and civility.
I request that others study the If Americans Knew website, view the Alternate Focus video on If Americans Knew http://alternate-focus.blip.tv/file/85804/ , and read the discussion on this page, and help mediate this situation.
I don't enjoy Leifert's mud-slinging and feel that others need to step in so that an accurate entry is produced with accurate external links.  -MidEastSpecialist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 17:57, 12 January 2007
:"MidEastSpecialist" doesn't sign his/her entries, accuses me of all kinds of things, and apparently characterizes everything he/she believes as facts. This article is a vanity piece because it takes everything this organization at face value. --Leifern 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leifert -- ideological vandalism? 

message: This is an organization of questionable notability and a clear POV, but some editors keep trying to present it as a neutral source of information on the Arab-Israeli conflict. We either have to see a serious effort into making this an NPOV article, or else it should be deleted as a promotional piece. And please, no more objections and personal attacks based on an anti-Israeli tirade. --Leifern 12:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree; the current version is marginal, but a couple of editors appear to be trying to turn it into an advertisement or promotional piece for the organization. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not so sure it's a vanity piece of questionable notability. After all, the organization has been praised by several media watchdog outlets, as well as being a registered non-profit. That seems to place it certainly in the realm of notability. I also don't see any particular POV in this piece either way at the moment. Could you point out the POV you reference? .V. (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with V. The organization is notable, as its been recognized within the field of major progressive media non-profits, such as the bias-combating groups like (FAIR), which has commended the organization's work. As for POV, I corrected a couple of minor POV problems, already.Giovanni33 06:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity piece - AFD? 

message: The above comment is without substantiation. Unfortunately, Leifern and Jayjg continually revert edits that have removed inaccurate statements and added accurate information. The fact is that If Americans Knew is widely used and cited; the only groups that speak negatively of it are the Israel-Right-or-Wrong groups and individuals who frequently falsify or bury information about Israel. Leifern and Jayjg have never once shown that the material removed was accurate and they have never once shown that the material added was inaccurate -- because they can't. Hence, they revert to unsubstantiated attacks, such as above.
The behavior of Leifern and Jayjg is part of a common pattern -- for example, see the / paper by Harvard University Professor John Walt and University of Chicago Professor Stephen Mearsheimer, which had to be published in the London Review of Books, because it was blocked from publication in the US. Its section on media, particularly in the / full version published on the Harvard website, is particularly valuable in understanding what is going on with Wikipedia.
Similarly, If Americans knew contains an /article showing that the Washington Post "reviewer" (Jeffrey Goldberg) of Jimmy Carter's recent book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, is an American who emigrated to Israel, took Israeli citizenship, enlisted in the Israeli military, and served as an Israeli prison guard at one of its notoriously cruel prison camps, Ketziot. Amazon then, which normally posts two short, industry descriptions of the book on its Product Description page, instead posted as one of the two this extremely long attack by Goldberg, again without telling readers of his substantial bias on this issue. It is extremely odd for a bookseller to attempt to convince readers NOT to buy a book. Quite likely their action is also due either to internal or external pressure on behalf of Israel.
Just as people with a pro-Israel agenda so often control the mainstream media, they are attempting to control wikipedia as well -- Leifern and Jayjg are just two examples. Unless more people start to investigate this situation, such disastrous obfuscation will continue.
Jayjg and Leifern must not be allowed to remove verified information and substitute unverified material and websites with unverified statements.
I will now revert the version to the previous one, in which the statements are verified and the external links contain verified material.User:MidEastSpecialist18:12-18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know what edits you're talking about that are false. Speaking for myself, I am only editing the article so that it complies with NPOV and be a reasonable article rather than one that looks like a promotional piece. I haven't inserted any unsubstantiated facts but rather used phrasing that clarifies what this organization is all about. As for your allegations that Jews control the media and can't be trusted to give objective reviews of a book, I think they speak for themselves. --Leifern 18:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:SOAP as well. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOAP would clearly disallow the use of the article to mirror anti-IAK propaganda too, but I see that that has not been bothering you too much. Maybe it's you who needs to re-read the policies in question. Grace Note 07:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leifern and Jayjg's inappropriate comments 

message: Is journalist "Lee Kaplan" notable enough to have his/her criticism in wikipedia?Bless sins 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking for some better criticism of "If Americans Knew". We have CAMERA (which is the pro-Israel counterpart of "If Americans Knew"), and we have FrontPageMag, which attacks a broad range of opponents. ("the Democratic party, the media, the environmental movement, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, left-wing interpretations of feminism, Islamism, socialism, communism, anarchism, anti-war groups, the United Nations...") But nothing from mainstream media or published books. Searching Google for '"If Americans Knew" "Israel"' yields mostly advocacy sites for one side or the other, and blogs. Many, many blogs. But not reliable sources. --John Nagle 06:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Reliable" is in the eye of the beholder. If articles on pro-Israeli organisations were larded with details of the "criticisms" of their anti-Zionist equivalents, they'd be "made more neutral" by the pro-Israeli lobby here by simply removing them and denying that they were "reliable". It would be much more reasonable if we could all agree on ground rules, rather than have double standards imposed by fiat. In any case, it is a "criticism" of CAMERA that IAK makes false claims. Listing out the claims that it says are false is not appropriate. How can it be? The article is not about Claims that CAMERA thinks are false that IAK makes, nor should it be. That is far too finegrained, and biases this article in a way WP:NPOV, which some of the editors here are fond of alluding to, explicitly disallows. It's fair to say that there is criticism but sticking in a huge list of the particular things it doesn't like is not fair and would not be permitted in other articles. Grace Note 06:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  From now on anything that doesn't comply with your POV is declared non-notable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Humus, are you even reading what I'm writing? CAMERA is clearly not very notable. It's not the New York Times. It's a pro-Israeli shoutsite. I wouldn't consider IAK notable in this context either! If someone wanted to do the same thing to an article on a pro-Israeli site, I'd oppose that too. Try having a think about what I'm actually saying. That there are criticisms is fine to mention. That the criticisms are about "false claims" is fine to mention. A list of the "false claims" is not. Can you truly not see that? You could have even said that it published a list of claims, but to mirror that here is simply unacceptable. Grace Note 07:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable?

message: Advocacy implies to advocate something. Intro in my version clearly mentions the POV of the organization. --Soman 00:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocacy 

message: The reverting thing has reached the point of vandalism. In particular, this revert by Leifern discarded the work of four other editors. That editor has added almost no useful content to the article; most of the edits from that source are sizable reverts. Even cleanup edits are now being reverted. This is a serious violation of WP:OWN. Should we request a block? --John Nagle 06:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing can be done about it. Some editors' "contribution" to this article and others like it is solely to revert to their own "neutral" version of the article. Once a dispute has reached a certain point, which can be very quickly if one side has no intention to be constructive (and sometimes it is the one side, sometimes the other), there's nothing to be done. If it's pursued, usually the less empowered editors get themselves blocked or lose interest in fighting over it. You cannot have the editor in question blocked for it, because he and his friends are supported and endorsed by the people whom you would be asking to do the blocking. Grace Note 06:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That particular reverse was hasty, and I'll cop to that. Guys, let's get real. This is an organization with a clear agenda that under no circumstances can be viewed as neutral or objective. The issue really isn't whether any of us agrees with the agenda; the issue is whether the article doesn't mislead readers into thinking that the organization is something that it isn't. There are countless organizations dedicated to this controversy that would like people to believe that they are neutral and informative, and I haven't found a single one that truly is. Alison Weir is reported to have demanded that the New York Times hire more Muslim reporters to outweigh what she thinks is a preponderance of Jewish reporters in the paper. (Which I think is an insult to both Jews and Muslims, which is beside the point.) The point is, however, that this can not be presented as a mainstream, academically oriented think tank with a balanced objective. --Leifern 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't be concerned about misleading readers or not. That might sound odd, but "misleading" (in this particular case) implies that we know what is the proper "lead." Neutrality means that we present the side of "If Americans Knew", then present criticism. If a reader finds the IAK more persuasive, then so be it. If they find the criticism more persuasive, then that's alright as well. But the key issue to be taken care of here is that all parties mentioned in the article get at least a fair treatment. .V. (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we should be concerned about misleading readers. I've looked up this organization and the founder, and it seems to me that she does an excellent job of getting on panels for debates about the conflict, especially in the East Bay. As far as "new" information is concerned, a) I see nothing in her materials I haven't seen dozens of times before; and b) it certainly is easily exceeded by an order of magnitude by Wikipedia articles on this topic. It is one of many many organizations that claim some kind of original angle to the conflict, so what we're left with is a bureau that sends out pamphlets and provides speaker(s) to activist events. There's nothing wrong with that, but what is wrong is trying to make it sound like this is anything more than that. --Leifern 14:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We went through much the same arguments with CAMERA, which is the pro-Israel counterpart of "If Americans Knew". The problem is that CAMERA, like "If Americans Knew", makes a pretense of being neutral, and there are some editors who insist on going along with that pretense. One could classify both CAMERA and "If Americans Knew" as "grey propaganda" organizations, although that term is somewhat archaic. Today we'd say "spin control". They don't usually lie, but they choose their sources and targets based on their political position. Treating both organizations similarly seems to be appropriate for Wikipedia. --John Nagle 18:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is precisely the problem with articles in this area. We do not use the same standard for all. I do not want to see swathes of articles stuffed with propaganda, either way, but this is an outcome of the way it has been working here. A big problem is that both sides think that what they are promoting is "neutral" because they don't ever step outside their bias. I've tried presenting objective arguments on several of these pages, but you will not get engagement from the editors concerned. They demand that you accept that their view is value-neutral before they will engage with you (and editors who have been willing to do that have had (limited) success in neutralising some of the more rabid edits). If you refuse to accept that, you have no chance. Grace Note 04:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I don't really understand. Are you saying that CAMERA is more biased than IAK? Given that the facts themselves are an indictment of Israel that is bound to be true. If that isn't what you're saying, do you mind explaining what you are saying? And I'm sorry to say it but I don't see any sign of your wanting the same standards applied to different articles. Grace Note 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits verging on vandalism 

message: While I think that the ADL's calling IAK "anti-Israel" is so banal that anyone even approaching sane would not consider it worth mentioning (and the ADL does not, so far as I know, give any reason for smearing IAK in this way; one presumes that it would consider anyone who presented information on Israel that wasn't positive as anti-Israel, even if the lack of positivity is down to its not being positive in itself), and it is clearly included to advance a viewpoint on IAK rather than illuminate the reader, I urge someone to fix the sentence so that it reads: 
The Anti-Defamation League has described If Americans Knew as an "anti-Israel organization".
I'd do it myself but I have used three reverts and don't want to find myself blocked by a headhunter on the other side.
Actually, it is not a particularly strong criticism of IAK to say that it is "anti-Israel". Most of the world is in this sense, as it demonstrates whenever given the opportunity to censure Israel in the UN, or in newspaper articles or in other forums. (I note that our article on Israel is not chockers with the many criticisms of that nation: obviously, none of the editors who feel it so necessary to list exactly what some website says about IAK feel it's necessary to do the same for Israel -- and I don't either). I think we should give serious consideration to not including this sort of "he says, she says" stuff in these articles. It really doesn't add much, if anything. And I mean not from either side.Grace Note 05:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with that, and I noted that the ADL is a pro-Israel organization. These are all advocacy organizations. --John Nagle 05:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An "advocacy" organization? I thought some people were arguing earlier that this "If Americans Knew" group was a "media watchdog" group. At least we have gotten away from the pretense that they are "neutral." 6SJ7 12:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're politically opposed. Nothing bad about that. The organizations on one side criticize the ones on the other. Somewhere between them may lie reality. That's politics. --John Nagle 19:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is where I think phrasing is very important. My view is that we should try to characterize behavior rather than attitudes, or even biases in our descriptions of organizations (when citing critical voices, we should of course quote as much as possible). The Anti-Defamation League, for example, is not pro-Israel per se, but is rather dedicated to combating bigotry and discrimination in general and antisemitism in particular. They will get involved in the debate on the Arab-Israeli conflict to the extent that it contributes to antisemitism. That may seem like a trivial difference to some, but it does matter for how we phrase things. --Leifern 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not try to "characterise" anything. We should let others do the characterising and just report what they say. Dude, we know that you guys like to "phrase things" in a way that puts a positive spin on "your side". Your reading of ADL (which is rabidly pro-Israel and everything it does) is ridiculous though. Read this page and connected links before writing any more of this ill-considered commentary. This is not "getting involved... to the extent that it contributes to antisemitism" in anyone's language. Grace Note 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "TheMiddleEastNow.com" probably isn't a reliable source per WP:RS. It looks like a mashup being built from RSS feeds. --John Nagle 18:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried to tone things down a bit after the last few edits. I'd be inclined to delete "TheMiddleEastNow.com" material, as noted above, but let's hear some comments on that. I also added a basic article for DAFKA, a new advocacy organization of the neocon persuasion which someone cited. Please expand that article. Thanks. --John Nagle 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: This sentence keeps undergoing revisions, but it is in fact true. The organization claims one thing, but its publications suggest something completely different. I suppose that in Alison Weir's universe all the information leads to only one conclusion, but that is clearly her point of view. We can debate whether her conclusions do anything less than condemn Israel, but the two sentences, joined with the "but," are entirely NPOV. We shouldn't draw the obvious conclusion but rather let the reader do that. --Leifern 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is not NPOV. The use of the "but" implies that the claim of "full and accurate information" is refuted or cast into doubt by the fact that "its publications consistently condemn Israel and U.S. Middle Eastern policy." There is no reason to assume this; in fact, I think this juxtaposition with "but" is probably OR. To be neutral, you need two seperate and discrete sentences. --MaplePorter 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a strawman argument. Full and accurate information couldn't possibly conclude that every publication should favor Israel and US policy, just as full and accurate information couldn't possibly conclude that Israel and the US was wrong at every turn. --Leifern 14:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to warn you, Leifern, that much as I enjoy discussing these issues with pro-Israeli editors, I start to lose interest when they use terms like "strawman argument" when they mean "an argument I don't have an answer to". I didn't actually understand the rest of your comment. Grace Note 06:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Its publications are highly critical of Israel and U.S. Middle Eastern policy.
We need to source commentary such as this. "Highly critical of..." is a judgement. If it is one readily made, it will be no problem to find a source that makes it. If it isn't, we are indulging in original research to include it. What you may consider a criticims, I may not. You must bear that in mind. If their publications say in their own words "we are critical of ..." "we condemn ...", this is perfectly adequate as a source.
I also urge the pro-Israeli editors here to reconsider the ADL sentence. It seems ridiculous to include "he says, she says" type commentary. It smacks of "we trawled the web to find someone saying something nasty about these people", which in fact you did. It is not the outcome of an analysis, or even the point of a piece written by the ADL. It's just a passing comment. You would not tolerate it in an article about one of the organisations you approve of. Nor should any of us. Let's put blue water between decent, fair editors and POV pushers by opposing this sort of thing across the board. Grace Note 03:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which pro-Israeli editors are you talking about? --Leifern 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read up on what the OR policy actually says. The issue has to do with premises and conclusions. It's safe to say, for example, that a legislator who consistently votes in favor or tax reductions is a fiscal conservative, even if his/her website doesn't state it that way. --Leifern 14:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't safe to say that on Wikipedia. Unless you have sources that say "so and so is a blank", you do not include it because it is your analysis/original research. --Tom 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NOR and then let's discuss; you may also want to read about Rhetorical fallacy, etc. --Leifern 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Leifern, I read NOR. The part that strikes me is :"It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". Anyways.--Tom 16:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's pointless discussing this issue with you if you insist on this kind of special definition of every term in the policy. Tom's discussion is exactly correct. It is "original research to make a conclusion that logically follows from unassailable premises". The policy specifically says so, for good reason. Your "unassailable premise" is my "cartful of bullshit" and vice versa. It's original research to draw any conclusion of your own whatsoever. Are you just not clear on that? We report. We do not interpret, synthesise, make logical deductions or work anything out for ourselves. Grace Note 06:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grace, very well said, thanks. I like to think of ourselves as mindless pilei :) --Tom 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The group claims to provide "full and accurate information," but its publications consistently condemn [[Israel]] and U.S. Middle Eastern policy. 

message: It is absolutely unacceptable that this organization be presented as it presents itself. It is clearly an advocacy organization - and not a very good one - against Israel. I'm open to suggestions as to how we do this, but it can not stand the way it is. --Leifern 18:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion would be to keep the header as basic/simple/undisputed as possible. Then go into in depth analysis below. Folks can digest the facts and decide for themselves. Unless you can provide sources that say it is x,z or z, its best to leave it out. This really isn't whitewashing. I'm sure you can expose them for who they really are with sources. Wikipedia should just present already established material and let the reader make their own determination. Also, my comments in no way endorse or support this outfit. They my be the scum of the earth, I don't really know nor care perticularly. also sorry for my crap spelling skills. Cheers!--Tom 19:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On this topic, there must be hundreds of organizations that a) present themselves as neutral, information-oriented, etc., and b) have a point of view they won't admit to. It's worth considering how we introduce them. I honestly can't think of a single one that is truly unbiased, though the accuracy and completeness of the information, and the strength of their arguments, obviously varies. It might be worth looking at organizations related to other controversies and see how this gets worked out there. --Leifern 19:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prime example would be Jew Watch. There is ample evidence about them which is included in their article. --Tom 19:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'd argue we need to delete the article. If you insist on a certain number of citations pointing out the obvious (that it's a strident anti-Israeli organization) before we can make that clear in the introduction, then we need to delete the article. Can I count on your support for an AFD? --Leifern 20:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats the rub. You say "pointing out the obvious".Its not up to editors to include obvious material because that can be subjective. Anyways, I really don't have a horse in this race and for you Leifern, I'll support anything :) just kidding. Have a pleasant weekend and please don't take this stuff to seriously. Most readers can visit this site and figure out whats going on. Cheers! --Tom 20:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, on the IAK site, the first thing they show is a bar graph showing 122 killed Israeli kids and 899 killed Palestinian Kids...so what, what the hell does that show? It shows me sqwat.They have an agenda. Lets keep it off wikipedia.--Tom 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in "The group is generally critical of Israel and of U.S. policy with regard to Israel.", which seems to be a reasonable statement of the group's position. The group itself says "Although it is not often reported by the press, a large proportion of American diplomatic and military experts have long held that U.S. support of Israel is often contrary to and, in fact, extremely damaging to U.S. interests." . --John Nagle 01:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As it stands, even the statement about them being critical of US policy is unsourced, but hey, this is Wikipedia, so when has that slowed anything down ;). Sorry for the sarcasm, but seriously, easily 90% of the material on this project is unsourced when in fact providing sources is one of Wikipedia "prime" directives. Just venting. Thanks.--Tom 15:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they say they're an activist organization for one side or the other, we're certainly entitled to cite them as such. This shouldn't even be an issue. The other case, organizations which claim to be neutral but are essentially advocates for some position, is much tougher, and we have ongoing problems on Wikipedia with that. See Astroturfing. --John Nagle 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I am more worried about people who go to a web site and then based on the material make interpretations as to what the site is about. Anyways, no biggy. --Tom 18:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If someone is an advocate for some position, someone will have said so. What we can do is cite their saying so. But saying so ourselves is a no no. I have no doubt that IAK is an advocacy organisation, but until someone publishes my saying so, that opinion can only be stated here, not in the article. Grace Note 03:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Kaplan criticises Weir, not AIK, in the terms given. His criticism could be included in an article on her, but not on AIK. We obviously cannot allow criticisms of people to be applied to groups they are part of; NPOV does not permit "guilt by association". If you want to quote Kaplan's saying that IAK is "anti Israel" and uses "misleading statistics", there is absolutely no problem with that. Grace Note 03:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, when I made that change Giovanni33 reverted it. Strange, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, Jay, I'm not really following you. I'm not responsible for other people's edits. Like I said, I support your making that change. Grace Note 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kaplan criticism

message: One activist group is described as critical towards Israeli policies, ect, while the other is activist group is one that defends the state policies of Israel, ect.--however its not ok to characterize the latter group but only the former? Why the double standard?Giovanni33 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually looked at the discussion page, man? Read what I wrote... I explain why its not the same when someone describes you one way as when you actually describe yourself that way. There's no double standard here... read what I wrote!--Urthogie 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, that is a distinction without a difference. The point is that the nature of the group is an activist, advocacy group. In fact it represents the right-wing of the Israeli political spectrum, and acts like an ultra-right pro-Israel lobby group, towing Israel's party line. We are allowed to have some characterization of this group, even if we use the word "controversial." Otherwise it looks like we are just referencing a nuetral, indpendant group with no axe to grind and this would be deceptive.Giovanni33 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'd rather we don't use them as a source for this claim at all (we should use sources people respect as more mainstream), thus avoiding this issue... I'll set off to find one--Urthogie 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please do leave that one. It nicely reflects the forces in play here. Grace Note 07:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how that passage of NPOV informs us that we should add "pro-israel" to CAMERA. If anything, it asks us to explain the reasons CAMERA thinks that If Americans Knew is biased (their graphs, their findings, etc.). We already make clear who holds these views, so that part of the sentence is covered as well. W:RS, my friend, is a guideline-- the spirit of the guideline is what we should follow, and we do: we use reliable sources. I don't see problems arising from either of these policies...--Urthogie 01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But If Americans Knew is anti-Israeli and you don't want that to be mentioned. Why the double standard? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim is correct-- IAK calls itself anti-Zionist, and is thus anti-Israel. "Zonism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel."--Urthogie 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IAK is characterized correctly as being generally critical of Israel, hence no double standard. Zionism is a lot more than just support for the existence of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. True that is the essetial aspect of the political movement, but one can support a homeland in an anti-Zionist framework, ideologically. I do not oppose characterizing IAK as anti-Zionist.Giovanni33 03:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you find me someone who supports a Jewish state of Israel who is anti-Zionist? A single person...?--Urthogie 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A homeland for the Jewish people and a Jewish state are two different things. For example, I'm ok with the Jewish people having a homeland in Isreal alongside the other peoples whose home it is and who have been living there, and within a single multi-cultural secular state. There are many anti-Zionists who take this multi-cultural single state possition, which accepts the homeland for the Jewish people (but not exclusively and without any descrimination). For example take a look at some of this literature from these anti-zionist possitions and you will find the binational state to be a favorite possition. Note that this allows a homeland for the Jewish people within the State of Israel. See: http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/1GB8NZLK1DC3BGiovanni33 04:21-04:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Setting aside the rather strange reasoning about Zionism and anti-Zionism, I think we should write in the introductory note that IAK describes itself as an anti-Zionist organization and leave it at that. Anyone who hopes to get an unbiased and complete account of the conflict from this source will then get the caveat emptor. --Leifern 04:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then by the same token so must CAMERA have such a caveat emptor. Even better is to use a better, more balanced and neutral source than CAMERA.Giovanni33 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: <rant>Sounds good, although Giovanni, I would say you're anti-Israel because you're against it as a Jewish state, which is the whole reason it was created, the only reason it continues to exist, and is marked on its flag. It's the jewish state. Israel. You're anti-Israel. The book list you linked me to includes the like of Norman Finkelstein, a man who says we should "support Hezbollah" in its fight against Israel. Honestly...!</rant> --Urthogie 05:05-05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm anti-Israel in the manner that Israel is currently constituted as a settler colonialist state, and this stems from me being an Anti-Zionist, consistent with anti-racism in general. However, I'm NOT opposed to a national homeland for the Jewish people in the land of Israel, which proves my original point that one can be for this and still be anti or non-Zionist. Finkelstein is without a doubt one of the very best Jewish academic and Anti-Zionists experts in the midle east conflicts along side Chomsky.Giovanni33 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the right place for discussing this. I'll bring it to your talk page.--Urthogie 05:51-05:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We are not having this discussion here. I personally am "pro-Israel" (think there should be one) and "anti-Israel" (don't think it should pursue the policies it currently does). The tendency to call the latter position anti-Zionist should probably be avoided when talking to people who do not share the understanding of Zionism as the ideology of Israeli expansion because, well, it gets boring to be told that that means you are anti-Israel because Zionism means only the movement for a Jewish state. Sadly though, there is not another term for that ideology in anything like wide use. But maybe the editors on this issue could agree on terminology -- some sunny day -- that does not include it? Grace Note 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, quite. The problem is that it's easier to characterise someone positively than it is to characterise them negatively. If we were to write that IAK was an "advocacy group", we wouldn't have a problem. It is for change. But writing that it is "anti-Israel" is problematic, because it could correctly argue that it is not "anti" Israel at all, only anti some of the things it does. What I find problematic is the desire of some editors here to characterise their groups positively and other groups negatively, rather than to characterise all by the same standards. This stems in part from the ludicrous pretence indulged in by hasbara groups like CAMERA that they are neutral. It doesn't help either that practically the only people who pay these organisations any mind are activists on either side, so good sources are quite thin. Grace Note 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about IAK, and the point of the article is to describe IAK. Therefore, saying they are anti-Zionist isn't an issue, and anyway, IAK would agree with the description. The article is not about the sources we use. There can be no well-poisoning regarding sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "well poisoning" to characterise a source. Please have a look at the policy I quoted for Jay. And if IAK agrees with your description, one presumes you can readily find them doing so. Source please. Grace Note 08:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I must agree with Grace Note. The tedious pretense that the grandiosely named Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is a neutral source is symptomatic of the failings of large swathes of Wikipedia to live up to its own NPOV policy. Catchpole 08:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now read this: The tedious pretense that the grandiosely named If Americans Knew is a neutral source is symptomatic of the failings of large swathes of Wikipedia to live up to its own NPOV policy. --Leifern 12:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Double Standard

message: You've read them all?
Wait! Don't answer. Because if you do, and you say yes, you admit that it's your opinion that they are all critical. Because the source you give does not say that. It does not say anything about IAK's publications. Not a word.
So who exactly are you sourcing this from? Grace Note 07:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is sourced to the organization's own website. Please do not make straw man arguments. Beit Or 07:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I do not understand how this is a straw man argument. Do you understand what one of them is? Could you please quote me the part of the website that says what you are saying. If you cannot, you are in breach of the applicable policy, as I've described, several times now. Perhaps you have not read the discussion on this page. If not, please do. Simply reverting edits because they do not agree with your POV is unacceptable. Grace Note 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a single article or publication that isn't critical to Israel? It is not original research or POV to summarize something that is plain to see, and in this case the assertion is verifiable. If you feel that way, 99% of all the articles in Wikipedia need to be deleted. --Leifern 12:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually what you just described in quintessential OR, but I understand that you feel strongly about it which makes it difficult to discuss it. --64.230.126.208 18:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NOR. If I read everything the organization has published and find that all of them are critical to Israel's existence and what Israel does; and can find not a single document that is positive to what Israel is and Israel does; it is not original research, and certainly not "quintessential" original research. --Leifern 11:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reliable, secondary source that says "All of the group's publications are critical (of Israel/US policy to Israel etc)", then you may/should include it. If you do not have such a source, then you should not include the statement - unless you wish to have your edits criticised for Original Research. Reckless breaches of Wikipedia policy risk accusations of disruptive behaviour. If you have a reliable, secondary source that says "All of the group's publications are critical (of Israel/US policy to Israel etc)", then you may/should include it. If you do not have such a source, then you should not include the statement - unless you wish to have your edits criticised for Original Research. Reckless breaches of Wikipedia policy risk accusations of disruptive behaviour. PalestineRemembered 09:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "All of the group's publications are critical..." 

message: It isn't clear to me why this article attracts so much POV-pushing, but I'd like to make an appeal that people try to be reasonable here. It is not reasonable to represent this organization as a neutral arbiter of facts; or to even represent it as an authoritative source of information. It would appear that the organization - and some of its supporters - are convinced that they have found the final truth on this issue, but that claim is hardly unique. --Leifern 17:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I echo this appeal. Wikipedia itself can't present this group as neutral or in a negative light. We should simply repeat what the sources say about it, fully attributed and not in Wikipedia's voice; what the groups says about itself; and what it says about its subject matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leifern, Wikipedia users are not endorsing this site, at least I am not, by saying what the group claims as its objective x y and z, even if those objectives are not the "truth" whatever that truth might be. Its like the Jimmy Carter article episode where you didn't like that Carter said his main points of his book where X, Y and Z and you wanted that changed becasue he was stating false information or something. My suggestion would be to keep the intro as short and consise and as agreeable to all parties and then rip them a new one with reliable sources further into the article. Again, it isn't about the "truth" but about presenting already established material that can be well sourced by reliable authors and references. Anyways, --Tom 18:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some editors seem to want it both ways: when I try to add direct quotes in the introduction from the organization's website that clearly indicates its bias, you want it buried in the text; when I try to summarize the bias, you're asking for direct quotes. It seems that nothing will satisfy you except a tacit endorsement of the organization's claims to objectivity. Aside from the fact that no such consideration is given to ostensibly "pro-Israeli" organizations (a double standard that is all too familiar), it is fundamentally dishonest. So here's where I'd put it: either come up with a phrase in the intro that makes it clear to the casual reader that this is an organization with a clear bias against Israel; or allow the direct quotes to stand. If we have to choose between precision and unwieldy language, I'll opt for unwieldy language any day. --Leifern 19:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Tom, I agree with you in general, but if IAK calls Israel an "exclusionist entity," it can hardly claim to be impartial, because that's strong language. I think the lead does need to give some indication of the very strong objections some people have to this organization. I suggest we add to the lead one quote from a source in support of IAK, and one against. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Slim, thats sort of my point, they can claim whatever they want. What we need to do is find sources that counter those claims. Jew watch come to mind even though I am not sure these guys are on that level. I am just against personal analysis where we read the sites material and then decise that they are X, Z or Z even if thats the case. Anyways, I've mellowed out alot as far as editing this stuff so feel free to add as you see fit. Cheers! Also, while I have you, could you check out User:Epeefleche and his talk page and our on going discussion about having ethnicity mention in the lead section of living people's bios. As you know, this has been a pet peev of mine for over a year. I have relented but wouldn't mind another set of experienced eyes such as yours taking a peek. Thanks --Tom 19:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's an artificial standard. It simply is not original research to synthesize information, and if we were to follow your reasoning, a virulently bigoted organization can have its assertions stand as long as nobody has contradicted it. --Leifern 19:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats the price to be paid if this project is serious about abiding by its policies and guidlines. Sometimes the "truth" takes time to be synthesized and accurately presented eventhough there is still edit battles going on about stuff that happened 60 years ago. Anyways, I really like this project because its trying to present material that is fact in a cyber world filled with lots of trash and misinformation. I personally don't believe a thing on the web. wouldn't it be a perfect world if we could come here and have confidence that the material being presented is accurate and fair? Anyways, sounds like a dream world :) Cheers!--Tom 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Leifern, we shouldn't "present" this site as neutral or as bigoted or as anything. We/you/I should provide what reliable sources have said about this site; be it good, bad or ugly. Topics like this are extremely difficult for the project because we all opinions and emotions and feelings. We are humans not robots. If this was about how many atoms obit the nucleus of a proton in a certain material, its pretty clear cut I guess. NPOV is sort of a joke on many articles because we all bring different perspectives to the project which acually is a good thing eventhough it can prove problematic. Anyways, carry on :) --Tom 15:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I move that we put this article through a speedy delete process, since we can't agree on a single reliable source about it. The organization's website is nothing but a pack of lies and distortions, and clearly there are editors who think that CAMERA is unreliable. I assume I can count on your support for such a delete? --Leifern 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leifern, I wouldn't assume anything around here :). But seriously, I probably would have no problem with that but I am just one itsie bitsie tiny editor. If I had my way, I would probably delete about 3/4 of the material on Wikipedia since 90% or more of the material on this site has no sources or references. Cheers --Tom 17:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well-poisoning, propaganda, etc.