Talk:Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Racists and falsification

It would be satisfying to draw peoples (and particularly editors) attention to the fact that David Irving was completely discredited for racist stereotypes and falsification, and that these faults are often found to be linked. It's a pity the rules of the project prevent us from providing examples of these things from the subject of an article. PRtalk 16:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm missing how this pertains, PalestineRemembered. I'm old and easy to confuse. ^_^ I'd like to understand; could you clarify? arimareiji (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I was mystified as well. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm also senile, but as I understand it, PR is saying, (1) racists must lie, because they're concerned about creating racist propaganda, not truth (2) David Irving lied because he was a racist (3) CAMERA is lying (about the growth of settlements, for example) because they are anti-Palestinian racists, and not concerned about the truth. Right, PR? Nbauman (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. PR, please stop soapboxing. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

'honestreporting' external link is pretty much complete garbage

The http://honestreporting.com/ link in "external links", Exposed - Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia, can be seen to be pretty much complete garbage by anyone who has followed this issue. Can we please delete it, or perhaps use it in the article as an example of pro-Israeli propaganda? cojoco (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your rationale - a cursory glance over it seemed to show that it was a counter-charge that while CAMERA's group got punished, a group on the opposite side didn't. Perhaps I missed something more insidious? But if not, I don't think it's NPOV for us to set ourselves up as Arbiters of Truth and delete anything which is not Truth. arimareiji (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC) (struck in favor of Nbauman's better response) arimareiji (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I would leave it as self-evident propaganda. If you can find a WP:RS who has followed the issue and says they're complete garbage, you can post it on the WP HonestReporting page, and post a link to it from this page. Nbauman (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Much-better stated than my comment. People who want to believe it will see it as Holy Truth, people who don't want to believe it will see it as Sinful Lies, and the rest of us will just sigh and shrug our shoulders. No harm, no foul. arimareiji (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
And I might add, at this point in Wiki-evolution, it a reasonable definition of NPOV on such a hot topic. Knowledgeable neutral editors will sigh, because they know it as a less-than-enlightened acceptance of propaganda (from either side), yet they will accept it because such a presentation is the best implementation of NPOV that Wikipedia can currently provide without edit wars. That is unfortunate considering what is 'for the benefit of readers,' but easier on more pov'd editors and overworked Admins. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
There are several points here:
  1. arimareiji's first statement is that at face value, the article is simply point/counterpoint. However, the article has one problem, which is that it is an active distortion of reality, which anyone who has examined this issue closely can tell. The article is also a blatant attack on the credibility of Wikipedia, which usually does not pass here without notice.
  2. Nbauman, please read my statement again: I am not attacking the honestreporting website, just a single article on it. And, are we now required to find a WP:RS reliable source to assert the unreliability of other sources? That would create a circularity of reliability enough to cause the implosion of even Wikipedia! I think that, at some point, people must just have a tacit understanding of what constitutes a reliable source, partially based perhaps on whether or not the source produces accurate summaries of primary sources available elsewhere.
  3. arimareiji's second statement amounts to: If there are two opposite points of view, then why worry? Nobody is getting hurt, after all? I would hope that this approach to writing encyclopedia articles is self-evidently not the best approach to take. Perhaps a wider reading than a single article might give more insight into this issue.
I am sure that, like myself, many people have spent hours and hours reading the evidence available on Wikipedia and elsewhere which clearly documents the attempt by CAMERA to manipulate the contents of Wikipedia, in blatant violation of Wikipedia's clearly stated policies. The article in honestreporting.com is an attempt to misrepresent the actions of CAMERA, and assign guilt by association on the original source of the emails which led to the investigation.
arimareiji, could you please point me to any evidence for the existence of "a group on the opposite side" which manipulated Wikipedia in a similar way to CAMERA and did not get punished? While I have seen mention of this group used in a kind of "tit-for-tat" defense of CAMERA's actions, I have never seen any convincing evidence of its existence, whereas the violations of Wikipedia policy perpetrated by CAMERA are extensively documented, and resulted in censure by Wikipedia administrators.
Simply restating my position, I don't think that an external link such as "Exposed" should be listed as an external link in a Wikipedia article without some kind of notice that it is propaganda and misinformation. cojoco (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comments inserted above; I probably said enough there. I guess I have a greater acceptance of things than you may, but I try to make my edits on more historical topics; this is too current, active and reactive for me. Just look at how fast recent events are propagated by our fine subject, and look at other sites of the associated camera crew and their opposite numbers here. These are not the actions of un-interested parties. They exist to react; neutral editors will see how NPOV’ly their views are presented. Watch coverage on these sites over the next month, and then read the next issue of WRMEA or FAIR. All will be heated; some will be more sober than others. I have better things to do, good luck. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't have much to say, because I'll gladly admit that my points have been mooted: DreamGuy's edit resolved the matter beautifully. Those links were much more inflammatory than probative, and removing the lot is much better than trying to "balance" them.
Cojoco, in my experience it's extremely dangerous territory to say that one side is completely in the right and the other side shouldn't even be allowed to respond because their lies are too pernicious to be heard without causing harm. That was pretty much the basis for my comments. arimareiji (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Cojoco, I think I basically agree with you, but the notice should be given on the Honest Reporting page by attributing a comment to a WP:RS, and you can link to that page from this page. I'm trying to get your point across in a stronger way in terms of WP rules that wouldn't give anybody an excuse to delete it. Nbauman (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) arimareiji, how did you get to "one side is completely in the right and the other side shouldn't even be allowed to respond because their lies are too pernicious to be heard without causing harm"? I thought I was pointing out an inaccurate article which shouldn't be in the external links! Nbauman, I can see your point also, but this seems a little round-a-bout. My interest is more in the Wikipedia aspect of the controversy than the whole Israel/Palestine thing. I think that there should be an external link in the article to the huge volumes of discussion on Wikipedia which surrounded this issue, as it was quite fascinating to see how people operate on Wikipedia, and it gives a lot of insight to CAMERA's actions. I've also just noticed that Mantanmoreland has weighed in on this talk page in the past, tying two wonderful Wikipedia controversies together! cojoco (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

External links

Does anybody else agree with DreamGuy that these external links should be removed?

I think they should stay. This article went through a painstaking review and reached a broad consensus, and those links were part of the consensus. As I said when I reverted it, those links are documentation and supportive evidence for the story.

I believe those links fall under WP:ELYES:

  1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
  2. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

What do you think? Nbauman (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think that those links meet either one of those two criteria? They certainly are not neutral (and the accuracy was strongly disputed), so the first is out, and our WP:EL policy makes it very clear that relevance is for the overall topic, not for small sections within the article (such as the Wikipedia controversy). We also have a long tradition of trying to not be too hyper on putting anything about Wikipedia in Wikipedia articles just because it's Wikipedia. That whole section should probably be trimmed down as it is. Giving a ton of links to only that small side issue gives major undue weight to that one particular topic within the article. DreamGuy (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I personally do think that the Wikipedia story is a large part of CAMERA's significance. There are several pro-Israel media watch organizations, and as far as I know, CAMERA is neither more nor less significant than any of the others. However, CAMERA only came to my attention because of the Wikipedia controversy, and many of the mentions of CAMERA in the mainstream media were about the Wikipedia controversy. I may be drawing a really long bow here, but without the Wikipedia story, CAMERA might have close to zero notability. The Wikipedia story is also interesting because it gives a great deal of insight into how partisan political organizations engage in astroturfing, and the open nature of Wikipedia lays out all of the arguments, from both sides, which led to the decision by the Wiki admins to ban some editors. cojoco (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As DreamGuy noted in his edit, external links are NOT to be used for "documentation and supportive evidence for the story", as these should be in the references, of which there are plenty. Examining wikipedia policy of what should be linked, perhaps only the emails themselves would be good candidates for external linking: the other articles are either POV or newspaper articles whose factual content could be included in the article itself. cojoco (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. I'm not sure I understand your rationale. Would not the emails fall squarely under "documentation and supportive evidence," which you agree doesn't belong in external links? If they're not D&SE, then they're an argument for the EI side of the story - which excludes them from "neutral and accurate material." EI is a partisan in this, not a neutral RS, but they're the hosts for this material.
  2. I don't think it's appropriate to immediately re-include material which condemns CAMERA and say it's "useful and relevant," but exclude their single mitigating argument for being "untruthful." Again, I believe it is extremely dangerous territory to set ourselves up to Judge And Weed Out That Which Is Not Truth, versus letting both sides speak - whether or not they're grinding an ax in doing so. I think the reader can figure that out pretty easily.
  3. Thank you, incidentally, for saying that D&SE isn't appropriate for external links. It helps us reach a common point of agreement faster, whether or not you agree with what I said above. arimareiji (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason I suggested that the emails could perhaps be included is simply that they are the original primary source of the information presented in the article about the Wikipedia campaign, which seems to fit the spirit of the rules. However, some of the links might end up in the references section if more detail were added to the article, although as you know I do have reservations about one at least. As became clear, the fact that the emails were originally sourced from EI didn't have much bearing on the subsequent investigation. I'm also not really sure about why you would want to include an opinion piece to balance an original source containing copies of CAMERA emails: are we to assign "equal time" to all competing arguments in every section of Wikipedia articles, even upon an issue where Wikipedia administrators have a clearly stated conclusion? Your position does seem a trifle ridiculous. cojoco (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, just to nip in the bud a possible misunderstanding, it is not true that "D&SE is not appropriate for external links". It would be more correct to say "D&SE is not appropriate, in itself, as a reason to add a link to external links" cojoco (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Arimareiji. External links, which give readers insight into the points-of-view of the various sides, are completely appropriate. Though you may not agree with a particular external link, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to remove all external links except those which agree to a certain point-of-view. If you believe that the external links are unbalanced in favor of a particular point-of-view, then add additional links from the opposing view in order to balance things out. Don't simply delete the external links which you dislike. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if you read all of this discussion before commenting upon it. The purpose of external links is not to repeat material which is available in the article and the references, which is why so many were deleted (not by me). Nobody has suggested removing all external links except those which agree to a certain POV: I suggested including a link to the original emails only because they are a primary source in this article, and I am not even sure if this appropriate. Nobody has suggested that the external links are or were unbalanced, although I did point out that one contained substantial factual inaccuracies. External links were deleted because they were not appropriate in regard to WP:EL, and for no other reason. cojoco (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) There are three more external links which do not appear to be relevant to this article, except as examples of both pro- and anti-Israel media monitoring organizations:

Can these go as well, or is there some CAMERA connection which is not clear to me? cojoco (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

FAIR only seems to be a related organization; CAMERA is a member of the David Project, and they have criticized the work of someone who is now an Assistant Director PEJ. I'd say FAIR should go, while the other two would stay or go together. I also think that the CAMERA letters would make sense as an external link.--69.208.133.204 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Extraneous info added about Israel/Gaza conflict

I've already once removed the extra info added to the Israel/Gaza conflict section, because I can't see what it has to do with CAMERA. 69.208.133.204 re-added the material with reference to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which doesn't seem to be very relevant. If anything, I'd want to make the paragraph even briefer, changing:

"The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict began on 27 December 2008 when the Israel Defense Forces launched a series of airstrikes, which they codenamed Operation Cast Lead targeting members of Hamas. In response to coverage of the event ...

to this:

"In response to coverage of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict ...

Can we remove this material? cojoco (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a message on User_talk:69.208.133.204; apologies if we bit the new editor ... please discuss it here if you can explain how that material is relevant for CAMERA cojoco (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It was supposed to be contextual, but as none of the other sections contain this information I suppose it would be better to leave it off.--76.214.153.120 (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles dealing with controversies related to Wikipedia

I have posted a question about this article here. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. cojoco (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP material

I have deleted, twice here now, material that appears in five different articles and violates WP:BLP, among other things by accusing Rajiv Khalidi of using (in different versions) "fabricated", "false", or "hoax" quotation attributed to an interview Moshe Ya'alon. Per BLP, unsourced and poorly sourced material about living people should be removed from the encyclopedia anywhere it appears without waiting for the discussion, and should not be inserted. The policy is explicitly not limited to articles that are biographies. Khalidi is still alive, and the only reliable source on the subject to date is a brief New York Times editor's note saying that the "widely" repeated quote could not be verified and is not contained in the interview to which it is generally attributed. It says nothing about the quote being false, fabricated, etc., nor does it say it was "pressured" to retract it (which is not how such things work) or that Khalidi could or could not do anything. Some but not all of these allegations are contained in editorials on partisan websites like CAMERA's, but they are just that, allegations, and are not considered a reliable source for BLP purposes. The only connection CAMERA has to this incident is that it took a partisan stand on the subject, and there is no secondary reliable sourcing about that stand, or that suggests that it is at all significant. Therefore, in addition to being a BLP violation for reasons of sourcing, it is a WP:COATRACK to single out Khalidi "most particularly" for repeating in an editorial a widely repeated quotation, and a seeming violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. If I removed the BLP-offending material the only thing left would be a statement that a quote widely reported to be by Ya'alon turns out to be unverifiable (which has nothing to do with CAMERA), and that CAMERA commented on that fact (which is of trivial and unestablished importance). So I might as well take the whole thing out again. The material is adequately treated in the article abou Ya'alon, the one place where it may be relevant. If you don't agree, feel free to add something but please only material cited to reliable sources that is not a coatrack to malign one of the targets of CAMERA's activities. This has been brought up at WP:BLP/N#Henry Siegman - "anti-Israeli" criticism. Wikidemon (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. If there were a reliable citation linking CAMERA to the NYTimes retraction then I think that it deserves to go in this article: as it appears there isn't, then I agree the material should go. However, I disagree that this material would necessarily be an "accusation", so long as it was made clear that the NYTimes retracted the quote. As the NYTimes states, the quote has been cited widely, so the retraction should also be cited widely. cojoco (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I have referred the matter to AN/I here. There is edit warring continuing across several articles, BLP issues are present, and nothing else has stopped the edit warring so far. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
On the face of it, I it looks to me as if it should go in, as long as it's rigorously sourced. If it would demonstrate that Palestinian academics make errors and CAMERA corrects them, that's a legitimate point. I've done the same when the Israeli government makes errors. WP:BLP doesn't prevent you from documenting errors, it just requires good documentation. Nbauman (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no sourcing at all for some of it, and for other stuff just self-serving incendiary claims by CAMERA and another partisan organization that they discovered the "hoax" and schooled the New York Times on it. If they do prove that the quote is inaccurate, that is a matter between them and Ya'alon. The Times for its part does not say the quote is incorrect nor do they report who complained to them or why, only that they cannot verify it. As the Times reports it is "widely cited", and they don't get to use Wikipedia to turn this into a propaganda campaign against every one of their enemies who might have repeated it.Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm the one who originally added it, although it has been changed since. I put it in based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation. -- Nudve (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

category: antisemitism

Re this edit.

"This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. It does not imply that the subjects of any articles in the category are antisemitic." - any article that covers anti-semitism should share this tag - on either side of the issue.

Considering that the Anti-Defamation League shares the tag, it seems entirely reasonable that CAMERA should as well. Camera has a long history of accusing people of being anti-semitic - so I don't see why it isn't appropriate.

It seems to be a bit odd that articles appear where CAMERA has made anti-semitism claims and the category tag is added - but CAMERA, who makes the claims, isn't in the same category.

Isn't a category tag supposed to reflect what issues are covered by the subject in question? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't able to see the discussion of antisemitism in this article; could you quote the material that does? Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I meant in various CAMERA articles - or does category apply only to material that specifically appears in the article, but doesn't apply if it appears in articles directly related to this one? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
What are the "various CAMERA articles"? I'm aware of only one, this one. Jayjg (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I agree with Jayjg, since I searched for that particular word and it does not currently occur on the page. This might more appropriately explain the comment above, but that is only my take on it. That said, and in light of his challenging prose, I assume that if you can find an applicable source (RS and V, etc, etc, etc.) that provides such a quote from/about CAMERA, then it would be appropriate for inclusion, as well as the deleted category.CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Edit Conflict
It just seems to be an issue that crops up with a fair degree of regularity in CAMERA articles. Not surprising given their stated purpose and goals.
So, since it's a stated goal (fighting anti-semitism) of the ADL, and they address it regularly - they belong in the category. But CAMERA, with which it is not a specific goal - but they address it regularly in any case - it doesn't belong? I'm not clear on what determines if an article belongs in a given category. Does it all come down to whether or not the text, "anti-semitism" appears in the article text? Category inclusion guidelines seem... nebulous... GrizzledOldMan (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, categories. Categories are ideally supposed to contain, not so much the subject of the page, as the page itself. Quoth Wikipedia:Categorization#When to use categories: "Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" In this case, then, category:anti-semitism should contain articles that discuss anti-semitism, not articles on subjects related to anti-semitism. Does this article qualify? Not currently, it would seem. But, to borrow CasualObserver'48's words, "I assume that if you can find an applicable source (RS and V, etc, etc, etc.) that provides such a quote from/about CAMERA, then it would be appropriate for inclusion, as well as the deleted category." — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's a bit clearer - articles in a category should discuss the topic - not merely mention it in passing. For example, Doug Christie - who served as a lawyer to some people charged with anti-Semitism, is in the category due to his clients' activities - he's a common point one might use to find other notable Canadian anti-Semitists. Elisabeth Volkenrath on the other hand, who ran a women's death camp, is not in the category because she merely carried out Nazi policies, but did not actually have much to do with anit-Semitism in itself. Is that correct?
Sorry to clutter up the talk page with this, but it's really confusing me. I'd like to understand why my category tag addition wasn't appropriate.
I haven't really looked for those articles on the issue - it seems that if the purpose of categories is to allow for navigation by subject, CAMERA, whose involvement is only secondary in nature, doesn't really belong. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles that bring up the issue of antisemitism belong in Category:Antisemitism. This article does not. On the other hand, Israel Shahak's does. Sorry for mentioning the Elephant in the room. Jayjg (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, where do we put false charges of antisemitism? Like the ones used by components of the Israel lobby that are used to silence debate and impune their critics. These seem quite plentiful. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No idea what you're talking about, really; are you sure you weren't referring to the antisemites who use the claim of being "anti-Zionist" to mask their antisemitism? You know, the ones who smear their opponents with the phrase "Israel lobby" as a way of silencing debate and impugning their critics? They seem far more plentiful. As for Shahak, he was described as an antisemite solely and specifically because of his writings about Judaism; the pretense that it was for his political views wouldn't fool an infant. Jayjg (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, goodness. Can we keep that old horse off the talk page? Yes, there is a legitimate concern that some people attack Jewish-related things out of antisemitism. But what does that have to do with anything? The category by itself is not an accusation or praise, and not necessarily a comment on the organization, just a way of helping people interested in the subject navigate to articles that touch on the subject. So technically yes, false charges of... or attempts to combat... or lots of hot air on the subject of... would all qualify an article (in my opinion) for inclusion in the category. But the article still would have to have some content useful to the subject. If someone follows the category link, comes here, and finds absolutely zero material about antisemitism, then we're wasting the reader's time. If they come here and find a useful tidbit or two, it's worth adding the category. Hope this helps. Wikidemon (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

@Jayjg - can you remind us of Western "antisemites who use the claim of being "anti-Zionist" to mask their antisemitism"? The only Westerners I can see doing this are the marginalised racists, with anti-Zionism well down their list of priorities. No known link to any editors. (You might also wish to comment on the other religious hate-scourge - WP:BLP violation removed Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are notably and strongly pro-Israel, not anti-Israel). PRtalk 17:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

PR's table indicates that "Antisemites who use the claim of being "anti-Zionist" to mask their antisemitism" are rare and completely irrelevant to this article - click to see
Western individuals and movements Antisemitic and Anti-Zionist? Evidence
Convicted western antisemites/Holocaust Deniers No known interest in Israel. From sample of two, David Irving and Ernst Zundel, according to their WP articles, no mention of Israel.
Orthodox Jews, anti-Zionist None Neturei Karta claim that "hundreds of thousands identify with the NK position". The NK are the one group of anti-Zionists we know can credibly be called "extreme" (attending Iran's Holocaust Conference, celebrating the death of Israeli soldiers). Unknown number of less extreme anti-Zionists eg in Brooklyn.
Poland, 1930's None, Zionist General population and authorities supports concept and existence of Israel. General population and authorities persecute Jews - though many of the latter hotly reject invitation to Palestine.
pro-Palestinian activists Known to reject at least some antisemites Reknowned for bitter denounciations of those considered antisemitic, including their own allies for not being rigorous enough. eg virulent attacks on Gilad Atzmon.
Most German people and most Europeans Some sources (all extreme?) make this claim eg JCPA Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs publishes "Being Leftist and Anti-Semitic in Germany".
Other articles/statements from this source make extreme claims such as: "International law does not require Israel to supply Gaza with fuel or electricity, or, indeed, with any other materials, goods, or services."[1]
US White Nationalists, 1990s and 2000s Mild anti-Israel, some antisemitism Border-line extremists with no likely link to anyone editing here, and only one-way links to other anti-Zionists.
State Players Communist, Middle East, African Non-western, no obvious relevance to discussion.
Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Ahmadinejad ?? Evidence available, so I'm told.
Poland, 1967/68 Yes Communist state, previously accused of antisemitism used anti-Zionism (freshly adopted in consequence of Six-Day War?) directly in a campaign of antisemitism.
PR, please stop filling the Talk page with your incomprehensible OR tables, and stop inserting BLP violations as well. In fact, in general, please stop soapboxing. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
You've just been taken to ANI for interfering with discussions on several significant parts of policy (Nazi-denier defender is non-RS and 2 RfCs say source is non-RS and on being quoted by neo-Nazis and discussion of OR policy and subversion of WP). This time you're interfering to protect a man banned from the UK and of whom it was said yesterday again (quoted in the Telegraph) "an open and relentless preacher of hate". Because you're offended to hear him described as a "prominent Islamophobe"?! PRtalk 16:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to name'n'shame

I don't think there's any need to insert the Wikipedia usernames of those involved in the Advocacy affair; it's not really relevant to the story and is all documented on Wikipedia anyway. I think the article is pretty much back where it started. cojoco (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a good reason. Really sounds like your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT Re-added the material, but as I have done 3 reverts now within 24 I will take a break for the next 24 and see what consensus develops here.TWilliams9 (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I would put the objection somewhere between WP:NPA and WP:NAVEL (which might merit taking all of the Wikipedia gaming coverage out and moving it to a "This page has been mentioned by the press" mention on this talk page). The editor in question is still active on this article, editing constructively, and is not topic banned. As such, historical information about any scandal involving him and this page should be in that kind of mention, and any current objections should go through dispute resolution.Wikidemon (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The policy you site, WP:NAVEL states that it is acceptable to write about "Articles where Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article, for example: Seigenthaler incident." The editor in question would probably be wise to recuse himself from editing that section, seeing WP:COI. This is not a personal attack, and is reliant on reliable published outside sources, such as Harpers Magazine. As you can see by the title that you wrote for this section No need to name n shame, the policy you are really citing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TWilliams9 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, calling it WP:IDONTLIKEIT without specifying why the article is improved by it (other than "being named here should serve as a warning to a specific editor") comes across as WP:ILIKEIT. Especially since such a response seems to land it squarely in the middle of both WP:NPA and WP:NAVEL. arimareiji (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
(to TWilliams9)You have no basis for making assumptions about other editors' motivations so please do not speculate. There is little indication in the reliable sources that the Wikipedia incident, much less this particular editor's unwittingly being mentioned by one of the people involved, are significant to the overall importance of CAMERA. It is an established, controversial, active, partisan think tank / media watchdog. The Wikipedia operation was a minor incursion compared to the other things they do elsewhere, interesting mostly to Wikipedia insiders and not the reading public. There are hundreds of news hits for CAMERA, and only a few that mention the Wikipedia affair - certainly nothing that justifies the detailed treatment here, or this article's coverage of the news coverage of CAMERA's attempt to alter Wikipedia's coverage of the news. Undue interest in this kind of self-reference is exactly what WP:NAVEL is all about. If we added prose to each article every time the subject of the article was mentioned in the news to have interacted with Wikipedia, our pages would be full of amateurish self-reference, and the whole encyclopedia would lose credibility. At this point your proposed addition has been reverted by three different editors within 24 hours - please take that as a sign that there is some genuine concern that the material is inappropriate.Wikidemon (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to signal my agreement with Wikidemon, Arimaeriji, and Cojoco..--75.2.7.232 (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not "name'n'shame", this is fully reporting documented, established facts. Every writing style book that I've read (starting with Strunk &White) said that writing should be specific, and state concrete facts, not abstractions.
Writing is made up of facts. Facts are important.
Zeq's name is irrefutably a specific, concrete fact which is important to the story. If somebody searches Google to find out who Zeq is, they should be entitled to know that he was involved in this. It's not a personal attack; the user himself has become the story. He broke well-accepted rules and got caught.
WP:PRESERVE argues that we keep this in.
Newspapers would often keep names out of the newspapers when an advertiser or friend of the publisher did something illegal or embarassing. That's censorship. It's censorship to delete an otherwise relevant fact out of sensitivity to the feelings of a person who did something that should be condemned.
It's particularly important to get this right -- and discuss it fully -- because the entry deals with WP itself. It's a matter of integrity for WP to deal with itself honestly.
If 3 reversions within 24 hours is a sign that some editors believe the material is inappropriate, then I will revert it as a sign that I believe the material is appropriate. Nbauman (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Or instead of reverting, you could look at the responses on the Talk page and see that four editors have opposed it (WP:NPA and WP:NAVEL, and that you make only the second to argue for it. arimareiji (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the material again - the reason given above for adding it against consensus is more or less a declaration of WP:BATTLE. Please review WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD.Wikidemon (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

An argument by an analogy to this situation. Another example of this would be the Colbert Reports mentions of Wikipedia, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colbert_Report#Wikipedia_references, there the writing and facts included are of a similar nature to the ones I wish to include in this article, although the main difference is that I was using 3rd party sources such as Harpers and the EI report, while the Colbert Report article only utilizes links to Colbert website. I would view this difference being that the sources I wish to include here are actually better than the ones of the Colbert Report page. If you see the articles that Colbert Mentions such as Elephants there is a brief warning on the talk page like you suggest here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant. If you look at this situation like the Colbert Report situation you would put the description of the incident on the CAMERA page, and then put the warning label on whatever topics were mentioned in the CAMERA report. Thats my view, but Im definitely not as well versed as others on the vast array of wikipedia policies. TWilliams9 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Big difference: The_Colbert_Report#Wikipedia_references doesn't launch personal attacks, and it deals with notable material rather than navel-gazing that's only of interest to some Wikipedia editors. arimareiji (talk)
I don't see how you conclude that this is a personal attack. Also Warren Gansta Harding would probably object to your contention that Colbert didn't get involved in any personal attacks. As far as navel-gazing goes, I would contend that your stance looks more like censorship of information that is unflattering to Wikipedia than mine does navel-gazing. As I have stated previously, the sourcing relies on reliable 3rd party sources. TWilliams9 (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
We could briefly mention a user who was banned because of the campaign referred colluders to another editor he perceived as good and pro-Israel if there is consensus, but giving specific names only mean something to those who have been more intimately involved in the project or even specifically the article, so I don't understand the benefit to readers at all. Also, the fact that a name was given doesn't seem to stand out as particularly relevant, how many other names or e-mails could be included and would they be relevant? There is a rather strong burden to add this, but maybe it could be done in a way in which people on talk find acceptable and the reader could go look at the external reliable sources if they truly care about specific names. Just a proposal to maybe do this briefly and without providing specific names (which someone who is interested would easily be able to go find).--75.2.7.232 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
On Wikipedia talk pages there seems to be hesitation in naming editors accused of past sins. The Wikipedia username really only provides "local colour" to a non-Wikipedia editing public, so is not very important to the article, and to Wikipedia editors, the username probably is not appropriate. That said, I do think that this story is a very important aspect of CAMERA, because there were many feature articles about it at the time, and it also exposed some very real potential problems in the Wikipedia project itself. Saying that the affair was only a small proportion of CAMERA articles is a bit disingenuous: this is a media advocacy organization we're talking about, there are bound to be hundreds of independent articles mentioniong CAMERA. cojoco (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I would assert "ongoing" rather than "potential," but on the scale of widespread brush fires rather than a single forest fire. arimareiji (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I still have a concern about NAVEL. I'm actually very interested in this stuff, and offended by CAMERA's attempt to game Wikipedia. It just seems self-indulgent for us to go off about everything that happens here as if it's more important than the outside world. I have the same concern with the other examples too, the Colbert Report, etc. Note that I said "concern" and not "objection". If we can do the same without actually naming the wikipedia editor I'm okay with it. If anyone really wants to know they can just follow the Harper's link. That one needs a subscription but there is one other reliable if minor source that has the name and does not require a login. We're not hiding information, just trying not to shout it. Wikidemon (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:YESPOV and WP:PRESERVE I am putting the info back in the article until consensus is reached to exclude this well sourced material. TWilliams9 (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted and placed a warning on the above editor's talk page.[2] That was the sixth revert from this one editor. This has gone on long enough. Implicating a Wikipedia editor, who is not even accused of doing anything wrong, based on a scandalous incident like this is a non-starter. There is no way this material would stand in the article. If there is any further disruption over this I will revert for BLP / NPA purposes (or whatever the exact policy may be) and ask that administrators either edit protect the article or block the offending editor.Wikidemon (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Concur, per my edit, to which you reverted. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you actually state a relevant policy for why this material should be excluded? Remember WP:NOTCENSORED. Absent any real policy concerns it seems like you are arguing for censorship because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As we have seen, WP:BLP doesn't provide reason to exclude this information because it is well sourced and not viscous. WP:NPA doesn't provide reason either because "Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack." So instead of saying "wehatever the exact policy might be" it would be helpful if you stated a policy that consensus agreed on was a reason for excluding this material. TWilliams9 (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Similar incidents that are mentioned on Wikipedia. Marty Meehan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Meehan#Wikipedia_editing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Gutknecht, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Burns#Untoward_editing_of_Wikipedia, heck this whole article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_staffer_edits_to_Wikipedia, The Young Trigg incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Exposure_to_political_operatives_and_advocates, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation_and_Wikipedia#Response_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Kamm#Criticism_of_Wikipedia, and on and on. So please state a relevant policy which excludes this well sourced neutral information or stop being disruptive. TWilliams9 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As noted on your talk page, WP:EW and WP:CONSENSUS cover your editing problems, and you also might want to look at WP:TEND. Your very short editing history on Wikipedia, and abusive message on my talk page, suggest you are not getting off on the right foot. Take some time to do constructive, helpful, collaborative work here. We're here to write better articles, not to do WP:BATTLE. Within your first dozen or so edits on the project you are edit warring over an incident that relates to the Israel/Palestine conflict, which is covered by an WP:ARBCOM case. WP:NPA also covers it. There are administrative forums and dispute resolution mechanisms available if you have a legitimate concern that an editor is engaging in COI editing, but that is not even at issue here. Article space is not the place to make accusations against Wikipedia editors. I won't comment on your list of other supposedly similar articles. They aren't similar, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a justification for policy violations here.Wikidemon (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Its pretty bold that you accusing me of posting an abusive message on your talk page after you posted a message on my page stating "Also, you should note that Israeli/Arab subject matter is covered by "General Sanctions", described here. Persistently disruptive editors may be blocked and/or banned from editing articles on the subject." I like how when I stick to the facts at hand I get a threatening message from you. When I call you out on that you refer to me as abusive, its pretty rich. As far as the argument here, you seem to contradict yourself over and over again. You state that WP:CONSENSUS covers my editing problems but you state on my talk page "However, this particular material disparages an active Wikipedia editor based on reliable sources having little to do with the subject of the article, so it is not a matter for consensus." I mean honestly which is it? What argument are you making? It seems like you are going around in circles trying to justify excluding this material, and then resort to warning me and calling me a disruptive editor when you don't reach the consensus you want. I am not trying to engage in a battle with you. I am new hear and would like to learn more about the relevant policies. It would make your arguments valid if when you list what policies you are citing you would also list why you think those policies support your position to exclude this well sourced relevant material from the article. You link to a policy but provide no logical explanation for why you think it applies here. So I go read the policy, then after reading the policy I see that it actually contradicts your exclusion claims. I then point that out by quoting the policy and you call me abusive. Quite frankly its odd. TWilliams9 (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
My argument is consistent and correct. I'm not hounding you just for the heck of it. The talk page message is a warning to stop adding the material to the article. If you want to learn, start by: (1) not edit warring, (2) not throwing abuse at experienced editors like me, and (3) listening to what others explain to you about policies instead of hunting for policies to argue over. If you care to actually discuss how to edit articles and can do that without making accusations against other editors I'm always game. One thing that's sometimes hard for a new editor to realize is that there is a very strong spirit of civility and collaboration here. Choose a random article and look at its talk page. You'll see people helping each other. Even on a bad day the Arab/Israel articles, an area of major contention, are better than a random page on Slashdot. Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You cite at various times WP:NPA, WP:NAVEL, WP:BLP, both sides of WP:CONSENSUS, and "or whatever the exact policy may be" I would hardly call that consistent. I haven't been making accusations against other editors here at all, and I do not appreciate you acting uncivil and accusing me of that that. This isn't an issue about Arab/Isreali conflicts, this is an issue about users censorship of well documented, relevant material that portrays Wikipedia and CAMERA in an unflattering light. TWilliams9 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)a
I offered to discuss how to edit argues without making accusations. You don't seem interested in that. I have no desire to argue, or to try to explain Wikipedia to a hostile newbie, so I guess that's that.Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
A 4-2 vote is not WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not convinced there is a consensus.
I'd rather a talk discussion of the merits of the material.
If someone is a new user, that means we have an obligation to educate him.
I admit that can be more work than just voting him down. Nbauman (talk)
If he wants to talk that's fine, although at some point an editor has to realize they haven't convinced people and that it's time to move on. The problem is the revert warring. Six editors have removed the material, CasualObserver'48, Grsz11, Arimareiji, Cojoco, an IP editor, and me. Most editors are willing to listen when they encounter veteran editors, and realize that if they're new at something it takes time to learn the ropes. When they're combative from the get go and latch onto random policy tidbits and accusations to throw around, it's a situation that needs calming. Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the majority of you for remaining civil. I don't think is is about people pushing a pro-CAMERA POV, but rather trying to protect the reputation of wikipedia through censorship. I view censorship in all its applications to be a bad thing, and I think it is pretty troubling once an information gathering organization like wikipedia tries to censor information that might portrays it in a negative light. I don't really know the ins and outs here yet but my ethical guidepost tells me, along with all the policies that I have read, that we should be very cautious when excluding information that portrays the project in a negative light. Unless there is a serious concern we should err on the side of including the material so that it doesn't appear we are trying to create an artificial reality. The relevant policies tell me that for well sourced information the burden of proof is on those who want to exclude the material. It appears to me that some editors are trying to create a reality that portrays Wikipedia, and those involved with it, in the best possible light by excluding well sourced relevant information that is not beneficial to Wikipedia's image. It reminds me of state-owned media companies. Once you start down the path of censorship it is a pretty slippery slope, and Wikipedia's credibility can easily be lost. I'll leave for a week with those thoughts and see what develops, although I would appreciate it if those who know a bit more about wikipedia could post this discussion to a relevant page or board to get more eyes on the dispute. TWilliams9 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing relates to WP:V - verifiability - which is but one of several thresholds for inclusion of Wikipedia content. We do not reprint everything in the world that has a source. Otherwise we could just redirect Wikipedia's main page to google and be done with it. The job of the encyclopedia is to present in a factual, neutral way a balanced summary of what the sources say about a matter. In the matter at hand we have a highly partisan organization, the very purpose of which is to manipulate the media. Its supporters would say it is to correct media imbalance, but that's what all partisans say. They write letters to the editor of newspapers that annoy the heck out of the newspaper editors and omnibudsmen. They issue arguably shoddy press releases and editorials on their own website accusing journalists of being unprofessional and shoddy. On and on. The group is a walking conflict of interest. Out of the many targets of their media manipulation, one was Wikipedia, and they violated Wikipedia's internal rules in so doing. They didn't violate their own rules - they were just doing what they were set up to do. But they offended Wikipedia and, because manipulation of Wikipedia was for a while a topic of interest in the mainstream press their efforts got some coverage. We are not hiding that at all. We give it four substantial paragraphs, about 1/6 of the article. I seriously doubt the Wikipedia scandal is 1/6 of all their is to say about CAMERA or even 1/6 of all of the shenanigans they have been uncovered about them. That's why I called it NAVEL, we're giving undue coverage to something just because it happened on Wikipedia. If we gave equal treatment to every other scandal it would be a much longer article. But that's not the issue here. The editing dispute is that you want to add the account name of a person currently active on Wikipedia, who became involved as a hapless bystander. As far as I can tell there is nothing in the sources to indicate this person was affiliated with CAMERA or part of CAMERA's campaign. They said simply that CAMERA's off-wiki emails urged their supporters to emulate this editor as someone who is successful at promoting pro-Israel content. This is a very unusual situation, which is why it does not hit at the dead center of a policy. We have policies for things that happen often. But when an off-Wikipedia bad guy names an uninvolvd on-Wikipedia editor, prudence dictates that we don't compound the damage. If Osama bin Laden says he admires a popular Wikipedia editor, for example, are we in a rush to say who? Even if it were okay, we have to follow WP:WEIGHT, giving various issues their proper due instead of highlighting minor issues to make a point. Of all the reliable sources that mention the CAMERA incident I found only one, a minor one not mentioned in the article, that mentions this editor by user name. Another, Harper's, purportedly does but given the dispute here I'll withhold judgment on that. In any event they only mention the editor name in passing. It is not a significant part of the story even in these two sources. Attaching a name rather than saying "a Wikipedia editor" makes no difference to our article. Very few people know who this editor is, certainly few of our readers. They would have to learn how to search the meta-pages to figure out the editor. The only thing the name does is give interested readers a handle they can use to track down the editor and start looking over his editing history here - which is not the function of an article. If TWilliams9 is indeed leaving for a week, then I suggest we close this discussion as relating to a content proposal that did not gain consensus. I am civil here too, and doing article patrol in a part of Wikipedia that is full of contentious problem editors. TWilliams seems to be a newbie and newbies get extra slack, but edit warring, prolonging discussions, accusing others of incivility, and crying "censorship" and "IDONTLIKEIT" in response to editors' policy objections is all very trying. I think we've listened to this long enoug. It isn't going into the article, even if it could go into the article it is not an improvement, and I think we have spent more than enough time belaboring this issue. Wikidemon (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope that nobody thinks that WD is comparing Camera to OBL ;-) However, I disagree with WD about the importance of CAMERA's relationship to WP. I think we can all agree that, as a topic, WP is much larger than CAMERA. I also think it is fair to say that WP users are more interested in the Internet and technology than a non-Internet-connected reader. I myself came upon CAMERA only in relationship to its actions on WP. Only a minority of WP users are interested in I/P conflicts, despite the volume of stuff that gets written by them. However, I think that all Wikipedia users have some interest in issues concerning WP, so that, for many WP users, including myself, the actions of CAMERA with respect to WP is more interesting than the organization itself, which is simply one among many advocacy organizations. cojoco (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
IMO, that hit the nail on the head for one of these issues. CAMERA came into focus for WP users with this incident... but WP is not the world. Their primary notability lies outside of WP. CAMERA's raison d'etre is to monitor any medium which talks about Israel, not just WP - to cover them as if it were is navel-gazing. arimareiji (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
And everyone knows we WP editors are anything but navel-gazers who are unduly impressed with our own words, right? ;-) arimareiji (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
As an editor both involved between competing interests related to the I/P conflict, particularly those concerning America, as well as critically aware of CAMERA’s methods since near its beginning, my outlook on this little edit skirmish is based on my edit summary: Not all detail is necessary, some is. If no shame concerning Wiki-honesty, then it is a shame to name. POV and NPOV honesty are different. 2UJ. For now, that edit stands. For me, it balances upon AGF, regardless of bias. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As a reader, I don't care about usernames of who was involved. If I do, I have a page history, a discussion page, and reliable references which can all tell me. No one is proposing removing the name from any of these places, so charges of censorship seem unfounded or misinformed. The level of detail being proposed (giving specific user names) is irrelevant, superfluous, and very self-referencing. Also, whether you think it belongs or not, there is a fairly strong consensus against inclusion, so the issue should be resolved on talk first.--Nosfartu (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Excessively long "Commentary and Critiques" section

I think no other entry on a watchdog group has a section as lengthy as this one.--98.237.179.147 (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The commentary and critiques section is a little long compared to other articles, but the other sections seem to be slightly longer as well. As this is the article about CAMERA, it makes sense to document what they do, which seems to mostly be commentary and critiques. So the proportions of the article seem about right to me, but maybe a little bit could be trimmed everywhere. That's just my opinion.--99.130.163.56 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the article could be cleaned up, and the commentary / criticism section worked into the overall text. The Wikipedia section has grown too long and may have WP:WEIGHT / WP:NAVEL problems. The whole article reads like a series of episodes rather than a summary of who they are and what they do. It would be good to find some neutral third party sources that can help give more of an overarching picture of the group as a whole: who they are, what they do, their history, organization, structure, role. At the same time is a partisan organization that seems to exist for the purpose of stirring up media controversies, so documenting their successes in this regard may be the most encycloepdic thing to do. I don't have any specific suggestions right now, but could if I got into it more. It would take considerable work but hard work to produce good articles is what the encyclopedia is all about! Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I Don't think the Wikipedia section is all that excessive in length, honestly. It needs to cover what happened, as it was significant as far as the organization was concerned. As "what they do"... isn't that what the commentary and critique section is for? :P Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Snapshots

Just to note, the CAMERA blog mentioned Wikipedia here and here. Not sure if this would warrant any more inclusion.--149.166.32.132 (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is "Wikipedia campaign" in "Criticism"?

While it may be true that the Wikipedia campaign does not reflect all that well on CAMERA, why is it in the "Criticism" section?

The Wikipedia campaign was not a matter of opinion: there are several primary sources which show exactly what happened, and, subsequently, many opinion pieces written in the MSM.

It really does deserve a section of its own; I would go so far as to say that the Wikipedia campaign is CAMERA's chief claim for notability, as this is the source for most of its coverage in the MSM, and certainly for my own interest. cojoco (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't move it to dispute the case, it is a fact, I just tried to categorize things. Moving out also good, however under criticism section as seperate title this way is better than prior versions. Kasaalan (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem with keeping it in "criticism" is that it implies "opinion piece", which is not really fair to the subject material. I like the way that it is now, Criticism by CAMERA, Criticism about CAMERA, and CAMERA Israeli lobby campaign in Wikipedia. Criticism of CAMERA might be better than about, though. cojoco (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Not a native English speaker, I used about because of may be confused by some people however you may change it if it is more correct grammatically. Kasaalan (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not incorrect, but the meaning is fuzzy: criticism "about" something means "criticism related to something". "Criticism of" is more correct here, I think, as it indicates that it is CAMERA being directly criticized. So I think I'll change it. cojoco (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It's an unusual way to organize an article, but CAMERA is an unusual organization. Its reason for existing, and not uncoincidentally its main claim to notability, is that it criticizes people and institutions perceived as anti-Israel, or as they would put it, organizations that say unfair things about Israel. Thus, most coverage of the organization in the reliable press describes instances where it is trying to undermine opponents, or being attacked in return. Wikidemon (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism has been restored as a user had deleted it. There was no valid reason given for the removal. Further investigation shows that user's history of alterations have been to remove any criticism of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.108.154 (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How very ironic, censoring criticisms of censorship... --Willbxtn (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, 67.173.108.154 was just moving or removing content from the article? This discussion confuses me.--69.208.142.162 (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

See Also

Casual, the link you provided clearly says "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also". It further says that while it is ultimately a matter of judgment, 'Still, if the subject fits to be integrated into somewhere in the article rather than into a list at the end of it, it is preferred.'. All these links you keep re-adding are already linked in the main article, where they are integrated in a natural way. There is no need to re-add them in the "See Also" section, according to the very clear language of the guideline. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Self-reference

Does this really belong in the lead?

  • In May 2008, five Wikipedia editors involved in a secret CAMERA campaign to edit Wikipedia were sanctioned by Wikipedia administrators, who wrote that the project's open nature "is fundamentally incompatible with the creation of a private group to surreptitiously coordinate editing by ideologically like-minded individuals".[16]

I know this has been a major flashpoint on Wikipedia, but how much coverage did it actually get in outside sources? Does putting this in the lead constitute undue weight? *** Crotalus *** 16:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on undue weight. It got some coverage in blogs, but it definitely seems that more coverage by big media went to, e.g., the BBC ruling against Jeremy Bowen. Contentlion (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
When did Harper's Magazine become a blog?--71.156.84.44 (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course it belongs in the lead, per WP:LEAD. The notability of the event has been established. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

POV

This article reads like a polemic rather than an encyclopedia article. The critical opinions of Gorenberg and others regarding Camera are cited in the lede paragraph along with the gratuitous information about Wikipedia that belongs in a separate section somewhere, and there is not much explanation or exposition of Camera's actual record in the entire article. Critical opinions belong in a critique section, and should be balanced by favorable opinions if they exist. But someone's opinion is less important than facts. Camera has had successes and failures in countering Media bias. A reader would want to know what things they tracked down and fixed, in what cases they were shown to be wrong or just pursuing a biased agenda, and in what cases they were probably right but could not make their point. In addition to the sole example of the Yaalon quote that they dubunked, they have tracked down large numbers of fake "Zionist quotes" like the fake Ariel Sharon interview, and some "quotes" of people who never existed. They also tracked down a fake pro-Zionist article that had supposedly been written by Martin Luther King, but was actually an invented bibliographical listing that appeared in a book written by a rabbi.

First paragraph includes a lot of skeptical caveats and is not objective. "what they consider to be" (why is that phrase added rather than quoting what they actually say? Does wikipedia do that for all organizations? Would editors consider it fair if someone wrote that "wikipedia presents what they consider to be information, and editors remove what they consider to be propaganda or bias." [[Mewnews (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)]]

I agree in part about the narrative tone. At times the article seems to be arguing a position rather than simply reporting sources. However, in substance that position is correct and it would be a disservice for the article to imply otherwise. A neutral article would say correctly that CAMERA is a partisan organization that exists and is funded to promote the pro-Israel side of the public relations war between supporters of Israel and supporters of the Palestinian Territories, and that CAMERA has engaged in questionable (and often questioned) methods in doing so that include subterfuge, propaganda, etc. Balance as such is always a questionable goal. How many pounds does CAMERA weight, and how do we know whether the needle should tilt farther to the left or the right? Resetting articles' level of favorability to their subject is inherently a POV task. CAMERA is rather extreme in its commitment to one side of a heated debate, so it is not surprising that most commentators and factual sources come out somewhat closer to the middle. To be fair there is a lot of propaganda coming out of the other side, and CAMERA has served as a very useful counterbalance to sometimes get the truth out, as with the False Moshe Ya'alon quotation. Yet to imply that CAMERA is a neutral counter to media bias, or that half of the sources support its position while half the sources don't, would be wrong. Although I think that repeating the rants of paid polemicists on either side is unencyclopedic, there are critiques of CAMERA that are either neutral, notable in their own right, and/or disinterested. Countering every unfavorable opinion with a favorable one would give undue weight to CAMERA's supporters by overstating that case. Further, most people would prefer to avoid "criticism" sections and instead work that material into the subject areas where it applies. Articles that are structured as pro versus con tend to overstate controversy and ignore the substance of their subjects in favor of arguments. Wikidemon (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with User talk:Wikidemon and point out to Mewnews that perhaps he or she could add more about the fake Ariel Sharon interview, "quotes" of people who never existed, etc.--71.156.89.167 (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Membership and corrections figures

An encyclopedia usually has facts and figures. i added the number of members and the number of media corrections made in response to camera interventions. it is entirely normal to get membership figures from organizations themselves. the facts are footnoted, so readers can see where they come from. whoever undid this work, please explain your rationale.--Cimicifugia (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia

the work is already in the "structure, staff, and activities" section. it doesn't seem appropriate to include the work in every section of the article in a high level of detail. we should try to find one place in the article for the information.--71.156.84.44 (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
i brielfy summarized in the lead. another possible idea would be to find a way to briefly represent this in the article's information box, but the lead/infobox should be non-redundant and provide an overview of the rest of the article.--71.156.84.44 (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Supporters and detractors

I put in names of prominent supporters so that readers can place CAMERA accurately by judging the people who criticize or support the organization that are familiar to them. i wanted to add prominent critics, but a quick search on the web didn't turn up any names. can someone help on this. has Chomsky, for example, criticized them by name? others? the way the article was written, with a quote by an unknown person named Gershon critcizing CAMERA in the introduction, was not normal for an encyclopedia entry. it just sounded like a polemic--Cimicifugia (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia

thanks for putting this on talk. viewpoints about the organization should not come from the group itself. please see WP:SELFPUB. including information from third party reliable sources is perfectly acceptable though. so if Dershowitz, etc. have said something about CAMERA we just need a source apart from CAMERA which says this. hope this helps, --71.156.84.44 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

a LIST OF PROMINENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOUT CAMERA, SPOKEN AT THEIR ANNUAL DINNER TO DO FUNDRAISING FOR THEM IS NOT A 'VIEWPOINT COMING FROM THE ORGANIZATION', IT IS A FACTUAL MATTER OF RECORD. IF DERSHOWITZ SPEAKS AT CAMERA CONFRFERENCES AND FUNDRAISING EVENTS, HE IS A SUPPORTER. I TRIED TO PUT IN DIRECT QUOTES FROM DERSHOWITZ AND SHARANSKY AS THE FOOTNOTE, BUT THEY WERE TOO LONG TO FIT INTO THE NEW 'REFERENCE' POP UP. HOW DO YOU PUT IN LONGER FOOTNOTES? i haven't tried to edit wiki for months, and am completely lost with the new improved editing icons. HERE ARE THE QUOTES “We all know that CAMERA's mission is important not only for the Jewish community, but also for the integrity and vitality of American democracy. It is not just on one occasion that I wished there were an Israeli branch of CAMERA.” – Democracy activist and Knesset member Natan Sharansky

“The answer to false speech is not censorship but more true speech. The answer to half-truth is full-truth. The only people who should and do fear CAMERA are those who should and do fear the truth. ... [T]he First Amendment was not erected to help the media but to help the people.” – Harvard law professor and civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz

~cimicifugia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimicifugia (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Banned or Sanctioned

The article at the top of the page says five wikipedian editors were banned while at the bottom it says they were sanctioned. Anyone know the exact status so we can clear up this contradiction? 8.19.92.171 (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Bans are sanctions. For more info, read this. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Shortening of the lede

Hello. I have moved the criticism of CAMERA from the lede down to the Reception section. I notice that no other page on an I/P advocacy organization or other organization that takes a strong position on I/P issues has similar criticism in the lede. The general format of all these other articles is for the lede to describe the organization itself and its mission, generally followed by history, current status, etc., then finally a "reception" or similar section devoted to criticism and praise. Examples are: (from a pro-P perspective) Electronic Intifada, CounterPunch, Democracy Now; (from a pro-I perspective) NGO Monitor, Commentary (magazine). Having criticism like this in the lede for this but for no other similar group implies either that this organization is uniquely illegitimate or (more likely) that the article has POV problems. As for the lede section on Wikipedia's run-in with CAMERA, I would have moved that down to the appropriate section but that section already has plenty of information (arguably too much) on what in the grand scheme of things was really a single, fairly minor incident. (Remember that WP's purpose is to accurately cover the world as a whole, not to navel-gaze.) Benwing (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, what goes in the lead is governed by WP:LEAD. The lead should present the key points of the article, which in turn come from sources. So if sources on CAMERA emphasize the criticism, then it should go in the lead. What other articles say about other topics isn't an argument for modifying the lead here. FWIW, CAMERA is more illegitimate than e.g. Electronic Intifada which has a rather good reputation, whereas CAMERA is notorious. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a person who calls CAMERA "illegitimate" and "notorious" speaks of Electronic Intifada as "good", speaks volumes on the mindset of those above who attack CAMERA (and want the CAMERA Wikipedia entry to focus on attacking CAMERA). And Gershom Gorenberg, described as a "journalist" here (to legitimize his attacks on CAMERA) is actually a self described agenda driven "leftist" according to his Wikipedia entry, for those who bother to check. Bottom line: CAMERA may be "pro-Israel", but the fact is that a review of the actual contents of their websites shows that their reports and commentaries are accurate and truthful. Any specific examples where they got the story wrong? CAMERA recently ran a report criticising 60 minutes for doing a long piece focusing on archaeology politics in Jerusalem that made zero mention of the Wakf's recent buldozing of Temple Mount Haram Al Sharif archeological sites. This is legitimate media analysis and criticism. In fact one could reasonably argue that CAMERA showed 60 minutes to be a propaganda tool in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.56.241 (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Image

I changed the website infobox to an organization infobox but the image doesn't seem to be working correctly. Can someone please fix? Also, I would appreciate it if someone was to tell me what I had done wrong. Thanks. Poyani (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

General comments

I removed general comments as it is not fair to stick them here. He wasnt just talking about CAMERA. He was talking about lobbies in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement says "According to Friedman, "CAMERA, the A.D.L., AIPAC and the rest of the lobby don't want fairness, but bias in their favor. And they are prepared to use McCarthyite tactics, as well as the power and money of pro-Israel PACs, to get whatever Israel wants." I have highlighted the relevant word. Please self revert. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have seen this word but it looks to me as if this is general criticism of Israeli lobbies nad he is saying a few examples. These are examples of a bigger picture and not the actual target of his view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't important how things look to you. What matters is what sources say and this one says something about the topic of this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree but the artcile is only talking about one lobby and this is talking about them generally. Maybe see if other sources mention this about camera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Go do that then, but before you do, you should restore what a reliable source said about CAMERA which you have removed for invalid reasons. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
off topic, flame bait
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

--- This looks like a prime example of "Zionist" wiki-washing. No honest person could think CAMERA is anything but a pro-Israel group, it is manifestly not about providing 'balance'. It's one reflexivelt pro-Israel group responding both to reflexively anti-Israel stuff, as well as fair and honest coverage of Israeli war crimes, or anything true but negative about Israel or Judaism or Jews.

Look, even Sourcewatch indicates that there ought to be a section in this article about bias: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CAMERA

If you dont put in such a section, this article simply becomes a poor reference article. To not discuss CAMERA's bias, is simply absurd.

50.136.54.23 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)jpt

There's a reception section that describes views of the organization published by reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting how whenever someone complains about Wikipedia's extreme pro-Islamic bias, their complaint is always removed as "soapboxing." I suppose "anti-Zionists" have free reign over Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaicatpointmack (talk • contribs) 08:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your statement is inconsistent with the evidence. See [3][4][5] for some recent examples inconsistent with your statement. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Funding sources?

I wonder if there's any information out there about how this NGO is funded. Mainly because I'm wondering if their Wikipedia activities should be included in the article state-sponsored internet sockpuppetry. Esn (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If you mean, did the State of Israel pay the people who infiltrated Wikipedia, I don't think anyone has ever suggested that it did and there isn't any evidence to support that as far as I'm aware. Funding-wise, it's true that the article should probably say more about CAMERA'S funding. That seems like a bit of an gap now that you mention it. They have membership fees of course and fund raise at their conferences and presumably elsewhere. There's this info which doesn't help much. The Wexner Foundation probably provides some funds. I guess someone will need to do a bit of research. The information is presumably out there somewhere. It doesn't seem on be on CAMERA'S site. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If an organization is pro-particular-country, I naturally wonder if it receives any official funds from that country. In the link you posted, the most recent financial information is from 2011, and it says that $2,600,069 of revenue came from "Contributions, Gifts & Grants", $631,918 is listed as "Other Revenue", with nothing at all from membership fees. It doesn't give any further details, though. Is the information really out there in principle, or would it be lawful for an NGO to keep it secret? Esn (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America/Archive_2&oldid=1098497622"