Talk:HonestReporting

POV
This article read like a TV commercial for Honest Reporting. This is a highly controversial organization which often lobbies in western nations in favor of policies supportive of Israeli settlement activity. This makes the organization not only controversial, but against mainstream public opinion in nearly all countries in the world.

Editors should note that just because an organization calls itself "Honest Reporting" does not immediately lead to the argument that it supports honest reporting in the media. Also, just because an organization claims it is fighting "anti Israel bias" in the media does not lead to the notion that there actually is a "anti-Israel bias" in western media. The correct, non-POV description of the organization is "HonestReporting is a controversial watchdog organization that monitors the media for what it considers bias against Israel". Having explained how the organization defines itself, I have then posted how the critics define the organizations.

I have also added some information to the criticism section to balance out the article and make it more in tune with the actual reputation of the organization. These criticisms have been added along with appropriate references so please do not remove.

I made these changes a month ago, but they were immediately deleted by user "Contacteeperson" with the astonishing tag "serious NPV issues". I am reverting back. Deleting referenced criticisms of a highly controversial organization is not an NPOV corrective action, but rather the very opposite.

If anyone feels the changes are not in line with NPOV please discuss.

207.188.69.26 (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

On Honest Reporting's mission
The original entry for Honest Reporting read, "Honest Reporting is a media watchdog group that monitors and reports anti-Israel bias." Quite true. This is what Honest Reporting states on their mission statement page, which now has an external link. However, the phrase "It does not claim to monitor or report pro-Israel bias" was added. This does not occur on their mission statement page, and has no external source to back it up. Thus, it would be considered "original research" and either needs to be removed or supported with some external source. It also demonstrates POV, because it singles out the fact that Honest Reporting does not report on pro-Israel bias while ignoring all of the other things that Honest Reporting does not report on. Please stop adding this phrase unless it can somehow be fixed so that it does not violate POV and original research. --ARoyal 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To some degree I agree with you, ARoyal. But, as evidenced by the purpose statements that you get when you google "Honest Reporting" +israel, it appears to be operating from one side of the POV in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, it is worth noting that if Honest Reporting is generally a partisan organization, it should be noted as such, which is basically what the inclusion of the phrase telling that it does not report bias on the other side of the POV fence does. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you'll notice that in their mission statement they frame their mission in terms of a "battle for public opinion", which implies that they're not fighting for what they would construe as media bias, such as anti-Palestinian, pro-Israeli bias. Just a thought. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats fair criticism of Honest Reporting. However, it doesn't belong as original research in the introduction for Honest Reporting. Singling out one thing out of many that Honest Reporting does not report on is being used in this instance in an attempt to discredit Honest Reporting. If Honest Reporting has a bias, then perhaps someone should make a criticism section and fill it with verifiable sources that claim such. However, making the claim that Honest Reporting does not report on pro-Israel bias implies that it has a pro-Israel bias, and is coming from the editors POV rather than a verifiable source. It needs to go until it can be supported with a verifiable source, and even then should be in a criticism section.--ARoyal 18:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. &mdash;Ashley Y 18:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Its mission statement clearly labels it as a partisan organization, which is not something in dispute. Biased or not, it makes no difference, and its stance, as a partisan organization, since that is its primary mission, merits inclusion in its article. I have no interest in either side of this dispute, but I am of the opinion that in the interest of NPOV, organizations, entities, and people which exist to push a POV should be clearly labeled as such. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Edited some grammar and spelling issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.108.154 (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well you can revert my self-revert if you want, I won't change it either way. &mdash;Ashley Y 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think we all agree that HR reports on anti-Israel bias but not pro-Israel bias. It therefore has a bias (of selectivity) of its own. However, contra my initial edit I think merely mentioning that it reports on anti-Israel bias is enough to reveal this bias to the reader. &mdash;Ashley Y 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Honest Reporting or honest reporting
Ashley, the link you added is not about the organization Honest Reporting. Rather, it is about what the author perceives to be honest reporting in the Middle East. It seems like this is a fallacy of ambiguity; because the article is critical of "honest reporting" in Israel and the Middle East, you've associated it with the group called Honest Reporting. Its really quite misleading. It would be a good link for the wikipedia entry for "media bias", but really has no direct association with Honest Reporting. --ARoyal 09:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It refers to 'so-called "honest reporting" watchdogs', which is a reference to Honest Reporting. &mdash;Ashley Y 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a note to the link. &mdash;Ashley Y 19:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Zerbisias doesn't state which specific organizations she is referring to; how do you know it is referring to this organization? Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Zerbisias is referring to a class of organisations, of which HR is clearly an example. The fact that Zerbisias refers to them 'so-called "honest reporting" watchdogs' strongly suggests, but does not definitively prove, that Zerbisias had Honest Reporting in mind. Noting this hardly counts as "original research", and it is enough to make the link relevant, provided that the caveat is included. &mdash;Ashley Y 09:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "clearly an example" also looks like original research to me. If you look at the article itself, it devotes exactly two sentences to discussing "so-called 'honest reporting' watchdogs". The article, which claims that "the usual websites" "smeared" a colleague of hers, is, in fact, an emotional smear itself, that adds no fact or detail on the subject or the "smears", and is mostly about an entirely different issue, a "dust-up" between Tony Burman and Norman Spector. Can you explain what it adds to the readers knowledge about Honest Reporting? I'm having a very, very difficult time seeing the value or relevance. Jayjg (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jayjg here. That's a weak reference, and may refer more generically to "honest reporting". Arab Media Watch has the same problem. They're a pro-Arab media watch organization. There's also an "Arab media watch" from the World Union of Jewish Students, with a viewpoint from the other side. And another Arab media watch from the New York Jewish Herald. That's a similar confusion. --John Nagle 18:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by Jayjg
I'm rather bothered by these, which seem like POV whitewashing. Jayjg, you have removed useful background information on the director and a link to a critical article which is clearly referring to these kinds of organisations collectively and alludes to HR specifically.

I don't know so much about the BICRC and Engage issues. &mdash;Ashley Y 22:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about the materal too, but because it seems irrelevant at best, innuendo and smearing at worst. None of the material had anything to do with Honest Reporting, which is the subject of this article. The idea that Honest Reporting is one of these kinds of organisations is the kind of conspiratorial smearing I am referring to - original research at best. The material ( Ephraim immigrated to Israel in 1998, dedicating much of his time to setting up the Israel office for Hasbara Fellowships, which is now the largest network of pro-Israel activists on campus throughout the U.S. and Canada, and of which he remains a Co-Director. Co-founded by the Foreign Ministry of Israel, they have trained 1,000 student leaders on over 100 campuses, to produce strategic, ongoing advocacy programming designed to swing the tide of public opinion towards Israel. ) is all about other organizations, and stuff Shore did before joining Honest Reporting. It's not "helpful" to anything related to Honest Reporting, unless, again, you want to do more conspiratorial smearing. If you want to create an article about Ephraim Shore, and imagine it could survive AfD, feel free to put that information in and article about him. As for the Zerbisias link, I'm not the only one who as objected to this link - see above. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The information about Shore tells the reader what bias can be expected from "Honest Reporting", and that's valuable information. It's properly cited, it is a direct quote from the organizations's own web site, and it should stay in.  It shows that the organization might well be a form of astroturfing.  Jayjg's insistence on the deletion of this information helps to demonstrate its importance.


 * The Zerbisias article is more general, and one could argue about that one. This doesn't mention "Honest Reporting" as an organization, it mentions "honest reporting" as a concept. (It's a confusing organization name.  Amusingly, Arab Media Watch has the same problem from the other side.) --John Nagle 16:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that you claim it shows "what bias can be expected" and that is "valuable information" is poisoning the well and a violation of WP:NPOV. Your attempt to show "it might well be a form of astroturfing" is a violation of WP:NOR. This article is about Honest Reporting, not about Shore; please restrict your conspiracy exposing crusades to a blog or personal website, not Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, I think you misunderstand the concept of "original research". If we actually put in the article "this might be a form of astroturfing", that would count as original research. Putting in information which is well-sourced and not disputed, so readers can make up their own minds on the matter, is not original research. Likewise, the information comes directly from the organisation's own website, so has no other POV than that of HR. I think removing this counts as whitewashing. &mdash;Ashley Y 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, trying a different approach - very short bios of the top four people, with all info from HR's own site. --John Nagle 23:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. &mdash;Ashley Y 22:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be quite wrong to suppose that Jayjg doesn't understand "Original Research". The problem is ours, we don't understand it. As he told us "WP:NOR is a rather subtle rule that a number of people, including most inexperienced editors, simply do not get."  3rd Oct 2006 and "I've been editing here for 2 years, and have made 40,000 edit, I suspect I'm rather a better judge of what's appropriate for a Wikipedia article than you are."  8th Aug 2006. (The rest of these discussions make fascinating and educational reading too. Unless you're actually looking for a tutorial that would enable us to become better editors and not have our edits constantly reverted). PalestineRemembered 13:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes on "Honest Reporting"
I'm collecting info here; some of this may go into the article later. --John Nagle 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Honest Reporting" donor list info. 13,539 names on list, average donation $56.60. That gives the organization some credibility as a grassroots organization.
 * "Honest Reporting" website. Check out their keywords:   
 * List of pro-Israel information sources Not itself a reliable source, but a useful list of links. "Honest Reporting" is listed.
 * Pro-Israel forever Israel flag-waving site (literally; full of animated waving flags) with list of "pro-Israel links". Again, not itself a reliable source, but useful. "Honest Reporting" is listed.
 * Hillel at Stanford has a list of "Advocacy and Policy" links, from the ADL to the ZOA. "Honest Reporting" is listed.


 * The donors info looks OK to me, but other items in your list seem pretty useless: the tag meta keywords is for search engines, this is not how they define themselves. A bunch of activist lists (not WP:RS, as you have noted) do not mean much. Hey, maybe I should add it to my favorite Trekkie blog... ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The effect of those meta tags is that if you search for reporting "pro-Israel", "Honest Reporting" comes up at the top of a Google search. If you search for reporting Israel, you get CNN.  It's amusing, but not a big deal.  --John Nagle 16:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edits to "Management" section seem OK
After much disagreement, Jayjg's last minor edit to my edit to the "Management" section is OK with me. I think we've reached a consensus on something. --John Nagle 16:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The formatting mess
Edits since March 17, 2007 have made a mess of the formatting. The references and links section is now in bad shape, and there's the text "rank distortion……….scurrilous assertions" which may be a quote, but it's not clear. I've added a cleanup tag.

We may need to go back to 03:20, 17 March 2007 SlimVirgin to clean up the mess. The content is roughly comparable to what it was then, but the formatting now is much worse. Revert to there and go forward, or clean up the current mess? --John Nagle 04:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless someone cleans up the mess within the next few days, I'm going to revert the article back to the last clean-looking version, 03:20, 17 March 2007 SlimVirgin. --John Nagle 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A user (with a very leading name) has repeatedly made POV edits to this article (coming close to a daily basis now). Just have a look at it every once in a while and re-edit the article to a more neutral POV if necessary.

Should the Robert Fisk and Tony Parkinson quotations be included? Or simply links to them as a legitamate criticism of honestreporting and its practices? A link to these criticisms is fair enough, maybe dont need entire quotes in the aticle itself. There are quite a few examples of authors (not just Fisk and Parkinson) criticising honestreporting, having looked up the topic on google.

I'll revert it back at the moment to a more neutral POV for now. RandallFlagg Scotland 15:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * WFT is this??? All the info is gone & the page begins in mid-sentence. Do you think we're all stupid? Perhaps I wouldn't be called racist if I refer to this as ANTI-ARAB bias, rather than pro Israel bias, which is nothing new in news coverage, if you follow this sort of thing. And NO I am not a "conspiracy theorist", I just pay attention. Stop this madness!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.20.151 (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Hostile media effect"
Does anyone actually discuss Honest Reporting as an example of "Hostile media effect"? If not, please avoid original research. Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, none of the sources you have used mention Honest Reporting. Has anyone besides you argued that Honest Reporting is an example of the "Hostile Media Effect"? You have "introduced an argument, without citing a reputable source 'for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;" in this case, that Honest Reporting is an example of that effect. Jayjg (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not OR. As the WP:NOR states, "All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.”

The HME is a recognised phenomenon in the literature, orginally described in relation to a study of perceptions of bias in the media coverage of the I-P conflict. As HR is entirely about its perceptions of media bias, the HME, as a verifiable phenomenon extensively described in international journals, is "directly related" to an entry on HR.

"the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article" - WP:NOR

DisHonestreporting 04:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is classic original research. Which of the sources you refer to state that Honest Reporting is an example of "Hostile media effect"? I need a source for that claim, and it can't be "Wikipedia editor DisHonesterporting". Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are quite mistaken in this.

This is the relevant part of WP:NOR,

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."

You are reading "directly related" as "directly referenced". The published research on HME is nothing but "directly related" to a group that deals exclusively with claims of media bias. Asking that it mentions Honest Reporting by name is demanding "referenced" not "related", which is not in keeping with WP:NOR. DisHonestreporting 14:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
WLRoss provided a citation to the South African Mail & Guardian. While it is plausible that this Mail & Guardian op-ed is a response to the criticism of honest Reporting, it does not actually refer to Honest Reporting, or the Honest Reporting criticism anywhere in the op-ed. As such, it is not a suitable reference for the claim. If this is what the section relies on, I'm afraid it will have to be removed, as original research. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't shoot the messenger and read the sources. The claim was already there and all I did was find the source and add it. The claim makes no mention that G & M was targetting HR. The source, though not a critism of HR specifically, is the reply to a letter writing campaign that HR admits to instigating which makes it's inclusion relevant. I.E. The article states that HR encouraged a letter campaign to G & M and that G & M recieved a barrage of mail. Wayne (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just searched for other right wing organisations who might have organised letter campaigns to find if the paragraph perhaps needed altering (or maybe even deletion) but found that many such as Camera link their readers to Honest Reporting to do it. Current wording is factual and relevant EOS. Wayne (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not shooting the messenger at all - I am happy that you went to the trouble of searching for the M&G source, and applaud you for finding it. Unfortunately, upon finding it, it turns out that it is, as you say "not a criticism of HR specifically". As such, we can't use it in the article. I agree that it is plausible that this Mail & Guardian op-ed is a response to the criticism of Honest Reporting - but it is just as likely that the letters the M&G complained about came from Camera readers, or even from readers not affiliated with either organization. If the M&G did not specifically mention HR, it would be original research for us to make that deduction. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As I noted. Camera direct their readers to use HR for letter writing campaigns and provide links to do so. The claim that HR intiated a letter campaign is admitted and the last sentence is simply a claim that G & M "recieved a barrage of mail". The paragraph makes no connective claim so can't be OR. Obviously they would have recieved unaffiliated mail but it is indisputable that most was the result of a campaign. No other organisation ran a campaign. The only way to dispute it to provide sources for other organisations running their own campaigns. Even so the HR campaign would still be responsible for much of the mail which would still require some mention unless you assume the campaign was a total dud which really is OR. There are many many articles that have similar cause and effect claims without proof of connectivity so why should this one be held to a different standard? Wayne (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The claim that HR initiated a letter campaign is well sourced. It is not a criticism of HR, though. The claim that M&G "received a barrage of mail" is also well sourced, but again is not a criticism of HR. There is criticism in the M&G article, but that criticism is, as you wrote, "not a criticism of HR specifically". In other words, the claims that are sourced are not criticism of HR. We have a Wikipedia editor, WLRoss, who is making the deduction that since one source wrote that HR initiated a letter writing campaign, and another source wrote that M&G was critical of the "barrage of mail" it got, then based on that editor's personal research ("I just searched for other right wing organisations who might have organised letter campaigns to find if the paragraph perhaps needed altering ...but found that many such as Camera link their readers to Honest Reporting to do it...No other organisation ran a campaign...the HR campaign would still be responsible for much of the mail which would still require some mention unless you assume the campaign was a total dud"),it must be that the unspecific criticism in the M&G article is directed at HR. I don't disagree with you that this conclusion, based on your personal research, is plausible - but unless you can source the claim to some reliable source 3rd party that actually makes that deduction, it is your original research, which can't be included. The fact that other articles may have similar original research is not a license to add original research to this article. You should know better than to invoke the "two wrongs make a right" argument. Feel free to remove such original research in other articles when you come across it, and if you point it out to me, I might even help you. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I still can't work out what is OR. But that is beside the point because I found a newsletter to Honest reporting subscribers claiming the "barrage of mail" was from them and it also specifically mentions that the "Contrition not enough" article was in response to mail from HR subscribers. I also tracked down a copy of the emails that G&M received (G&M did not archive them) but I'd rather not add that link as they are pretty immature and racist (and also contain the names and addresses of the senders). I'll give you time to respond before reverting. Wayne (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The original research is the work you did to tie together one part of the claim (HR urged its readers to complain about the M&G article), with another part of the claim (M&G criticized the writers of the barrage of letters it received) in order to form the conclusion that "M&G criticized HR" - which is not sourced to any single reliable source. Your original research consisted, among other things, of looking at other possible organized letter-writng campaigns and allegedly finding none, of tracking down actual copies of the letters sent to the MG in order to prove that they came from HR, and the deduction that if HR urged it readers to complain, and if M&G subsequently was critical of compliant it got, that M&G was critical of HR. That is original research. You must find a relaible source that explicitly says "M&G criticized HR" if you want to include it in the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is all explained here:

"Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.." Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed the bad link to the Guardian. The text there reads "The complaints were part of a lobby started by Honest Reporting, an organisation that monitors media coverage of events in the Middle East for anti-Israel bias. It seems that most of the complainants accessed the video from the front page of Honest Reporting's website, rather than from the Guardian's site. Honest Reporting objected to the fact that there were no Israeli sources in the video and asked people to write to me.".  --John Nagle (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not criticism of HR. If you read the link, you'll see it acknowledges that the segment that HR complain about as one-sided is indeed one-sided, and blames it on an "editing error". Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that the Guardian source does not seem to be appropriate, and the contrast with the HR "action alert" seems to be an original synthesis, as it doesn't mention the Guardian's tagging of HR as a "pro-Israel lobby."

If editors are concerned that leaving this information out would mislead readers as to the partisan, activist nature of HR, I really think the article makes it clear enough with more direct, appropriate sections. A stubby "criticism" section that doesn't really document criticism per se ("pro-Israel lobby" is not an inherently critical label) isn't necessary. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Page move
On the HonestReporting website (http://www.honestreporting.com/), the name "HonestReporting" is spelled without a space, the  element of the page contains the value "HonestReporting: monitoring mideast media anti-Israel bias.", and the HonestReporting logo similarly lacks this space. For these reasons, I recommend that the article be renamed to "HonestReporting", which would be more true to the name of the organization and also to avoid confusion between "HonestReporting" (proper name) and "Honest Reporting" (ambiguous: most likely a phrase; alternatively, misspelling of proper name). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with page move. &mdash;Ashley Y 04:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They have a registered U.S. trademark "HONESTREPORTING.COM", #76388596. The registrant is "Middle East Media Watch DBA Media Watch International CORPORATION NEW YORK 156 West 56th Street #1201 New York NEW YORK 10019".  So the organization is "Middle East Media Watch" and the web site is "honestreporting.com".  On the other hand, the Washington State charity filing for Middle East Media Watch shows "Also Known As Name(s) Honest Reporting".  On their donations page, they use the name "Middle East Media Watch DBA HonestReporting.com".  (That page also has "Thank you very much for helping Israel by making a generous donation to HonestReporting.")
 * Given this, I think we should move the article to "Middle East Media Watch", with redirects for "HonestReporting", "Honest Reporting", and "HonestReporting.com". --John Nagle (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, a whois of http://www.honestreporting.com/ indicates that it is registered from GoDaddy and the registrant name is "Honest Reporting." Regardless, the name that they put in their  meta element, the name which they put on all of their publications, and the name which they put on their logo is "HonestReporting". Since it is "HonestReporting" and not "Middle East Media Watch" which they put on their publications and which they use to describe themselves, the vast majority of readers know the organization as "HonestReporting", more reliable sources support the name "HonestReporting", and it would be both more accessible and sensible to describe the organization as "HonestReporting" than as "Middle East Media Watch." On top of that, the first hit for "HonestReporting" in Google is the website of HonestReporting, whereas the first hit for "Middle East Media Watch" in Google is MEMRI. Even the donations page to which you referred indicates that they do business as (DBA) "HonestReporting". ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with "HonestReporting" per WP:COMMONNAME. If necessary, we can introduce them in the lead as "Middle East Media Watch DBA HonestReporting.com" or whatever. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved it. &mdash;Ashley Y 21:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Controversy" section
The section was criticism of an article based solely on HonestReporting. It doesn't seem to have any controversial aspects, just rather an extension of the media criticism that HonestReporting does. I have removed this section, if people want to read the criticism that HonestReporting engages in, then they should visit the site. There is no need to randomly reproduce bits of it on this page, especially when such reproduction appears to violate BLP. --John Bahrain (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should put it back - it was written very carefully to demonstrate how HonestReporting goes up against reporters such as Johann Hari, who is equally hailed and reviled by both Islamicists and by defenders of Israel. This was only one incident and one reporter, but it was a fair snapshot of the kind of thing that HR were presumably set up to do (there are actually 9 articles at HR slamming Johann Hari, but I'm fairly sure that the taster presented was a representative sample). PRtalk 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be put back. Why not do it yourself? As it stands this article makes it seem like there's nothing controversial at all about HonestReporting, when nothing could be further from the truth. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
Please vote here on whether you think this article does or does not meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines, and whether to keep or delete the article. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, why is this article listed for deletion? thanks 213.8.119.102 (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's listed now, but its going to be kept, thus no worries. --John Bahrain (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean someone can now remove it from articles for deletion (perhaps any user?)213.8.119.102 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's best to just let it go through the process. Wikipedia works best if everyone is patient and calm and allows for the bureaucratic process to go its course.  The result is fairly assured in this case, so just relax.  --John Bahrain (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Aish Category
Why must this entry still be under the Aish Hatorah category? HonestReporting's web site doesn't mention Aish at all. Surely the category should only apply for bodies that are now part of Aish. Thanks. 213.8.119.102 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was established with the help of Aish and is mentioned in the Aish HaTorah article and is mentioned in the Aish HaTorah template. Thus it seems to be appropriate to include it.
 * Although, I do believe we should include a bit of history in this article so that people understand how it was related to Aish HaTorah and how it may now be a fully separate entity. Maybe that is where the confusion is coming from, because its relationship isn't clearly spelling out in the article and thus it is fuzzy to at least me.  --John Bahrain (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Management" section
I'm not sure of the purpose of the Management section. The individuals are not notable in themselves and most people reading the article most likely will not care. I have removed them. I have kept some of the information from that section but repurposed it as a "History" section that details how HonestReporting came about. I think that we can add more to the History section, including information of key personal who joined or other major notable events, or cross-organization collaborations. --John Bahrain (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not really a good reason for removing sourced material. Information about an organization's officers is usually relevant, and is especially so for partisan organizations. --John Nagle (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The information on the "Management" of HR is highly relevant in this case and needs putting back in order not to decieve the reader. It is fairly unlikely that a lobbyist for AIPAC and a grassroots organizer for American Friends of Magen David Adom are in the business of "honesty" the way readers (or indeed editors) of WP recognise it. The one part that isn't necessary or desireable is reference to a "former reporter for the Baltimore Jewish Times". It is decidedly questionable to link a community newspaper with unpleasant statements seen at HR such as "Saeb Erekat - a practiced liar if ever there was one". PRtalk 14:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarion Fund
In "Activities", What proof do you have that Clarion is connected to HR? I would like to remove that part. 213.8.119.102 (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to, The Clarion Fund registered address is the same as AishHaTorah. This news article also contains the sentence:
 * "Honestreporting.com, an organisation set up by Aish Hatorah and also a client of Ben-David, admitted to IPS that it had aided the production of the film."
 * "The Clarion Fund and Aish Hatorah are headed by twin Israeli-Canadian brothers Raphael and Ephraim Shore, respectively. The two groups appear to be connected as Clarion is incorporated in Delaware to the New York offices of Aish Hatorah. "
 * Thus you have the Aish HaTorah connection and you have the above admission that HonestReporting helped produce the film that The Clarion Fund distributed. It seems like an extended family of Aish HaTorah-related organizations that work together.
 * --John Bahrain (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge ("Honest Reporting Canada" into "HonestReporting")
Since Honest Reporting Canada and HonestReporting are the same organization, but the former is the Canada branch while the latter is the U.S. branch, it does not make sense to have two separate articles. Furthermore, since both organizations have the same general mission, having two separate articles needlessly replicates large volumes of information which is common to both. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. — eon, 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I suggested this myself about a week ago: . --John Bahrain (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge might be a good idea. I am trying to implement some self mission statements and history, more paraphrasing and neutralizing is required. Kasaalan (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey was a sock
Canadian Monkey has been identified as one of a series of sock-puppets of banned sock-master Isarig. Isarig's past contributions can be found here:. See Community Sanctions Noticeboard (or CSN) Isarig, CSN consensus, CSN Resolution, CSN Isarig, ANI: Isarig violating terms of mentorship for community concerns about the operation of this account. The extensive discussions there culminated in an Israel/Palestine topic ban on Isarig's account on the 30th August 2007.

In December 2007, Isarig (who had continued to edit quite properly outside the I/P topic) confessed to operating the sock-puppets | Teens! and | Clintonesque and was granted the right to vanish according to this deletion log and Isarig is no longer with us, wherein it is said "The user have been explained not to come back editing again as per WP:RTV, a thing they agreed to."

According to the note at sockpuppets of Nocal100 other sock-puppets operated by Isarig include NoCal100, AbetterWay, LoverOfTheRussianQueen, Millmoss, Hadashot Livkarim, Fistook, Oh, Those Russians!, and Mr. Hicks The III. Some of these accounts have been repeatedly subject to accusations of editwarring and disruptive editting.

As regards current efforts to improve HonestReporting, this notification may lead editors to examine this diff and this diff for information on "criticism" that may have been removed in a POV effort to introduce distortions to the encyclopedia. 86.159.67.125 (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Israel organisation.
Honest Reporting is a pro-Israel organisation per RS. This information with cited RS should not be deleted from the article. Saying that an organisation is pro-Israel is different from saying that it "monitors the media for what it perceives as bias against Israel."

A neutral organisation could monitor what it perceives as bias against Israel. Honest Reporting is not neutral, it is pro-Israel per RS. This is an important distinction because what a neutral organisation "perceives as bias" and what a pro-Israel orgainisation "perceives as bias" are two different things. Dlv999 (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your own conclusion, and cannot be in the article as such. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The organisation is "pro-Israel" per RS. That is all I am seeking to add. Nothing more, nothing less. If anyone wants to stop reliably sourced information from appearing in the article they must offer a very strong argument for doing so. Dlv999 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

nonsense paragraph
Text just reverted after I removed most of it: "After being criticized by HonestReporting for an article published by The Independent, author Robert Fisk wrote in the Independent that some of their readers sent him hate-mail, after he claimed that Israel used radioactive weapons in Lebanon, a claim later debunked by unanimous agreement at an IAEA conference. HonestReporting has in turn accused The Independent of intentionally omitting a part of their report. "

The very smallest problem with this is the double use of "after" in the first sentence. But much worse is the second one "after he claimed that Israel used radioactive weapons in Lebanon", which is simply false since Fisk wrote the article about HR in 2001 while the uranium incident was in 2006. Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of uranium in Fisk's article. This incorrect tying of Fisk's article to something 5 years later is then "supported" by a Daily Star article that does not mention either Fisk or Honest Reporting and is thus a perfect example of synthesis. This leaves nothing for the last sentence to refer to. Zerotalk 05:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked at the sources and I agree with Zero. Dlv999 (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on HonestReporting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013204715/http://www.cjnews.com/TOPScnCJN/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13275&Itemid=101 to http://www.cjnews.com/TOPScnCJN/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13275&Itemid=101

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HonestReporting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015014835/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43983 to http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43983
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823015729/http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=B6832638-1 to http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=B6832638-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Attribution is incorrect.
@Zero0000

I do not have the right to edit, but I hope it’s okay to point out where a correction is mecessary. I’m referring just to the paragraph.

“During the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, HonestReporting said that the journalists who had photographed the October 7 Hamas attack were "part of the plan" and involved in "coordination with the terrorists"; later, the group's executive director said he had no evidence for the allegation.”

I cannot find an article that matches this description. Is there one?

I can only find an AP claim that this was said. I think it’s more correctly described as an inference, and I think mentioning an inference would violate WP:NOR

If you don’t have a link to evidence that Honest Reporting made the actual claim, can you please edit this so it attributes those words to AP if you choose to use them?

And/or also perhaps include a quote from the article (relevant part copied below), so that it’s clear it was an inference?

Another thing to consider is that it looks like no permission was sought from the families of the victims, and the images - which I believe were paid for and credited by the news orgs - are likely to be the subject of a law suit as they do show that the person who took the photograph was in a physical position that may legally be seen as participation in violent crime.

I also think if you’re going to write about this, it’s only reasonable to ask you to look at the photographs being discussed and consider how you’d feel about those photographs being taken, sold, published and awarded if the people being taken hostage in those photos were your relatives. At least one of them shows the abduction of a private citizen.

Thanks.

''“ On October 7, Hamas terrorists were not the only ones who documented the war crimes they had committed during their deadly rampage across southern Israel. Some of their atrocities were captured by Gaza-based photojournalists working for the Associated Press and Reuters news agencies whose early morning presence at the breached border area raises serious ethical questions.''

''What were they doing there so early on what would ordinarily have been a quiet Saturday morning? Was it coordinated with Hamas? Did the respectable wire services, which published their photos, approve of their presence inside enemy territory, together with the terrorist infiltrators? Did the photojournalists who freelance for other media, like CNN and The New York Times, notify these outlets? Judging from the pictures of lynching, kidnapping and storming of an Israeli kibbutz, it seems like the border has been breached not only physically, but also journalistically.”''

https://honestreporting.com/broken-borders-media-showcase-oct-7-pictures-by-gaza-photojournalists-as-images-of-the-year/ EthicalAugur (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * "Is it conceivable to assume that “journalists” just happened to appear early in the morning at the border without prior coordination with the terrorists? Or were they part of the plan?" I don't know what photos you refer to, but probably you don't mean the many photographs Wikipedia hosts, including those of dead bodies, with no indication of permission from relatives. Zerotalk 09:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I was referring to the photographs which the article is referring to.
 * Great, you do have a citation that isn’t AP’s article. Can you see that it has a question mark after each statement? It’s asking a question. It is *not* making a statement. That’s why I’m asking you to edit it.
 * You could quote directly ie:
 * “During the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, HonestReporting said "Is it conceivable to assume that “journalists” just happened to appear early in the morning at the border without prior coordination with the terrorists? Or were they part of the plan?";
 * or change it so something along the lines of
 * “During the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, HonestReporting questioned whether the journalists who had photographed the October 7 Hamas attack were "part of the plan" and had coordinated with the terrorists;
 * But then you also have this part:
 * “…later, the group's executive director said he had no evidence for the allegation.”
 * But again, that is not what HonestReporting said. What they said was:
 * “ As we said at the time, Hoffman’s subsequent conversations with Reuters and AP were misconstrued and taken out of context in an attempt to discredit our original exposé. To avoid the uncomfortable question of their freelancers’ activity on October 7, the media tried to reframe the conversation. They denied having advanced knowledge of the attack (which we did not claim), and then accused HonestReporting of spreading misinformation. We wholeheartedly reject this baseless assertion. HonestReporting noticed the details and asked the questions that fact-checkers and editors at these news organizations should have asked themselves.”
 * It is up to you how you write this. Fair criticism is fair. Misquoting isn’t. EthicalAugur (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * btw the reason I mentioned the law suit is that it was pretty obvious this is going to blow up a bit. I’m not telling you what to put in, or not put in; that’s entirely up to you and other experienced editors to work out. I do think the important parts of the story are the details about one of the photographers live-streaming an invitation to others in Gaza to join in, and another of the photographers showing up in a photo with Yahya Sinwa kissing him on the cheek. Obviously the details are hard to tease apart. The translation of the live-streaming was done by Honest Reporting staff but is also mentioned by Algameiner.
 * NYT VP David McCraw, wrote to the Israeli foreign ministry. Make of that what you will. I’m guessing it’s in response to something said on the news but I couldn’t find it.
 * I did find this topic reported by i24
 * HonestReporting is also the only place I’ve seen a report of journalists that are affiliated with or part of Hamas (Hamas has a pretty big media wing from the looks of it)
 * So it has surprised me that nobody else has looked into this, I’ve been waiting for Bellingcat to do some kind of OSint report, They may still do so. I guess we will see if more comes of it.
 * Apologies if I seemed gruff. I’m just old and grumpy., I couldn’t even work out how to put links in when I posted that last message, EthicalAugur (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If I present a long list of "facts" implying that Joe killed his mother, and then write "Could it be that Joe killed his mother?" how should that be understood? If I follow it with more pages stating explicitly that I had uncovered wrong-doing on the part of Joe, will that help us to understand? Presenting allegations as rhetorical questions is a standard item in the Smear Handbook. The aim of propaganda is to generate beliefs in the minds of the audience, which doesn't necessarily require a direct statement of that belief. In this example, though I never stated explicitly that Joe killed his mother, many of my audience will adopt that belief and that is my clear purpose. Since we are not here to conduct our own investigation, we should report this incident in accordance with reliable sources, which uniformly took HR's article to be an allegation, or at least an insinuation. Zerotalk 02:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Section headings
Is "Successes" really an objective heading for a list of the organization's activities? Shouldn't it be "Campaigns" or something like that?

Also it seems that the norm, when relevant, is to have a "Criticism and controversies" heading. Pr4xer0 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits
In re: this edit, the source states: "The executive director of Israeli media advocacy group HonestReporting said on Friday ...",. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "needs independent sourcing to establish weight". --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The organization is a registered American not-for-profit, so I'm a bit amiss as to how we can settle simply calling this an Israeli organization. Reuters aside (which could easily be a misassertion), it clearly has US and Israel offices, but its mailing address is in the US, as is its company registry. Mistamystery (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know the full organizational details, but lots of foreign groups have offices in the USA. They do it so that they can receive tax-free donations from where the money is. The fact that their US documents give a US address means nothing. They also have branches in other countries. This article from a different major news organization also calls it Israeli. This article is even more explicit: "Jerusalem-based". Zerotalk 05:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Likewise, it also has offices in Canada now. Not indicative. We reflect the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Activities section
the activities section is written like an advert, and like something someone working for the company would write. Can someone fix this? 150.249.248.60 (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)