Talk:Chris McGreal

"Worlds Apart" article
Copied the "Chris McGreal" section from Israeli Apartheid and cleaned it up, mostly fixing "ref" tags that weren't working right and improving some of the citations. --John Nagle 21:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

POV edit
Chris McGreal gets criticized by both sides. CAMERA, a pro-Israel media watch organization, complains that he's anti-Israel, and Arab Media Watch complains he's pro-Israel. Removing only the cite from Arab Media Watch was a biased edit. So I put it back in. --John Nagle 16:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This has to stop. Clearly, McGreal has been accused of bias by both sides.  --John Nagle 16:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now this edit (cleanup, remove dead links) was clear vandalism. There's been no discussion; this user just keeps removing links they don't like.  --John Nagle 03:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is getting wierd. normally edits from a pro-Israel perspective, but usually doesn't go overboard about it. --John Nagle 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing weird about it, it's quite typical in my experience. Don't worry I'll be keeping my eye on this article as well. Deuterium 03:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The link was dead when I tried it. It seems to be up now. Please try to focus on article content, and please try to quote sources accurately; remember, original research is forbidden on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

CAMERA again
I've removed this to the Talk: page: the pro-Israel There seems to be some sort of mania here for describing CAMERA, or someone, anyone, as "pro-Israel". Aside from the fact that we have a link for CAMERA, and therefore poisoning the well descriptions are not necessary, the sources themselves are hardly good enough to make the characterization. The first is a highly controversial paper by Mearsheimer and Walt which merely makes this claim. The second is a quote from CAMERA which states that they are perceived that way, but does not admit to actually being "pro-Israel". In fact, the wording indicates that they reject that characterization, as does their website explicity. I could not go about describing, for example, Hezbollah everywhere as "the terrorist organization Hezbollah", even though many people believe it is a terrorist organization, and governments have even said so - but WP:NPOV would not allow me to do so. How much more so, then must we avoid characterizing other groups based on the opinion of two individuals in a controversial paper? Please, let's bring and end to this POV-pushing, original research violating editing. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been looking back at how we got here. That "Extensive responses" section seems to have originally come from a blog for Rabbis for Human Rights.  and was pasted into the Israeli Apartheid article. (This Chris McGreal article was split out of the Israeli Apartheid article, where McGreal's section was getting too big.)  At various points in the history of that article, the phrase "pro-Israel" was used to describe those sources, and not by me.  But the people who put that in didn't cite it effectively, and it was removed.


 * Yes, I'm trying to show that these criticisms come from pro-Israel organizations. There are so many such organizations. Some are openly pro-Israel, like AIPAC (which calls itself "America's pro-Israel lobby") and BICOM, which is trying to become the AIPAC of the UK. Some pretend to be neutral, mainly Honest Reporting and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. But there are multiple reliable sources demonstrating that they are pro-Israel organizations, like it or not.  (Jayjg just deleted some of them, and it's not hard to find more).  These organizations are a concern, because they can't be considered a Reliable Source. Maybe what we need to do here is to remove cites to those organizations.  That may be a more productive direction.


 * On a lighter note, see "You know you're a pro-Israel advocate when..." --John Nagle 17:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a cute observation. Visit the "Honest Reporting" website. Check out their keywords:   .  Notice the "pro-Israel". That's why they come up in searches for "pro-Israel". Any questions? Really, this ongoing denial that these organizations are pro-Israel is a lost cause.  --John Nagle 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To begin with, not only have you not provided "multiple reliable sources demontrating that they are pro-Israel organizations", but you shouldn't even be trying to continually characterize these organizations as pro-Israel - that's just POV-pushing, original research (as you've just demonstrated), and poisoning the well, and you've been doing it for a long time, all over the place. I couldn't precede every reference to Hamas in Wikipedia with the phrase "the terrorist organization" (e.g. "according to the spokesman for the terrorist organization Hamas..."), even though I could bring a dozen top-notch sources backing it up. I'm sure you can see why. Second, the tactic of "if I can't discredit them by claiming the are pro-Israel, then I'll try to remove them claiming they are not reliable" will not fly either. We don't expect all Criticism to come from perfectly neutral sources; in fact, most criticism comes from sources that are, well, critical of the subject at hand. Instead of trying to turn Wikipedia into a soapbox to promote your view that there's a conspiracy of deceptive pro-Israel organizations, all co-ordinated and related in some way, why don't you do that on your blog or personal website instead? Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * John, there are two separate issues here. The first is whether CAMERA really is pro-Israel. It says it's a non-partisan organization, so you're just adding your own view by saying they're pro-Israel (or your own source's view, which you're choosing to prioritize). More important than that, however, is that constantly inserting pro-Israel in front of names &mdash; whether it's true or false &mdash; is an effort to poison the well and push a POV. As Jayjg explained, we can't go around writing "terrorist organization Hezbollah," even though it's true in many people's opinions, just as we don't keep on writing "Jew Abraham Foxman of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League"," or "pro-Palestinian Counterpunch." Sources have to be cited in a way that isn't prejudicial. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Then the question arises as to whether CAMERA can be cited as a Reliable source. In this article, an attack from CAMERA is being used to discredit a working journalist from a major publication. Please justify that.  Thanks. --John Nagle 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't CAMERA be regarded as a reliable source? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is the responsibility of those citing CAMERA to demonstrate that it is a reliable source. See Reliable_source and Reliable_source. CAMERA is a partisan source, to be viewed with some scepticism, and usually a self-published source or a source of press releases.  Because Wikipedia discourages the use of partisan sources as an authority, it's important to note that CAMERA is in fact a partisan source if their material is used. Especially in a hit piece on an individual reporter.  --John Nagle 19:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in WP:RS that says partisan sources are by definition not reliable; if that were the case, there would be no reliable sources. Second, CAMERA says it is non-partisan. That it's partisan is a specific POV held by anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist activists and organizations. Third, it is definitely not a "widely acknowledged extremist" organization or a self-published source. There are therefore no grounds on which to declare it's not reliable. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * CAMERA is said to be pro-Israel even by pro-Israel sources, as I've repeatedly demonstrated. Here's yet another cite to that, the Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, "CAMERA, the Boston-based pro-Israel media watchdog". Denying this is futile. As for "extremist", they've attacked ABC, Agence France-Presse, AP, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Boston Globe, CBS, Chicago Tribune, Cox International, Guardian, Ha'aretz, International Herald Tribune, Kids Discover, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, MSNBC, NBC, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post as "not responsive to requests for corrections." That comes close to Reliable_source "Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."  CAMERA even accuses Haaretz of anti-Israel bias. And this is all from pro-Israel information sources.  Even the head of CAMERA, Andrea Levin, says CAMERA is pro-Israel.  "The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is a leader in the field of pro-Israeli media watching." It doesn't get any clearer than that. --John Nagle 20:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * John, you're missing the point. YOU believe that being "pro-Israel" is a bad thing, a terrible thing, and that it makes groups "widely acknowledged extremists." But that is just your POV. Being pro-Israel doesn't mean they don't say things that are correct; doesn't mean they're not reliable; doesn't mean they're self-published; doesn't mean they're extremist. Also, saying that a bunch of newspapers are "not responsive to requests for corrections" doesn't make them extremists. By "extremists," we mean groups like Stormfront. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We're making progress. It's admitted that CAMERA is partisan.  That's fine. Given that, it should be identified as such when cited as an authority. That's all I really ask.  I don't really think CAMERA is extremist.  What bothers me is the deception; CAMERA claims to be neutral, they're not, and they should't be treated as if they are.  I don't complain if someone cites AIPAC, because AIPAC is upfront about being "America's pro-Israel lobby" and makes no pretense of neutrality.  That's proper partisanship, and you know where AIPAC is coming from.  CAMERA is something else. --John Nagle 22:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * John, the Guardian is partisan. It is openly pro-Palestinian. But we can't go around announcing them as the pro-Palestinian Guardian. Almost every organization is partisan to some extent. We draw the line at extremism, but that's all. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unlike the Guardian, CAMERA openly acknowledges that it is partisan: "According to its official website, CAMERA is a non-profit, tax-exempt, media watchdog group based in Boston that mostly addresses media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, focusing on coverage that it considers unfair to Israel." Deuterium 04:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * John, you still refuse to acknowledge the point; we don't go around calling Hamas "the terrorist organization Hamas" everywhere, for good reason. Please stop trying to indoctrinate Wikipedians with "THE TRUTH". It's not your business, or any other Wikipedian's, to "expose" CAMERA. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a relevant fact to this article that CAMERA is pro-Israel, there is no reason for it to be omitted. Deuterium 04:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A fact or an opinion? Read above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We do not try to poison the well for sources. End of story. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, we wouldn't call the Guardian "The pro-Palestinian Guardian." Just as we wouldn't call The New Republic the "pro-Israel New Republic."  But the Guardian isn't an appropriate comparison with CAMERA.  Nor for that matter is Hezbollah.  An appropriate comparison would be another comparably partisan media watchdog, such as Electronic Intifada or Ali Abunimah's website.  Would we identify them as pro-Palestinian? --G-Dett 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a proper analogy. CAMERA does not define itself as pro-Israel, it defines itself as non-Partisan. For you to call it pro-Israel would be OR. A proper analogy would be another media watchdog - FAIR, which is by all objective standards left-leaning, but since it does not describe itself as such, on WP it is not described as "the left-leaning FAIR', or the "liberal FAIR", (and attempts to label it as such are routinely removed by editors). Isarig 04:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag
I added this since nearly 80% of the content here is overly detailed write up of one or two alleged "controversies" or "criticisms", mostly focusing on criticism from pressure groups. Groups of this sort, especially pro-Israel ones, tend to shout loudly about journalists they don't like - it doesn't mean we should build neutral encyclopedia articles around what they say. McGreal is not a polemical commentator who attracts genuine controversy, and the flak reported here is simply overblown. This page needs much more on his career and reporting, and less on faux outrage. One might even question whether he is notable enough as a journalist to have his own page at all, although my thoughts would be that he is. If I get time, I will try to rebalance this page. In the meantime hopefully others will help out with adding or removing stuff. Tag is fully deserved until that happens though. --Nickhh (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure it's the right tag: the article seems farily balanced in reporting the (opposing) criticisms of him. The problem is lack of other content as you state above. Babakathy (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)