Talk:If Americans Knew/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Description of organization - questions to apologists

Can I infer from recent reversions, etc., that there are editors who believe that this organization:

• Truly is neutral to the conflict?
• Actually presents full, complete, and accurate information?

I'm tired of attempts at positioning this as an organization that is everything it presents itself to be, when in reality it's a virulently anti-Israeli organization that puts up a pretense of objectivity. --Leifern 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No you can't, and please stop doing so. Thanks --Tom 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I will stop making that assumption as soon as I've seen you eliminate the phrasing about CAMERA to eliminate the view or implication that it's pro-Israel. Until then, we're looking at a huge double standard here. The organization is plainly anti-Israeli. --Leifern 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Leif, I went over to CAMERA and didn't see anything in the lead section that said it was pro-Israel. If something is not sourced, feel free to remove it per wiki policy or add the cite tag. Again, this site might be the scum of the earth, I haven't read their material, but sources are needed if you want to describe the site as being X,Y or Z. Anyways --Tom 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro reads "focusing primarily on correcting coverage that it considers inaccurate or unfairly skewed against Israel," without any source for that characterization. If you're going to accept that kind of summary one place, surely this organization deserves one that is equally clear. --Leifern 11:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't sourced, remove it. Please keep the lead as simple as possible so consensus can be reached.--Tom 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited the camera article and would also point you to the Middle East Media Research Institute article. Should that lead be changed to.? Thanks--Tom 15:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Six edits later, we're back to exactly the same text. Give it a rest, already. If you don't like the organization, add sourced material to the criticism section.

But please quit fighting over the lead paragraph. It's not getting better. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Original research?"

Catchpole, in a rather imaginative twist, seems to think that direct quotes and paraphrasing from the organization's website constitutes "original research," presumably because it is just too painful to read what this organization actually stands for. We can go around and around on this, but I'd like to see some sincere effort from our opponents on this issue to create an introductory paragraph that makes it clear that this organization is not neutral but has a political agenda. --Leifern 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we do the same for the other sites which support your agenda? Oh course not. All agendas and original research should be stopped, especially in the lead section it seems.--Tom 19:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My agenda, whatever it might be, is absolutely irrelevant. Deleting quotes and accurate paraphrasing from the organization's own website can not be construed as original research. --Leifern 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia with an agenda is absolutely relevant because it seems that Wikipedia's "prime directive" if you will, is to edit from a NPOV as difficult as that might be. The original research comes when you post what the site says and then you exstrapulate(sp) some type of conclusion about what the site stands for ect. That is your analysis, which might be perfectly correct but is still original research. Just provide sources that says the site is X, Y, or Z and then feel free to add it. I am just concerned about the lead since this really should be locked down with consensus. Anyways --Tom 16:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes removed

I put up quotes said by members of the organization that were verified, and I sourced them, but they were removed. Why? Because they weren't flattering to the organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.6.12 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 July 2007

WP is not a quote farm. --Tom 17:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I see it for other articles. Why not this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.6.12 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 July 2007

Two wrongs don't make a right. --Tom 13:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

IFK's motives are straightforwardly patriotic, seeking to put the interests of Americans first. Meanwhile, organisations such as CAMERA, seeking to put the interests of other nations ahead of those of America, suffer no unflattering quotes whatsoever. Unbiased observers might think the latter organisation is border-line treasonous - what do you say? PalestineRemembered 17:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sudden rash of POV edits today

Sudden rash of POV edits today. No new info, some references removed. Reverted. The article had been stable for a while, and we seem to have reached a consensus of sorts. --John Nagle 06:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored my edits. I agree with you about the removal of the first paragraph of the Background, and have restored that as well. I do not see any removed references in the edits you are talking about. As for "stability", it does not trump NPOV, and consensus on Wikipedia only lasts until the next editor comes along. 6SJ7 20:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence

As it is now:

If Americans Knew is a non-profit organization that focuses on the Arab-Israeli conflict and United States foreign policy regarding the Middle East, offering analysis of American media coverage of these issues.

Can we reach any consensus here? TIA --Tom 13:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Today we have "The site is generally critical of U.S. financial and military support of Israel", which is a statement that both If Americans Knew and its critics should be able to agree upon. Every time someone changes that, after a few edits we end up back there, more or less. Really, the organization's position is simple - they want the US to stop supporting Israel. Just as AIPAC, "America's pro-Israel lobby", wants the US to support Israel. They're a lobby, with a position. -John Nagle 16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some recently added bad cites

Some poorly written citations have been added recently. We have New York Times links that lead to a login page. Can more open sources be found? Also, the cite supposedly from the Mercury News isn't from there; it's from "gradethenews.org". What they said is:

"If it has been documented that Israeli deaths were considered more newsworthy than Palestinian," commented Stanford Communication Prof. Shanto Iyengar, "that's prima facie evidence of bias."

Not so, protested Daniel Sneider, who was foreign and national desk editor at the Mercury News during the study period. He refused to say why on the record. But Mr. Sneider called a similar study to ours, conducted by an organization called If Americans Knew, "fundamentally flawed." Grade the News replicated and expanded the study conducted by the Berkeley-based media monitor. Because we included Palestinian deaths implied by the term "suicide" in our totals, Grade the News showed slightly less imbalance than If Americans Knew. Otherwise, our counts matched theirs.

Two other top editors we contacted at the Mercury News declined comment, deferring to Mr. Sneider, who now writes a foreign affairs column for the newspaper.

What went into the Wikipedia article is: "The San Jose Mercury News called an If Americans Knew report "fundamentally flawed." --John Nagle (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(redacted)

An inflammatory and potentially libelous comment was removed. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and controversial or negative material about living people must not be presented without reliable sources to back them. Also removed fallout from the original comment. <eleland/talkedits> 17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Came here from 3O

It's a little difficult to see exactly what the dispute is, but I don't see where "Numerous citations and additional information were added and then reverted." I did notice that a detailed list of the group's video productions were replaced with a general statement that the group has produced some videos - that seems appropriate per WP:SUMMARY style. Interested readers can follow some links and find the videos for themselves, we needn't detail every single one. Editorial comments about certain sources being "Jewish" were quite rightly removed, as were references to anonymous internet postings.

In general, all editors are encouraged to use the talk page for anything beyond the very simplest issues, since the concision required in edit summaries can lead to misunderstanding, especially when material is being removed. <eleland/talkedits> 17:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Big mess from anon

There have been some major edits by an anonymous editor recently, and they're not very good. I reverted the whole block of edits. Some of the info was just wrong.

For one thing, we don't have a cited list of board members for If Americans Knew, and some of the names we do have are bogus. For example Eugene K. Bird is dead. He was listed as "Eugene K. Bird who is known for developing a close relationship with Rudolf Hess, Adolf Hitler's deputy in the Nazi Party". The If Americans Knew site mentions an Eugene Bird, [1] an American foreign service officer. Not the same person. --John Nagle (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the edits, esp. where Pipes' personal bog is used as source to accuse other persons of negative acts.Bless sins (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

These verifiable facts are now cited and Pipes' personal bog has been removed. Please add more facts if you wish but do not remove these (see Wikipedia rules). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.119.157 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If the anonymous User:128.252.174.116 (and other similar addresses) continues to place argumentative material in the article I will initiate procedures to have him/her banned.StN (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Having an author banned or threatening to do so without delving into why you believe the information presented is inappropriate is contrary to Wikipedia's rules.

Please explain how the information that you have been removing is not objective, relevant, and cited, and why you have labeled it "argumentative". It is certainly no more argumentative in nature than any other information posted; it only it presents more data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.174.116 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The POV pushing by this anon is excessive. The hit section on the board members is a bit much. Almost all of them were notable US officials with long careers, yet they're identified almost entirely by something negative that "Honest Reporting" has to say about them. I haven't deleted that section, although it's tempting. The anon has now twice deleted citations from the BBC which contradict a claim the anon inserted. --John Nagle (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please list any deleted citations from the BBC and return them. Nothing has been deleted from the BBC as far as I can see. Please add information regarding the 'notable US officials with long careers' if you wish but the quotes listed are reflective of their views. The information about the board members and staff is not cherry picked, nor can you assume it 'negative' to the individuals quoted since it a common component of their dialogue. Multiple citations are attesting to this including the group’s website. The citation that uses Honest Reporting is directly linked to a video of Eugene Bird talking and even specifies the time that one can forward to see and hear him quoted. Honest Reporting is and need not be included in the other cited information that you continue to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.11.235 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You Cannot Censor Wikipedia

While editing this page people have been trying to shut out free dissemination of facts. Instead of adding new facts, they are removing verifiable, relevant, and cited data. Verifiable data regarding the leader and members of this organization, what they have said, and where they stand. Removing whole sections in their entirety only demonstrates refusal to confront or acknowledge the truth. Claiming that this page is an attempt to “balance” the scales or that the truth is unfair may occasionally be effective when attacking media stories you do not enjoy but it will not work here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.174.116 (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I think you meant "Censor".

2. Note that comments about living persons are subject to WP:BLP, which you should read.

3. If you're involved in editing contentious articles, it's best to register for a Wikipedia account, so that you have an established identity on Wikipedia and a talk page where you can be reached.

4. Please use edit summaries, to explain why you're changing something.

5. Please sign your talk page comments (click on the scribbled signature icon at the top of the edit box).

Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the 'censor' (sp) fix and extra info 128.252.11.235 (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Board member verification

We have sources for three of the board members, but not the others. The names listed are prominent people; if they're on the board, there should be sources for that. I put a "needs citations" tag on the article a few weeks ago, but no new info has appeared. --John Nagle (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous

I find it insulting that the Criticism section is filled with this rubbish; most of these 'critics' are vehemently pro-Israel. They themselves breach the tenets they are complaining IAK is not upholding, those being fairness and even-handedness. In fact, they're anti-Palestinian, something never discusses; apparently you can only be pro-Palestinian or anti-semitic...sigh...

In addition, IAK is an awareness group; they ARE supposed to be bias and their material is not propaganda, bu

I propose to either expand the praise section drastically to match the Criticisms (I'll do the research) or cut back on the Pro-Israeli criticisms.

Ahm2307 (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous at all, IAK is a hack group of a lady with too much free time on her hands to distort information to claim that Jews/Israelis are not to be trusted and only lies of a genocide are credible for news. It's her bias that is a problem, her mission is to end US funding to Israel by any means possible. She has an agenda that aligns with anti-Semitism, however she never personally attacked you. I took this picture.... http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=37851533&l=34967&id=9008984 she is on the far right (ironically). After she spoke I was tempted to smash her computer. --Saxophonemn (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting section as bullet points

A recent edit converted two paragraphs of text to bullet points, while introducing some typos. I reverted it on stylistic grounds. It seems to read better as text; bullet points are more appropriate where each entry is an exact quote. --John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Chutzpah

IronDuke removed all positive reactions from the article, added more criticisms from biased groups, and then added a slap against the group to the lead "reflecting the article."StN (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think my edits vastly improved the article. If you have concrete suggestions for more/less, I am all ears. IronDuke 19:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see you've already reverted. Can you take a look at WP:LEAD? It says, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." If we omit that the group has been heavily criticised, it is no longer a proper lead. IronDuke 19:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Look at the article for AIPAC. No one can deny that that organization has been heavily criticized, but the criticisms do not appear in the lead.StN (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What is it you're not agreeing with? The guideline? Or my interpretation of it? (NB: Many articles are flawed, that does not mean we therefore overlook flaws where we find them.) IronDuke 02:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. Many organizations and individuals have been criticized, but the cricicisms do not typically appear in the leads of their Wikipedia articles. Otherwise why not include the countercriticisms as well in the leads? Look at the article for Hitler. It states a number of facts about him, including the number of deaths he bears responsibility for, but does not summarize the criticisms of him.StN (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope you won't think I'm picking nits, but I think you're disagreeing with the guideline. There's been a lot of criticism -- serious criticism - of this group. The lead should summarize that, as per the guideline. I try to make it a personal policy not to drag other articles into discussions (I don't always succeed), as different articles are, well, different. They are longer/shorter/more controversial/less controversial/more well known/less well known, etc. IronDuke 05:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with the lede is the "have been criticized" line, which is uncited and doesn't indicate who's criticizing whom. What should be done about that? --John Nagle (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Took a shot. IronDuke 05:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely nonobjective to pull some allegations and criticisms out of the article for the lead paragraph, citing the article itself, while not similarly showcasing a well-documented rebuttal. The organization is critical of Israel. Although some may find this irksome, it is not appropriate by Wikipedia standards to impeach such criticism in the lead. There is space to do this in the article. If the lead refers to criticisms so as to reflect the article's content, it should in the same spirit refer to independent support of the group's findings.StN (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So you do disagree with WP:LEAD? Or is it more, "If the thing I want in the lead isn't there, the thing you want in the lead can't be either?" IronDuke 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have removed that for now. --Tom 15:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom, it would be impossible to argue with your reasoning. IronDuke 16:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ironduke, thanks eventhough I think you are kidding. How much critizism has this group received, by who, and how noteworthy is it? Not sure if it belongs in the lede, but maybe if it is rewritten with who said what and sources. Looking at like groups, it doesn't look like much crtizism is in the ledes. Anyways, --Tom 16:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I wrote was literally true - and you are quite welcome. I think if you go back and take a very careful look at what you deleted, you will answer your own question. IronDuke 16:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Too another shot at the lead, happy to discuss. IronDuke 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I still would leave that out of the lede since it seems pretty vague, leading, not sure what else. Again, looking at similar articles, not sure if the critizism has reached the level for inclusion in the lede. I am definately a minimalist so just my take. --Tom 17:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I think it's quite specific actually, as it links to the section it summarizes. This is the guideline we're generally supposed to follow. IronDuke 17:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would still leave that section out as it is currently written, but will not delete for now. --Tom 17:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree. Apart from the unconventional indication of criticisms in the lead paragraph (which should simply summarize what the organization is), the self-citation in the lead is really questionable. I will remove the last paragraph.StN (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you respond to my points, though? Or defend, in policy or guideline, the points that you make? Thanks. IronDuke 21:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD: "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." Also from WP:LEAD: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations..." I suggest that citing the article itself for one position in a controversy only fulfills this standard if the article itself is also cited for the opposing side. I favor leaving the controversy out of the lead in this case, since the way you have phrased it, it seems like there is a consensus for the critical view. If the controversy is indicated in the lead, then cite specific sources critical of IAK, and some specific sources that are supportive.StN (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib

I've removed the sentence that said that "This information was later confirmed by the prison commander, Brig. Gen Janis Karpinski", in reference to the claim that " Eugene Bird has stated that Israeli interrogators may have been present at Abu Ghraib". The source provided for that reference does not have Ms. Karpinski "confirming" Bird's claim. Rather, it has her claiming she saw a single man, who said he was from Israel, in a different facility in Iraq. We can certianly agree that allegations similar to the ones made by Bird were made by other sources, but we can't say his claims were "confirmed" on the basis of the cited info. NoCal100 (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Eleland (talk · contribs) has removed the Bird section entirely, so for now, this issue is moot. If it comes back, note that Jane's has a report on Israeli interrogators in Iraq; they consider this something the US and Israel did successfully.[2]. --John Nagle (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree that others may have made the same claims as Bird, but that is not the same as saying that his claims were confirmed. NoCal100 (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

? --John Nagle (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:OR#SYN should be excluded. The real question is what is the relevance of Bird's saying this? Why are we picking this one thing he said and presenting it in an article about the group? Presumably, I.A.K.'s board members have all said an enormous number of different things about the Middle East and I do not see any basis for just arbitrarily picking out some of them to be featured. We should either write little essays about every board member's views on the Mideast (I hardly think this is a good idea!) or we should rely only on sources actually about the group I.A.K. not the individual board members. <eleland/talkedits> 03:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted that section because we didn't have a cite for Bird as a board member. I put a "verify" on the board member list back in August, and below, in talk, I've been asking for citations for some time now. Nobody found any. I'm not sure where that list of board members came from. Most of those names were on the board members of Council for the National Interest, which is a different organization. --John Nagle (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced board members

We don't have a source for most of the claimed board members. The ones below the "need additional cites" box aren't mentioned on the If Americans Knew site, even in the older Internet Archive versions. A Google News search doesn't connect those names to If Americans Knew. We may need to pull those names and material about them. --John Nagle (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The unsourced board member names seem to be people associated with the Council for the National Interest, which is a different organization, not If Americans Knew. So I'm going to pull them and comments about them unless someone comes up with a source tying them to If Americans Knew. --John Nagle (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the "critics of Israel" part of that. --Tom 17:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, last call for James Akins, Eugene H. Bird, Francis Boyle, Pete McCloskey, Donald Neff and Edward Peck as board members. Can anyone find a source? If not, they disappear soon. --John Nagle (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

They're gone. --John Nagle (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Serious problems of bias here

I recently made a major clean-up edit to this article that was just reverted; now I see there is an ongoing dispute with multiple editors on this article.

I would identify 3 main problems here:

• Use of criticism and opinion from solidly pro-Israel sources of an activst bent as if it represents the mainstream opinion on this group. Yes, CAMERA and has condemned I.A.K., but what is your point, their pro-Palestinian counterparts have praised it. I am happy to have criticism from pro-Israel partisans if they are even somewhat reliable as sources (that would include most critics here except the fringe Islamophobe Lee Kaplan, see the article on DAFKA and the only reliable source on him.) But we can't present their views as if they are the broad consensus in any way.

• Misuse of sources. This would include using unreliable sources like Iranian Press TV. Really now, do any of the editors here think that Press TV is a reliable source on the Middle East? I'm at a loss to explain how editors known for a pro-Israel stance suddenly find that Iran's propaganda TV station (denies the holocaust, etc) is suddenly a useful source, if it says something that makes pro-Palestinian groups look bad and racist. We are also including a transcript of a speech, provided by the Institute for Historical Review, which has been called inaccurate by both the speech's deliverer and a journalist for Salon.com. Reference to this dispute over the transcript's accuracy was removed without comment. So, basically, we learn here that pro-Israel editors are willing to defend the reliability of Holocaust deniers, if this can be useful to their pro-Israel agenda. Norman Finkelstein, eat your heart out.

• Use of sources unrelated to the group, linked to the group itself by original research and synthesis. Inclusions such as an op-ed by Francis Boyle, which accuses Israel of violating the Nuremburg principles of postwar international law, are only valid if reliable, mainstream secondary sources link them directly to If Americans Knew. You can't just quote the op-ed, and then cross-reference it with the group's board of directors. It is also interesting to note that nothing uncontroversial said by these board members has been referenced; the underlying method here appears to be reading up on every board member and then copying anything negative about them into this page. For example, we say nothing about Donald Neff, a journalist with 40 years of experience who headed Time Magazine's Jerusalem bureau and wrote five books about the region. I'm not saying that we should - his overall biography is irrelevant - but we can't just dump in all the negative information we can find!

• Use of leading language, and deliberate selection of quotes and examples on the basis of which examples could make the group look extreme and Jew-hating. For example, we write 'Its website carries information and allegations about "Israel and Palestine" from a wide variety of sources.' What place have the word "allegations" and the scare quotes around "Israel and Palestine" here? Previously, there were attempts to link I.A.K. to 9/11 conspiracy theories about Jews, based on a lame, intentional mis-reading of a statement about how US support for Israel was one of the things that makes Muslim terrorists angry. Etc, etc.

We need to start editing this article to conform with basic WP standards like WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR, and even WP:BLP - since the section on McCloskey and the IHR goes far enough to be a BLP violation, in that it gives negative and contentious information about the man without any reliable source, just the IHR itself which is at the very least a questionable source (to put it very mildly.) <eleland/talkedits> 01:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have implemented some changes to address these points; the last time I tried this, I made one edit and it was reverted wholesale. If you have problems with any of the edits I've made of course feel free to change the language, but please do not restore BLP violations related to McCloskey, as I will be removing that again, without discussion per WP:BLP. <eleland/talkedits> 02:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, I think you may be right about the board members. It looks pretty squishy to cherry-pick quotes to advance the idea that they hold a particular position, even if that is correct (and I don't know if it is). However, the way you retooled the criticism section just didn't work, and on so many levels. An empty section for "praise," above the one for criticism that actually has content? And the crit was split up, and the headers were confusing. The way it was was much better, I think. IronDuke 16:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we (seem to?) agree that material about individual board members doesn't belong. That fixes most of the problems here. I'm going to restore the empty "praise" section and start populating it over the next few hours. I'll try and keep the sources on either side equal in terms of reliability and weight, ie, I'm not going to source anything to a dubious Palestinian source while excluding dubious Israeli sources. Okay? <eleland/talkedits> 17:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep off the article until you, as you say, populate it... IronDuke 17:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, come to think of it, there really isn't much about this group from pro-Palestinian advocates; just scattered brief references, letters to the editor, blog entries etc. I'm deleting the "from pro-Palestinian groups" section and deleting DAFKA/Kaplan/FrontPage from the other section, as Lee Kaplan is an unreliable extremist source with no place here (please read DAFKA and this SF weekly piece about Kaplan, the organization's driving force.) <eleland/talkedits> 19:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Such evenhandedness would be welcome at Rachel Corrie as well. There, the website http://israelbehindthenews.com/ was cited as a source for a claim challenging the reliability of photos produced by the ISM. Rather oddly, the content of the photos themselves were not discussed. Note that sourcing statements to the ISM or other advocacy groups is not permitted at that page, for reasons I don't quite understand. I would think that Israel Behind the News would be disqualified under that reasoning, but it seems to have been overlooked. Tiamut^talk 17:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there's so much trouble with this article. If Americans Knew doesn't claim to be neutral (unlike CAMERA). They're a lobby, with a straightforward agenda: the US shouldn't support Israel because it's not in the interests of the US.[3]. They're AIPAC's opposition. --John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you could reasonably compare a shoestringey activist group made up of a few dozen retirees and a freelance journalist to one of America's "top-10" congressional lobby groupw. <eleland/talkedits> 17:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, although DAFKA seems to operate on roughly the same scale, and CAMERA, although better-funded, is down to one branch in Boston. --John Nagle (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The logic in this claim escapes me:

According to CAMERA, the organization distorts casualty statistics by failing to read entire articles, and by counting multiple mentions of the same death as multiple deaths, in addition to other issues of flawed methodology. [4]

This is not what the CAMERA article states. Let's take a look at the original text:

Weir further manipulates the data by treating an attack mentioned more than once as more than one death. So when the Times mentioned the killing of a 3-year-old Israeli in front of his kindergarten in a story about that day's violence, and then repeats this fact twice more in the following days' stories about Israel's reaction to the slaying, Weir counts this as the Times reporting on three Israeli deaths. When a story later in the month about a Palestinian family deliberating over whether to allow rockets to be launched from their fields mentioned the boy, Weir then claims that the Times reported on "400 percent" of Israeli children's deaths in this period of time.

In other words, Weir counts the number of US media reports of Israeli deaths, concludes that this particular death is reported 4 times, then correctly states that the report rate is 400%. CAMERA somehow gets the methodology backwards, then a WP editor confuses matters even further and makes it appear as if IAK tries to inflate the number of Palestinian casualties. This needs to be corrected.

The WP article continues:

The Anti-Defamation League has called If Americans Knew an "anti-Israel organization", and asserts that "Weir's criticism of Israel has, at times, crossed the line into anti-Semitism," citing as one example Weir's cherry picking out of context quotes to "define and defame Judaism, which she described as “such a ruthless and supremacist faith.”" [5]

This is what the ADL article says:

In an April 4, 2008, opinion piece [...] Weir hand-picked quotations from Jewish religious texts and used them erroneously to define and defame Judaism, which she described as “such a ruthless and supremacist faith.”

And here are the relevant parts from Weir article [6] the ADL describes:

There are two extremely valuable books on the topic by authors less timid than I, both Jewish, one Israeli: "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" by Dr. Israel Shahak, a holocaust survivor and, until his death in 2001, a highly regarded Israeli professor of chemistry; and "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel," co-authored by Dr. Shahak and Dr. Norton Mezvinsky [...].

In his first book, Shahak explains that he took on this topic when he realized that "...neither Zionism, including its seemingly secular part, nor Israeli politics..., nor particularly the policies of the Jewish supporters of Israel in the diaspora, could be understood unless the deeper influence of [Talmudic laws], and the worldview which they both create and express is taken into account... Without a discussion of the prevalent Jewish attitudes to non-Jews," Shahak emphasizes," even the concept of Israel as 'a Jewish state', as Israel formally defines itself, cannot be understood."

Shahak and Mezvinsky provide a number of translations from the Talmud and other writings that they note are omitted from books on Judaism published in English; for example, from a fundamental book of Hassidism: "All non-Jews are totally satanic creatures 'in whom there is absolutely nothing good.' Even a non-Jewish embryo is qualitatively different from a Jewish one. The very existence of a non-Jew is 'non-essential', whereas all creation was created solely for the sake of the Jews." There are many such passages.

What makes such texts particularly significant, Shahak explains, is that "[i]n Israel these ideas are widely disseminated among the public at large, in the schools and in the army." In a booklet published by the Israeli Army for its soldiers, Shahak reports, the Chief Chaplain wrote:

"When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed ... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good."

One can only imagine what this kind of teaching means for Palestinians in Israel itself, and, still worse, for those in the West Bank who live next to settlements populated by heavily armed adherents of such a ruthless and supremacist faith – and who regularly attack them with impunity, periodically beating, torturing, and killing them. [...]

While the above citations do not in anyway represent the whole of Judaism, the reality is that certain religious texts taught in Israel contain a distressing number of profoundly offensive teachings. I have no doubt that the vast majority of Jewish Americans have long since repudiated these, including Rabbi Hurvitz. Still, just as Christian and Muslim leaders have publicly condemned and disowned spurious dogmas and practices, I suspect it would be valuable for Rabbi Hurvitz and other Jewish leaders to do the same. Such shared honesty and humility by all our religious leaders, I believe, helps us move forward as a stronger, more moral, and more unified society.

Weir explicitly states that the cited and commented bloodthirsty quotes "do not in anyway represent the whole of Judaism", yet the ADL sees fit to claim that she "defames Judaism", then proceeds to defame her as an "anti-Semite". It would seem that the ADL are the real cherry-pickers here, and more slanderous than what one would expect from a WP-grade reliable source. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of your comment was off-topic and unhelpful. IronDuke 00:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? If User:MeteorMaker's rendition of the contortions required to characterize Weir's comments as antisemitic are correct, as it appears to be, the past and future contibutions of the (ir)responsible editors should be subjected to enhanced scrutiny.StN (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not serious. My post above actually forms a larger part of my stand-up routine. I was fearful that some people might not get it, but you put my mind at ease. Oh, and for something really funny? [WP:SOAP]]. IronDuke 00:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wier is correctly quoting Israel Shahak. [7] It's not a problem with Wier. --John Nagle (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this is going. The traditional writings of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have bloodthirsty sections; taking any of them literally leads to trouble. That's not news. What are we arguing over here, anyway? --John Nagle (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems relevant to determine whether characterizations of the article's subject (e.g., as antisemitic) are based on good scholarship or not. A back-and-forth about various opinions may be appropriate for the Criticism section, but allegations based on fudging quotes should not be featured in the lead paragraph.StN (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And the best way to make this point is to find reliable sources that make it. Your opinion is not a reliable source. IronDuke 00:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The question whether ADL qualifies as a reliable source aside, the article text should at least accurately reflect the claims of the sources.

"[IAK] distorts casualty statistics by [...] counting multiple mentions of the same death as multiple deaths"

The impression this context-ignoring paraphrase gives is that the IAK deliberately tries to inflate the number of Palestinian casualties. Can it be rewritten? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have now removed the problematic sentence, since it will probably introduce too much detail to describe IAF's methodology and ADL's CAMERA's exact criticism of it. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why detail is bad. It's only areflection of what others see as problematic re IAK, not what is necessarily the case. Also, WP editors' opinions (cited or no) have no place in this article. And why remove info? IronDuke 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Per above. It's not just that they're details, they're incorrect and misleading details. You had not taken part in the discussion since I brought up the question in mid-December, so I assumed we had consensus for deleting that false claim. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, I actually agree with your line of argument here - as convincing as I personally find the refutation, above, of ADL's writing, it's not relevant. What I find so frustrating is that while you obviously understand WP policy well and are happy to implement this when it serves your purpose, you also appear to be willing to ignore or contradict it when that serves your purpose. I have in mind this edit, where you claim that removing information from DAFKA necessitates removing information from Grade the News.

DAFKA is a extreme-right, Islamophobic political organization. It has never been cited by any reputable news organization. The only book citation I can find is by a fundamentalist the-moooslims-are-coming nutcase named Brigitte Gabriel. Search for it in Google News and you find three articles - two of them are about DAFKA members (one is the author cited) being arrested for assaulting pro-Palestinian demonstrators, and one is about the mainstream SF Bay Jewish organizations voting to kick DAFKA out of their club. There's also a profile in SF weekly of the cited author, called "Disturbing the Peace," which basically exposes him as a stark raving extremist and possible Kahanist.

Grade The News is a project of the oldest public university in California, SJSU. It's been profiled in the SF Chronicle and cited by sources like Newsday, Editor & Publisher, San Jose Mercury News, Oakland Tribune, and the Kansas City Star. The director has worked as a reporter and as a professor of journalism, and the staff & interns are mainly graduate students in journalism programs. The advisory board is led by Ben Bagdikian, former dean of the journalism school at UC Berkeley, and includes a bunch of folks with pretty impressive CVs, like the CEO of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and the former CBS bureau chief in Saigon.

In summary, the comparison you've drawn here is so odious, insulting, <personal attack removed> that I can't possibly accept that it was made in good faith, and I wish you would stop wasting everybody's time <personal attack removed>. <eleland/talkedits> 01:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you want to take a week off on your own, or were you hoping instead for another block for violating WP civility policies? IronDuke 02:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What I wanted is for you to stop wasting everybody's time <personal attack removed>. <eleland/talkedits> 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Can User:IronDuke find one other case where the cited source for a statement in the lead is the article itself? As other discussion here has shown, the allegations of antisemitism in the Criticisms section are based on a false reading of other texts by the cited source of the allegations. You are creating a house of mirrors by quoting a dishonest source (which may be ok in the Criticisms section, since it is rebutted), and then alluding to the dishonest source in the lead as if it represents one side of a balanced argument. If you persist in restoring the phony lead I will make a request for mediation.StN (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediation might be a good thing. I only linked to the crit section because I thought it would be most convenient. It would be easy enough to simply import the links from the crit section to the lead. Would that ease your concerns? IronDuke 00:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No. It has been documented here that the opinion you wish to reference is based on inaccurate quotation of another source. It is cited and responded to in the body of the article, so it is hardly being excluded. Quoting it in the lead gives the dishonest source the appearance of a legitimate point of view. By this technique any article lead in Wikipedia can be populated with deceptions.StN (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have the crit and then the response from IAK. Or at least, we did. I think that's fair to all. And in any case, there's more than one crticisms, no? IronDuke 03:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume, hypothetically, that allegations that IAK is antisemitic, or that they use flawed methodology, are entirely untrue. Would you then agree that placing such allegations in the lead (even though they might be discussed in the body of the article), would give them undue prominence and credence?StN (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't really assume either way, can I? I'm really just going by WP:LEAD here. Lead is a precis of the article. Is that wrong? IronDuke 00:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

<"Stalking" disclaimer - IronDuke I am neither here because you are, nor am I not going to comment simply because you are here>. Anyway I've broadly followed the ins and outs of this for a day or two, but simply wanted to make the more general point about the lead, and back up the apparent consensus that having a "the group has been criticised .." is inappropriate. I'm mildly allergic to "Criticisms" sub-sections as it is, since they usually act as little more than a dumping ground for quotes from every adverse op-ed, press release or academic/political rival that editors who don't like the group or individual in question can dredge up from a quick Google search. But when we try to drag this kind of thing into the lead as well, we're really losing the plot. If nothing else it's the banality of having it there - what is it actually telling us? That an activist/advocacy group working in the political arena (especially in the topic area in question here) has been criticised? No sh#t. Unless that criticism was based around a major event in itself, and was recorded by a significant, objective body (eg if the group had been shut down for terrorist fundraising or whatever), it really is WP:UNDUE in the lead - and quite possibly in the main part of the article itself as well. Otherwise all our WP leads would be constructed along these lines - "The British Labour Party has been criticised for stifling innovation and entrepreneurship in the economy, [and then, for balance] but has been praised for its commitment to greater social and economic equality". As I say, even if it is broadly true, it's just stunningly uninformative. --Nickhh (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay... can you say how you did come to be here then? Thanks. I have no problem believing that you did not deliberately select this article because I was already here. Having said that, I am curious as to how you got here, given that it's a bit obscure. My curiosity is in no way meant to suggest scepticism as to your previous explanation. IronDuke 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I probably can, but I am aware of no WP rules that requires that I should (I am aware of WP:AGF though). And having said that, I'm not even sure I can actually remember. You know, there are at last count about 6 other editors involved here, the debate has also spilled into a WP:WQA thread and of course multiple other WP articles link into this page. In addition you are presumably around on several WP pages, none of which I have been on recently as far as I know. But of course, the fact that we are both commenting or editing on the same page in this instance (as we have about, oh 4-5 times in the last year and a half, half of those times when you came onto the page after me) is clearly proof of my nefarious stalking activity, aimed specifically at you. Your comment above - which I take to read as you saying I was lying when I specifically said that I did not follow you here - leads to the inevitable conclusion that this is a <personal attack removed> problem on your part. Can you say which it is then? And while you're there, can you tell me when you stopped beating your wife? Is that not as much of a loaded question as the one you asked me? And could you also find some time to answer the points I raised rather than simply trying to suggest, like a child, that I have no right to comment because "I touched that piece of cake first!!"--[[User:Nickhh|Nickhh]] (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm really not 100% sure; nor, as we both agree, am I obliged to say. However in the spirit of Christmas and transparency, but without in any way setting a precedent ... logic and my memory seem to be converging on the high probability that I spotted it at some point in User:MeteorMaker's contributions list. I'm sure they won't mind, but I will admit to occasionally glancing at their history page in order to keep track of where the current Samaria debate - which I've been involved in on and off, broadly on their side across 2-3 articles - might be spinning off to. Despite that I doubt I was explicitly following them here either as such, I simply spotted the page name and wondered what the group's WP page said about them, so went to look. And picked up on one of my personal bugbears, which is the loading of articles with "Criticism" content. Unfortunately you happened to be the person arguing for exactly that in this case. So for what's it's worth, there you go. --Nickhh (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nick, belated thanks... I agree that crit sections can be clunky, but they often seem to be the most efficient way. But even if the info were somehow nerged into other parts of the article, the Lead should, IMO, read like a precis of the article. I know not all leads do this, but they should. IronDuke 02:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have revert hte article to the lead that seems to have been pretty stable for some time. Ironduke, it seems that something so critical being added to the lead should have broad consensus which does not appear to be the case? --72.221.70.224 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input -- can you say which other accounts you might be using? I only ask because this is a sensitive area. IronDuke 16:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No. --72.221.70.224 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "no" what? No, you have no other accounts, or "no" you don't want to reveal them? IronDuke 16:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't say. --72.221.70.224 (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will be happy to bear your thoughts in mind when you bring your real account(s) to express them. IronDuke 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "real account(s)". I sometimes prefer to edit as an IP. I believe I am within guidelines and policies on this. --72.221.70.224 (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It all depends. IronDuke 00:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Poisoning the well

No reliable source has discussed CAMERA's wiki campaign in relation to IAK. To introduce this irrelevant fact is egregious well-poisoning. NoCal100 (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Worse, it's bad editing. IronDuke 04:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As is introducing the opinion of CAMERA in the lead as if it were a reputable source.StN (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The opinion of CAMERA and others -- like the NYTimes. And these two cases aren't remotely the same, anyway. Inserting wiki-squabbles into real articles is something that's pretty much never done, unless said squabbles have had significant media exposure. IronDuke 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, responding to mediation request

I am responding to the request for mediation. I am willing to help. I'll need a day to read the talk page and learn some of the history of the dispute. However, feel free to leave concerns here or on the case page which can be linked at the top of this talk page or here. I ask that everyone be civil and would like to suggest, if you haven't already, to read assume good faith, refrain from name calling and to observe Wikiquette. Remember that I am an informal mediator. What I say isn't necessarily what must go. My job is to get those involved to come to some sort of agreement, not impose one upon them. I look forward to listening and offering some useful advice. Thank you. P.S. feel free to also message me on my talk page. Ltwin (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What I think the article needs

Per WP:LEAD the intro should have a section like the following: "The site and some of its members have been criticized for having a pronounced bias against Israel, employment of poor methodology to support that bias, as well as the use of antisemitic statements and motifs. The organization stands by its methodology." The only argument against it so far seems to be that "not every article adheres to WP:LEAD," which is true, but I think beside the point. That other articles could stand improving does not mean that this one should not be improved. Also, on a more minor note, the following information is being deleted from the criticism section: "According to CAMERA, the organization distorts casualty statistics by failing to read entire articles, and by counting multiple mentions of the same death as multiple deaths, in addition to other issues of..." I think it's important to show why CAMERA takes issue with IAK. IronDuke 16:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for compromise

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/If Americans Knew to see proposals. Ltwin (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Defamatory material should be addressed & counter material included

As was made clear on the discussion page some time ago, the ADL claims do not bear up to scrutiny. Therefore they should either be removed or they should be clarified, as I have just done.

Second, it is inconsistent to include criticism without also including validation, awards, and praise. I have added this as well. It makes no sense to include one without the other -- especially since the latter is from established, respected, neutral groups -- eg Grade the News and the Phi Alpha Literary Society. This also had been adequately discussed on the discussion page previously.

I wonder if people with a pro-Israel bias are once again trying to manipulate wikipedia For example, one person editing the page seems especially angry about Weir, where he wrote:

"After she spoke I was tempted to smash her computer. --Saxophonemn (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Litwin wants me to revert the page to its previous pro-ADL smear status. This makes no sense.

It is against Wikipedia policy to repeat invalid smears against a living person. In fact, when it becomes clear that these smears are invalid, repeating them, without including the context showing them to be inaccurate, probably demonstrates malicious intent. Flawfixer (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Before you revert, add information to the article- Pause, breath, and talk about this

Can we please talk before we revert? Ltwin (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironduke has reverted the page without giving any explanation. If this is to be mediated then the page that stands during this period should not contain criticism sections that are not balanced by counter facts. Alternatively, put in the criticism with the countering facts. Either alternative makes sense. Just leaving the criticism -- particularly the ADL's inaccurate defamation of Weir -- is not acceptable and is not a compromise. It is a pro-Israel distortion.Flawfixer (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Both of you should stop this. This is not me calling out one or another. I am telling everyone that this needs to stop. However, I did warn you that your edits might start an edit war. You should not be surprised or outraged that edits you forced on the article are being reverted. I'm not saying your or Ironduke's edits are wrong. I'm saying both of you and anyone else who is interested in this article should discuss before any changes are made. Both you please stop reverting and seek consensus and the best for the article. Ltwin (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

NoCal100 and ironduke tag-teaming

It appears that NoCal100 and ironduke are collaborating to create an inaccurate article; neither uses citations to justify their actions. I, on the other hand, went to considerable trouble to document what I wrote -- even though, when you examine earlier discussions -- this had already been done and should not have been necessary. However, I will now propose a compromise: I will take out all negative and positive comments while this is under mediation. I hope NoCal100, ironduke, and buddies don't revert this.Flawfixer (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your "compromise" -- gutting the article -- is firmly rejected. Your comments are becoming personal, and bordering on abusive, and you should stop making them. And have you said yet what other accounts you've used in the past? IronDuke 21:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Would IronDuke please state specifically what s/he considers undocumented or inappropriate in Flawfixer's recent edits to the article?StN (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please assume good faith. Flawfixer thank you for your proposal. All editors are welcome to comment on it below. Ltwin (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove all negative and positive comments while this article is under mediation

I agree with this proposal.StN (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok StN agrees, does anyone else have an opinion? Ltwin (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then, as IronDuke has made his opinion known, unless other editors voice their opinions it seems that consensus is for the proposal to be accepted. I would like to ask Flawfixer to clarify something:the proposal is only until mediation is resolved right? Also some allegations have been made below, but I am not empowered or qualified to make judgements about other users. I'm here to help people work together. I can't bar some people from participating in mediation. People agree to work together by choice and I am just here to facilitate cooperation. Ltwin (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you focus, please? There is no consensus, the bogus "proposal" has not been up that long and I'm here to tell you I won't accept stubbing the article on the word of an SPA. Will not happen. The article was in need of mediation before you arrived. You are now helping the article to degenerate into much, much worse shape than it was. Your job isn't just to say "What do you all think?" We were doing that before you got here. Your job is to help make the article better. If you can't do it, you can't do it, but please don't facilitate making it worse. IronDuke 05:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said as it stands now. What consensus will be tomorrow I don't know but there hasn't been that much traffic here lately. As you know consensus only lasts until someone new shows up. I know this might be frustrating for you, but it is just an article. Ltwin (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Frustrating? That ain't the word for it. I think it'd be best if you took on something a little tamer, in terms of mediation. This seems to be more than you're comfortable with. I don't mean that as an insult -- I've done Medcab too, and I tried to start small. IronDuke 05:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Have requested alternative mediation

Per request of Flawfixer, I have contacted WP:Mediation Cabal requesting assistance and alternative mediation. To let everyone know, I am not going to stop assisting in finding consensus. I believe all my efforts here have been appropriate, however, I recognize that my efforts to maintain the integrity of the mediation process may have inadvertently compromised that mission. Ltwin (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I know things got stressful and confusing today. Let me start by reiterating this again "Remember that I am an informal mediator. What I say isn't necessarily what must go. My job is to get those involved to come to some sort of agreement, not impose one upon them. I look forward to listening and offering some useful advice. Thank you. P.S. feel free to also message me on my talk page or email me (emails will remain confidential)." You don't have to listen to me and up until today I tried not to interfere in the article itself. I'm not saying reverting was the right or best thing to do, but what I am saying is that at the time it felt like something I had to do. I saw the article getting bogged down in an edit war and I didn't want that to happen. Ironically, in retrospect, I realize my remedy was to enter into that edit war and that was probably a mistake. However, that doesn't negate the fact that the edit warring wasn't helping the article. So we come to this.

If I came off as harsh or demanding or commanding I apologize. If you think that I failed to live up to my own standards I apologize for that. However, if we are going to move forward I need to know who is committed to mediation and who is not? This question is not limited to the following users, but these users are the active ones that I am aware of:

• IronDuke

• StN

• Flawfixer

• NoCal100

Ltwin (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no point in entering into mediation with disruptive editors determined to shovel bad sources into the article. You have to have administrative action against those who damage articles in this often blatant fashion. If you need an example of what can go terribly wrong in a mediation, with a fine editor driven off in total frustration, examine this. It went on for months and months, and left in place a situation that 4.5 editors from 6 originally opposed (and at least one other problem much more serious again). CAMERA has been through two RSNs and is generally agreed to be non-RS. I don't think the ADL has been through that process, but it more or less completely disqualified itself over the Armenian genocide, when it was seen to be making vital decisions on entirely political grounds. Neither of these sources have any place in this article (or indeed, most any other article). It's a complete waste of time to try and reach consensus with editors who reject the principles of the encyclopedia, or mediators who don't think it's their problem. Remember - time-wasters have more time to waste than you do. PR^talk 20:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets start from where we all agree....

We all want this article to be a good one. Flawfixer, IronDuke what can you both agree one? Lets come to some consensus. Ltwin (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but absolutely not. There is no way -- no way -- I'm going to enter into "mediation" with an abusive, disruptive SPA which is likely a sock. I have been pretty much the only person who has been engaging in dialogue on the mediation. With, I think, the exception of one statement from StN, none of those who were so passionate on the talk page are willing to come and try to work things out. I regret that, and am still happy to have them come and work on the article. But allowing an SPA to pop up and start making demands in a mediation is a great way to derail it. If you all want that in your mediation, you'll do it without me. IronDuke 04:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying you will not be involved in mediation and you will not comment on the proposal above? Ltwin (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not with Flawfixer. Happy to have everybody else aboard. IronDuke 05:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And I believe I already commented on the proposal above. IronDuke 05:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to particpate in mediation with all the listed editors.StN (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? Cause you haven't seemed willing to participate in that self-same mediation, which you started, since January 28 or so. What changed? IronDuke 05:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok so now that the proposal is more or less settled (I think, unless other editors come later and have different opinions) what can be done about the lead? On the case page we left off with a proposal that StN and IronDuke said they were open to is this still the case? Ltwin (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that it is settled. I'm prepared to start editing this article as though there were no mediation in place, unless I see signs that this process is under some kind of control. IronDuke 05:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The only control is user rationality. If you think someone is wrongfully misusing Wikipedia then you need to take those concerns to the proper places. As an informal mediator, I cannot judge whether anyone is a sockpuppet. However, what everyone can judge are users participating in an edit war. Do you really want that? The proposal says that until mediation is solved there will be no criticism or praise, is there something there that you do not agree with? Ltwin (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mediation has a tendency to go in directions no-one quite planned on. As a medcab coordinator who has taken many I-P cases, I can say without equivocation that these disputes and the steps to solving them are never under control ;-) Come and go as you like, this is a fairly fluid process. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC) For the record, no one wants an edit war :-p

I mostly agree with it, it's just the pure, bovine insanity of it I have a tiny problem with. Of course it isn't okay to gut the article while we mediate it. Cripes. It would be wonderful to think that rationality were somehow what controlled these things -- it isn't, especially when you allow a disruptive element into the mediation. Whatever, I guess: the mediation was accomplishing nothing in any case, as I was the only discussing things. But turning this into a circus? No thanks.

Xavexgoem, thanks very much for the generous allowance, it is much appeciated. I will, indeed, come and go as I like. IronDuke 05:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I for one am taking a night break from this article. I would strongly encourage other editors to do the same. Ltwin (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, I infer from your edits that your position is that the article can contain criticisms od IAK and its director, but no counter-criticisms of the critics of IAK, even if they are referenced. Is this correct?StN (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

When have I said that? I think it's an odd inference. IronDuke 07:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You have still not responded to my comment where I pointed out the problems with the article's reporting of ADL's and CAMERA's criticism, and the problems with the criticism itself [8], except with the short note that you found some of it "unhelpful". The article is better now, but some clearly misleading formulations remain, notably this line: "the Anti-Defamation League has called If Americans Knew an "anti-Israel organization", and asserts that "Weir's criticism of Israel has, at times, crossed the line into anti-Semitism," citing as one example Weir's cherry picking out of context quotes to "define and defame Judaism, which she described as “such a ruthless and supremacist faith.”"" MeteorMaker (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay... your taking issue with Camera's interpretation or the ADL's interpretation of IAK's positions is interesting, but ultimately not relevant. You might think about emailing them, and asking for a correction. Absent that, your personal analysis does not trump theirs. IronDuke 17:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you read the diff, then made a new, more relevant reply. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I did indeed read the diff, all 18 gigabytes of it. My feeling is that my completely demolishing your argument was helpful... was there something more you wanted? IronDuke 20:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel that you "completely demolished it" with the flippant remark "some of it was off-topic and unhelpful"? Or by misrepresenting it and dismissing it as "irrelevant"? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be technical, I'd say your argument more self-destructed, so I guess I can't claim credit for that. You really need me to spell this out? You have a problem with ADL's crit of IAK. Fine. Okay. I get it. How, then, do you propose to insert your extraordinarily relevant critique into the article? Perhaps "The ADL's position is of course preposterous" <ref> [MeteorMaker's talk page analysis] </ref> . Are you a proper source for whether the ADL or CAMERA adequately expressed their criticism of IAK? Is all this clear enough? IronDuke 20:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I believed I had found a reasonably self-evident way to express that the problems I pointed out were as much with how the WP article rendered CAMERA/ADL's criticism as with the criticism itself. Most of those problems have been corrected in the two months since I originally pointed them out, so let's focus on what remains: We currently have an article that reports as fact that Weir has been cherry picking quotes, when in fact that allegation is more adequately leveled against the ADL quote itself, as even a cursory source check reveals. Lacking sources, we can't point out their deliberate error explicitly, but we can compensate by including a note on their well-documented propensity for labelling any person or organization that criticises Israel "anti-Semitic". MeteorMaker (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, such "compensation" is called WP:SYNTH, and is not allowed. NoCal100 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe nothing that does not involve a conclusion is called WP:SYNTH. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

it actually does, specifically this part: "Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." NoCal100 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN defines synthesis thus: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources". MeteorMaker (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read a little further down, and you will see the section I've quoted, from WP:SYNTH, which exactly covers what you are proposing. NoCal100 (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation, but that is academic. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The word "alleged" has been added to the cherry-picking bit, which is fine by me. So what "remains" now is your desire to poison the well when referring to the ADL which, while understandable, is not acceptable. Was there anything else? IronDuke 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That is the best we can do, but I think we all agree the ADL's allegation of anti-Semitism on Weir's part is not entirely fair, when all she does is quote two Jewish scholars and expressly states that their conclusions are not applicable to the entire Jewry. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We may or may not agree on what is "fair", but we are not at liberty to push our personal analysis of "fairness" into the article. If a 3rd party reliable source criticized the ADL allegation of anti-Semitism on Weir's part, quote it. If not, keep your original research out of the article. NoCal100 (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

CasualObserver'48 has offered his views on the mediation case page. Ltwin (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What do we do when we find that a source is lying? On WP, unfortunately, we are forced to grin and bear it. Though it might have helped the reader to determine the quality of a claim if s/he was informed that the source has a history of taking liberties with the truth. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, we're all in agreement on this point now, yes? Droppable? IronDuke 01:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if there is a consensus to do so (which was implied in my above posts). MeteorMaker (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree, unless there is a consensus not to revert counterstatements to these questionable criticisms and not to place them in the lead paragraph. The way I see it, an organization, CAMERA, took Weir's quotations out of context, using them to claim that Weir is an anti-Semite. CAMERA's dishonest maneuver has been demonstrated, but there is no external source that specifically says "therefore Weir is not an anti-Semite." So, according to IronDuke and NoCal100, who have been presented with what CAMERA has done, CAMERA's allegation must still stand. But based on what? A deceitful handling of Weir's text. And IronDuke has consistently been trying to insert the allegation against Weir in the lead paragraph. It seems that there is an interest in impeaching Weir. Fine, but it is disruptive to do this based on something some organization has fabricated. In this spirit, if some published source can be found that states that CAMERA is a "scurrilous" outfit, should that be mentioned along with the citation to CAMERA? Do we really want to get into this?StN (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You do not appear to have read the discussion above. It will answer/challenge much of what you wrote. IronDuke 03:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I did read it. My post was in response to what I take to be yours and NoCal100's continued insistence on featuring CAMERA's allegations of anti-Semitism on Weir's part. Am I not correct that this is what you want to do?StN (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to reread it, then. You are incorrect on several fronts. 1) We are not discussing the lead here, just the crit section. 2) Your point about trying to insert something into this article about CAMERA being a "scurrilous" outfit, aside from being pretty obviously a bad idea on the face of it, has been answered. If you wish to reply to that answer/those answers, please feel free to do so. IronDuke 03:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not say anything about the lead in the comment above. You may have misunderstood my use of the word "feature." I was asking if you intend to retain CAMERA's allegation of Weir's anti-Semitism in the article, despite seeing how they manipulated her quotations. Please respond to this. Incidentally, there is no basis for excluding documented citations characterizing CAMERA, despite your opinion that you have "answered" this.StN (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You said, when you entered this thread "I do not agree, unless there is a consensus not to revert counterstatements to these questionable criticisms and not to place them in the lead paragraph." Yer off topic there, on the bolded bit. As to the other part, it has indeed been "answered," minus the shudder quotes. The rebuttal's not an Easter Egg, it's very easy to find. And I'm sure you'll have a counterargument when you do find it. As to retaining CAMERA's allegations, absotootely. That doesn't make those claims right, but it's part of the subject. IronDuke 04:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit. As a generally uninvolved editor, I mean no disrespect to mediation, but my sense of NPOV and ‘for the benefit of the reader’, required me to make the recent hide edit in the criticism section. It had gone off-topic to focus on something else, which apparently comes from some place else also. Please continue. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with CasualObserver'48 that the deleted material was a little off-topic and argumentative. A balanced presentation is important but can be achieved more concisely.StN (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Re the Daniel Sneider quote, I wonder, does the position of foreign and national desk editor of a local newspaper really imbue a person with sufficient notability for having his private musings quoted on Wikipedia? Do the policies have anything to say? MeteorMaker (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. I would like to know what others think of this. Ltwin (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we agree about the off topic soapbox that was inserted. I have removed it. I've also removed some of the well poisoning that was inserted to impugn CAMERA. If anyone has any reliable sources which specifically take issue with CAMERA's analysis of IAK or Weir, please do put it in. I've also taken out Grade the NEws, as it appears to be a defunct org -- can someone correct me if I'm wrong? And say what notability they have? IronDuke 17:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this. If comments are inserted to impugn Weir's and IAK's objectivity, it is important for readers to know what third parties, appropriately referenced, say about the objectivity of the critics.StN (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you reverted everything I did without explanation, even reinserting things you yourself had agreed were not appropriate. That's not just bad editing, it's disruptive. I have answered the one point you did address, and you have yet to reply to it. IronDuke 20:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA has repeatedly been rejected as an RS eg at RSN here. Note the aggressive swarming of that discussion of an editor later indef-blocked for severely tendentious editing, abusive sock-puppetry etc etc. PR^talk 20:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. IronDuke 21:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We'll use sources that speak of "Palestinian Duplicity" the same day we use sources that speak of "Jewish Duplicity". PR^talk 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We won't, actually. IronDuke 22:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

PR, are you still on with that nonsensical argument? Let me repeat what I have written with regards to this, on more than one occasion:

PR, I see you making this argument in multiple articles (see [9] [10][ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Narson/Archive_1#Not_use_CAMERA]) – but it has already been pointed out to you that your analogy is fallacious. Mr. Hicks put it better than I can, so let me repeat his argument for you:

That analogy is, in a word, nonsense. The parallel to "Palestinian duplicity" is not "Jewish duplicity", a term with clear antiSemitic implications, but rather 'Israeli duplicity'. Both "Palestinian duplicity" and 'Israeli duplicity' are harsh terms, not understated diplomatic ones, but that does not make the sources using them non-reliable. Needless to say, we use such sources in Wikipedia all the time. For example, Egypt's Al-Ahram weekly used the term "Israeli duplicity" (here, fore example), yet it is used extensively as a source for wikipedia articles such as Cinema of Egypt. Similarly, Stephen Walt uses the term in his book The Origins of Alliances, published by Cornell University Press - are we seriously suggesting that CUP or Walt's book is not a reliable source because it uses a harsh term?

. There's no need for you to walk on broken glass now, just stop repeating this fallacious argument.

- Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to belabor this point, but “Russian duplicity”, for example, has been used by the The Independent (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19961229/ai_n14073363) – a source used in this very article, and one which you seem very supportive of. I suggest we put this argument to bed now. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry CM, I think you're giving PR too much credit here. WP:SHUN may be in order. IronDuke 02:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The particular case that I (not a Palestinian) find particularly offensive runs as follows "Palestinian spokesmen Nabil Sha'ath, Hassan Abdel Rahman, Yasser Abed Rabbo, Ahmed Abdel Rahman and Saeb Erakat took the Western media for a ride ... despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... the credibility of these spokesmen with the American press is apparently unaffected". This is not worded to attack the "Palestinian government" (if they had one?), it's aimed at individuals, and it's their ethnicity that is being referred to. That is totally unacceptable, and is not something I can see from either Al-Ahram or the Independent, both of which clearly refer to government policy not race. ("De Beers had finally tired of Russian duplicity over diamond leaks." and "Israeli duplicity accompanied by military operations continue unabated in the West Bank")
Now, in case racism doesn't affect you the same way, CAMERA is totally untrustworthy on factual matters - in fact, it's denialist. Of the Nakba "the vast majority of Arabs fled of their own accord", of the massacre at Deir Yassin "No hint of a massacre" - while defending this pogromist and these pogromists. All this, while spitting hatred "Carter Shills for Hamas ... the David Irving of Middle East revisionism" and at people such as this gentle retired Israeli professor "his support for Palestinian terrorism is undeniable". Authors of this kind of junk would be totally unacceptable at Brittania or Encarta and they're unacceptable here.
And lastly of course, CAMERAs integrity bears no comparison with that of most editors, having sought to subvert the workings of the project. PR^talk 12:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Project Censored and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

In this edit, User:IronDuke deleted refs to Project Censored and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, claiming they are "non-notable". Seeing that other editors have considered them notable enough to have their own articles, I have put the quotes and citations back, pending IronDuke's explanation. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My explanation? You'll get no such thing, unless and until you advance an actual argument of your own. That they are bluelinks doesn't make them automatically notable, and it's disturbing that you think so. IronDuke 17:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So when you said in your edit summary "they might well seem [notable] for a drive-by blanket revert, but not if you examine them (as I have). Try talk first", you didn't really intend to discuss your findings? MeteorMaker (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I did indeed -- as soon as you advance some sort of argument other than "But they have a blue link so they must be special!" I understand I'm asking you to actually do some research and analysis, but I'm confident you can handle that. IronDuke 18:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What kind of research and analysis do you have in mind?

• "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting": 74,900 Google hits
• "Project Censored": 203,000 Google hits
• "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America": 60,300 Google hits

MeteorMaker (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, though argumenta ad googlem are not particularly impressive in and of themselves, it's at least a start. Did you have anything to say specfically about the organizations in question? And Alternate Focus? On blip.tv? Justification? Is it a copyvio? And turning my Tom Campbell blue link back to bold? IronDuke 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's actually your move, by all bilateral argumentation conventions. What did your examination reveal about these organizations' notability that makes you so confident it's below that of CAMERA? MeteorMaker (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that you will not be baited into doing actual research to improve the article. As you are turning this into a sort of extended drive-by, I'm tempted to just ignore your "points," such as they are. But curiosity and puckishness ovecomes my initial reluctance: we'll start small. I maintain that Alternate focus has no notability at all for our purposes, and that you continually reinsert a possible copyvio link to a non-notable, non-reliable website consisting essentially of a stilted speech by Weir herself. But you seem to like the source very much, please do explain why. IronDuke 19:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already contributed a good deal of research that has significantly improved this article. Since your focus has now shifted to Alternate Focus, I assume your examination of the other two sources' notability didn't in fact find that it was significantly lower than CAMERA's. My problem with the AF one is not the production company's lack of notability (we could always state that it was broadcast on Dish Network), my problem is more that it's not clear from the sentence that it belongs in the praise section. I have therefore moved it here until we have figured out the best way to rephrase it:

The nonprofit organization, Alternate Focus, produced a program on If Americans Knew for broadcast on public access television stations.

MeteorMaker (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"I assume your examination of the other two sources' notability didn't in fact find that it was significantly lower than CAMERA's." No earthly idea why you'd assume that. Consider it unassumed. And are you now saying that merely being broadcast on Dish Network confers notability? IronDuke 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm only suggesting. Since you say that assumption was wrong, I will now assume that the opposite is true: that your examination found that the notability of Project Censored and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting was significantly lower than that of CAMERA. The natural question is, by what metrics? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Only suggesting?" Er... what? Do you, or do you not, believe that the Alternate Focus segment on blip.tv is reliable, and why? (I'm happy get to the other sources as soon as we've covered this one.) IronDuke 21:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

SInce the article didn't state anything else than that the program existed (which was verified by the ref), I think it was properly sourced. However, I don't feel it currently belongs in the Praise section, that's why I moved it to talk.

Now, we're both happy to move to the other two sources. Again, by what metrics have you determined they are less notable than CAMERA? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're making progress. So you think, then, for ref purposes, blip.tv is a proper source? And (as you have still not answered) is Alternate Focus a reliable source for this article? IronDuke 22:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression you might not be so happy to move on to the other two sources after all. If I can give you a conclusive answer that satisfies you regarding AF's reliability (besides "it is a reliable source for the statement in the article, because the article only states that the program exists, and AF are the ones who produced it"), what would it be? Does it involve postulating hypothetical claims that the article might make about the program? (If so, please specify). MeteorMaker (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be something like, "It is important to note AF's segment on IAK because [X]," where X is a description of 1. How reliable AF is itself as an org, 2. How reliable blip.tv is as a ref for that source, 3. Whether the link could possibly be a copyvio and 4. Is the AF a notable org, with notable opinions? Then I'll be happy to move right along. IronDuke 22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I've never stated "It is important to note AF's segment on IAK", I will skip that part of your request. 1, 4: Per WP:RS, AF is a reliable source on itself, but besides noting the existence of the program, the statement wasn't terribly informative, hence the move to Talk. 2: Blip.tv is just a service provider and not inherently reliable or unreliable. 3: Per WP:LINKVIO, linking to a video that the copyright holders themselves have made available is perfectly OK.

So, I assume you have now thought up a reply to the question "by what metrics have you determined Project Censored and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting are less notable than CAMERA?" MeteorMaker (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Thought up a reply" long ago, my good sir, and am eager to share it. I know you're quite anxious to move off this one group (and I think I know why), but although you responded to my points, you didn't answer them. 1. Is the statement "It is important to note AF's segment on IAK" not what you in fact believe? If so, why do you want it included in this article? 4. The statement was indeed not terribly informative. Why discuss it at all? What utility does such a statement have, anywhere in the article. And again: is AF notable in the expression of an opinion about anything other than itself, per WP:RS? 2. It's not about "inherent" reliability. A comment left on a New York Times article by a random reader isn't inherently unreliable (or no more so than a blip.t.v upload, anyway), it is, rather, unknowable how reliable it is. That's why we don't use them. 3. Okay, I'll take your word for it that the uploaders made the video and have permissions for all the footage they used. You ready to concede the AF stuff has no place here (and thus we can move on to organizations I know you're eager to discuss), or have I not yet convinced you? IronDuke 23:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, to show my good will and answer the rehashed versions of the same questions: 1) I have no opinion, I haven't watched it. It's an academic question anyway, because I have moved it to Talk. 2) This is not about blip.tv, they are just a service provider that makes it convenient to link to the program in question. You could just as well ask if your physical TV set is reliable or not. 3) I assume they are the real Alternate Focus if they have their own channel on blip.tv called Alternatefocus.blip.tv. 4) In your upcoming disclosure of what metrics you have chosen for evaluating relative notability, you will reveal methodology that we can use to determine if AF is more or less notable than CAMERA. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

<UI) Good news: I'm moving off the topic of AF. Why? Because you (apparently) just admitted to having twice reverted back in a link to a video you haven't seen, to an organization you have absolutely no opinion of, then taken it to talk for discussion of where it should go. I hope you can see why this would make people a little frustrated -- that's not acceptable at all, is it? Moving on: the Project Censored "newsletter" (itself reliable?) is a dead link. I saw a mention of IAK on their site, but it did not "laud" IAK. The Project Censored thing is closer to okay (though still heavily biased) but I don't see the link as being affirmed by PC itself, and it's passing mention anyway. Notable? IronDuke 00:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted, then immediately moved to Talk, on my own account. What this is about (and it's clearly stated in the section title) is Project Censored and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, two sources you deleted because you had determined they lacked sufficient notability. I see you are not trying to defend that claim any more, which means it was in all likelihood made up on the fly.

Moving on to your new objections: A source document isn't in itself necessary for a ref (I've been lectured for removing a couple of dead links), but I personally prefer to be able to read the source text. A proper quote to insert in the ref would be good. I have no big problems with the FAR one either, I'd say it's reasonably unproblematic. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Reverted, then immediately moved to Talk..." Ah yes... no. Reverted twice, then six hours later (immediately?) moved to talk a source you have no opinion on, and have not seen. Why was it even on talk? As for non-notable, that covered FA, a passing mention, and no mention at all that I could find in the link. Notability here is a combination of factors: is the org itself notable? Unbiased? Is it a significant mention? Does it even exist? You write "A source document isn't in itself necessary for a ref..." What ref? Nothing was even quoted... how do we know it even exists? Did you look for it at all? Have you found it? Can you defend its inclusion on the basis of (and I know I'm spitting hairs here) what the document itself actually says? You suggest that "A proper quote to insert in the ref would be good." My, yes, it would. Do you have one? You then close with "I have no big problems with the FAR one either, I'd say it's reasonably unproblematic." Relieved to hear it, of course, but could you advance an argument here? IronDuke 01:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I made some minor edits to the current and notable inclusions, being unaware of this discussion. Sorry, but please continue. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. @IronDuke: "Immediately" meaning "without intervening edits in the edit history", not "the next instant". I think I have explained fully well why I moved the FA stuff to talk; if you disagree, move it to wherever you want it. I've also explained that I rejected your removal of the other two sources on notability grounds, which you now have decided to not push further. Regarding the source content, I agree it's meager and would personally prefer more, though both seem to meet WP's standards, barely. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your flexibility. I have moved them here, as a gesture of good fath.

If Americans Knew has been lauded by other liberal media monitoring organizations such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and Project Censored.

If someone can find more support for these refs being used, go for it. IronDuke 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here, from FAIR's website, is a compendium of citations of their work in the mainstream media: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=104. They are a media watch group that seems to have gained credibility for what they do. They are as notable as CAMERA. Why should we cite CAMERA and not FAIR? StN (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above. IronDuke 03:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to, but it is mainly a sarcastic, falsely genial exchange between you and MeteorMaker, where you keep saying you answered his questions, or deny his allegations that you are being evasive. Would you kindly cut and paste below your earlier statement of why CAMERA is more notable than FAIR? Please note that I am not asking you why FAIR is not notable. I am hoping that your answer is not that it has already been asked and answered. StN (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As you don't seem to have grasped what was being said, you might want to look again, and try a bit harder. Or, you might want to make an affirmative case yourself, from scratch, why this exact wording of IAK by this exact org with this exact link would be good here. IronDuke 04:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I expected based on your past comments. So I did my homework, having been so deficient in the first place in grasping your arguments, and searched this page for all your entries that contained the word CAMERA. This is what I found:

The opinion of CAMERA and others -- like the NYTimes. And these two cases aren't remotely the same, anyway. Inserting wiki-squabbles into real articles is something that's pretty much never done, unless said squabbles have had significant media exposure. IronDuke 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to conclude that either you thought you posted something that you didn't, or that you are simply blowing smoke to conceal some sort of agenda. You make it quite difficult to assume good faith. StN (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I could have expected you not to actually do what I asked, based on your past actions. Unless I somewhere wrote "Do a quick and dirty search for CAMERA on this talk page, and all will be revealed." The whole CAMERA comparison was MM's hobbyhorse, and had nothing to do with what I was saying. I asked you to make the case for FAIR (not against CAMERA, and specifically for this sentence you want to include), and you haven't. I don't know if it's won't or can't. Oh, and if you could maybe desist from the WP:NPAs, at least in edit summaries. IronDuke 14:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I provided a link, above, to citations of FAIR in the mainstream media indicating its credibility as a source on a variety of issues going back at least a decade. This is more than anyone has done for CAMERA, which is a single-issue organization, the objectivity of which has been questioned in the mainstream media. I asked you to compare FAIR with CAMERA because their roles as sources in this article are parallel, pro and con. I have provided something on FAIR; you have not provided anything on CAMERA and seem not to want to do so. You have not commented on the track record of FAIR as recorded in the material I provided. Criticisms of me for asking you to compare the case for CAMERA vis-a-vis FAIR, or for not following your directions, or for searching the talk page to discern your views, are not arguments for dropping FAIR or keeping CAMERA. Along with most of the other editors of this article I have concerns about CAMERA's claims. Since you are refraining from commenting on CAMERA, and no one else supports it here, we should remove it from the article. StN (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. In addition to giving undue space to a non-notable organization, the CAMERA section contains too many problematic claims. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The CAMERA reference will not be removed, or at least, it won't be for very long. That you are unable to make an affirmative case for FAIR being used here, in this instance, with the link we have attached to the sentence we have, does not in any way invalidate CAMERA. Not even a little bit. You can ask me to compare FAIR and CAMERA as many times as you like -- it is completely irrelevant. Do you understand why? And if CAMERA is a non-notable org, someone ought to this article up for deletion right away. IronDuke 19:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you equating notability with having an article on Wikipedia? It's disturbing that you think so. You have not deigned to try to make an affirmative case for CAMERA either, except that you have determined, through means that you have declined to disclose, that they are more notable than FAIR. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You are easily disturbed, then. You have raised an irrelevant comparison between the two organizations, I'm not obliged to address it. That's not me being rude or ducking, that's me telling you: "What you are suggesting is completely beside the point." It's nothing to do with one org being more notable than the other. Heck, I could in principle concede that FAIR was more notable than CAMERA, doesn't affect my argument at all. IronDuke 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What is your argument then? You implied above that you presented evidence for CAMERA's notability earlier, and when you were busted you denied it was relevant. What is this discussion all about then, the content of CAMERA's and FAIR's views, or whether they belong in the article? StN (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with CAMERA. For a hint of why, check the section header. I'm asking you to defend the specific use of FAIR in this specific article in the specific sentence it's linked to, and the article(?) that's cited. Can you? (NB: Please don't claim there was consensus to remove CAMERA -- you know (or ought to know) that's not the case.) IronDuke 22:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay... you seem to be unable to answer this point. Your "argument" seems to consist of solely of deleting CAMERA in response. Can we get a bit more than that? An affirmative defense of this cite, as it is worded in the article? I'm going to wait a bit for you to reply, then remove FAIR cite again if none is forthcoming. IronDuke 16:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)