Talk:If Americans Knew/Archive 1

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

casualty stats
I wrote to Alison Weir about casualty statistics. This is her reply:


 * Thank you for contacting us about this.


 * This allegation is quite false. If you'll go to our website, you'll see that we gather statistics on the number of people killed on both sides by the other -- we do not designate, on either side, which are civlians or which are combatants.


 * Since they were not killed by the other side, we do not include in this listing suicide bombers, or Israeli soldiers who commit suicide, (which actually exceed the number killed by Palestinians or any other cause: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/suicide.html)


 * Our statistics for deaths come from the Israeli human rights organization, B'tselem, (which, by the way, does not include suicide bombers among its statistics for deaths, which can easily be determined by going to its website, or by emailing them directly, which we do whenever we have questions about their numbers).


 * By the way, while we find B'Tselem an excellent source of information, it is quite likely that they, unintentionally, at times undercount somewhat the number of Palestinian deaths. In one of our studies, we saw the numbers on their website of Palestinian deaths go up by approximately 100 over the course of a few months, as they were able to confirm more deaths.


 * If you look at the Palestinian Red Crescent Society information -- also an excellent and reliable source -- you'll see that this organization often places the number of Palestinian deaths higher than B'Tselem's count, since PRCS (unlike B'Tselem) is located in the Palestinian territories themselves. We use B'Tselem, however, since this organization provides statistics on both Israeli and Palestinian casualties.


 * Incidentally, Front page is an extremely unreliable source for information. For example, when I saw the article you refer to, I attempted to correct their report immediately, by submitting the following letter. They never posted my correction on their website. I will paste my letter below.


 * Finally, I hope that this information will suggest to Wikipedia that it reconsider using contributions from the person who submitted such fallacious information.


 * Sincerely,
 * Alison Weir
 * Executive Director
 * If Americans Knew
 * http://www.ifamericansknew.org
 * 310.441.8580

-- Viajero 21:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you expect them to issue correction? B'Tselem is a controversial source and its numbers have been widely criticized. Both orgs are biased and they don't even hide it, but you present your article as if it is neutral, which of course it is not. You can't have it both ways. Either include criticism or POV tag.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 21:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have added a line indicating the sources for this groups casualty statistics. As I am sure you are aware, there is discussion about the validty of B'Tselem's stats in that article. As for the rest, just because the organization has a clear ideological orientation (it is indeed an advocacy group), does not mean by definition that this article is slanted, but I suspect this distinction is lost on you. In any case, I will agree to a POV tag in this article if you agree to a POV tag in, say, Anti-Defamation League and The New York Times. -- Viajero 11:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't reflect that "the organization has a clear ideological orientation" and "it is indeed an advocacy group". OTOH, the ADL article clearly states their agenda and a half of it is dedicated to criticism and controversies. I don't care about the NYT, it's not a part of my camarilla. Please refrain from violating WP policies concerning assuming good faith, ad hom attacks and POV tag removal.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "Two wrongs make a right" is not a very strong argument. Jayjg (talk) 18:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ghettoizing criticism or controversy in a separate section is simply bad style. (Almost as bad as, say, a ==Trivia== or ==Miscellaneous facts== section, which I always try to eradicate.) It's usually better to integrate the facts behind the criticism into the article.

One could do that with FrontPage's criticism if it weren't so vague. The only piece I found on the IAK site which explicitly advocates the end of U.S. aid to Israel is an opinion piece by Charles L. Black, but that's just a reprint of something first published by the Jewish Committee on the Middle East. I can't find anything saying that a Palestinian state should replace Israel, but I can find advocacy for the two-state and one-state solutions.

However, since many of the opinion pieces on their site are compiled from work that was first printed in other sources, it's rather misleading to say that the organization itself advocates anything without reference to the primary source, which is fortunately only a click away.

Lastly, since IAK doesn't compile its own casualty statistics, but rather relies on other groups which are better-equipped to compile such numbers, FrontPage's complaint is more relevant to the articles on those other organizations. Simply say that they use statistics from this, that, and the other group, link to those articles, and put any discussion of casualty figures there. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 17:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The choice of articles promoted by the organization indicate what it advocates; I think it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise. Jayjg (talk) 18:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * True, but the writings represent a range of opinions. The general orientation of these opinions is obvious. However, picking one opinion out of that range (and another which is apparently not represented anywhere on the site, though I may have missed it), and to hold that up as the opinion of the organization, is equally disingenuous. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 21:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

Template:NPOV

I disputed the neutrality here. That par tof the articcle is biased in favor for IfAmericansKnew which is also anti Israeli propaganda. It makes tha t myth that pro Isralei advocate s make false claims about that site. - Dendoi 15:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC) IfAmericans knew has no other source. When you click on view source, you stay on the same website. The part that I disputed the neutrality on, I am challenging that whole part of the article including it's accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendoi (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 December 2006

This article did improve alot. One thing. The view source does not view any outside source. It only views another part of their own website. - Dendoi 04:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * big improvement

I am still mad about before when this article was false accusations of pro Isralei advocates about ifAmericansknew. i will only stop if this article is saying the trut about how IfAmericansKnew sucks. - Dendoi 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * forgive not

unreliable and inaccurate external websites
Wikipedia says that "Links normally to be avoided" include: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."

Therefore "Scholars for Terror" by Lee Kaplan and the CAMERA article need to removed, since both contain falacious material.

Lee Kaplan and David Horowitz, the founder of FrontPage Magazine, are well-known as zealots who defame and fabricate materials about people who are critical of Israeli actions. This article contains a number of inaccuracies.

I will address the most glaring ones:

1. First of all, the article only glancingly mentions If Americans Knew; why would it be considered an important external link? Out of 2,705 words it addresses 187 words, most of them maligning If Americans Knew founder Alison Weir. This is hardly a resource on If Americans Knew.

1. Despite the small amount of verbiate about If Americans Knew, Kaplan manages to write a number of errors. For example, he states that If Americans Knew says that "a Palestinian state should replace Israel." This is absolutely false.

2. Kaplan says: "the Web site’s statistics on Palestinian casualties include suicide bombers and armed combatants as “civilian casualties.”" This is absolutely false.

Weir sent a letter to the editor correcting these fabrications and other inaccuracies. The letter was never published or acknowledged.

3. Similarly, CAMERA is passionately pro-Israel. The article by Gilead Ini also contains numerous errors, among them:

4. Ini states that If Americans Knew: "described Palestinian terrorism as a "legitimate right and ... moral duty." This is absolutely false.

5. Ini claims that If Americans Knew: "parroted discredited claims that Israel attacks Palestinians with "mysterious poison gas." If Americans Knew did not "parrot" these, it reported first-hand observations. Second, while Israel, of course, has denied these charges, others have also written reports about this unidentified gas. There is a sequence about it in the documentary "Gaza Strip" that is valuable to view.

6. Its "critique" of the If Americans Knew study of the New York Times contains glaring inaccuracies. This can easily be ascertained by reading the [/New York Times study] itself. Ini states that "Palestinian fatalities were overwhelmingly combatants or Palestinians killed by other Palestinians" Both of these statements are absolutely false.

His analysis of the study itself is silly -- first, he "reveals that the study largely focuses on headlines and first paragraphs -- a fact that the study makes clear high up in its Methodology section: "Our decision to look at only headlines and first paragraphs was motivated by the goal of assessing the average reader’s experience and the prominence given to the coverage. In addition, we conducted a sub-study of full articles in one month-long period." These are extremely significant categories. Second, he ignores the fact that the substudy that considered full articles found that the patterns discovered about headlines/first paragraphs remained true for full articles as well. In fact, the pro-Israel distortion slightly increased. This can be seen clearly by reading this section:

V. Coverage of Deaths in Full articles: 2004

In order to determine whether the patterns found in the above studies of headlines and first paragraphs are amplified or diminished when a larger portion of the article is examined, we did a study of full articles of an arbitrary month-long period in 2004.

From June 28 to July 27 seven Israelis were killed, including one child. 60 Palestinians were killed by Israelis, roughly 8.6 times the number of Israelis killed by Palestinians. 18 Palestinian children were killed. Hence, this month-long study period was roughly representative of 2004 in general, in which Palestinian deaths outnumbered Israeli deaths by a factor of about 7.6 and Palestinian children were being killed at a rate approximately 22 times that of Israeli children.

In the headline and first paragraph of articles printed in this study period, there were mentions of seven Israeli deaths, including one child’s – 100% of the deaths that occurred during this period; 33% of Palestinian deaths were reported, and 11% of Palestinian children’s deaths.

In other words, Israeli deaths were covered in headlines or first paragraphs at a rate three times greater than Palestinian deaths. Israeli children’s deaths were covered in headlines or first paragraphs at a rate nine times greater than Palestinian children’s deaths.

In this sub-study we looked further into the articles, and recorded the first paragraph in which a death was mentioned. Thus, if a person’s death was reported in the fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs, we counted it as appearing in the fourth paragraph. Although repetitions within articles were not counted, we did count repetitions in different articles, e.g. if a death was mentioned in one article in a headline and then in a later article in the fifth paragraph, we counted both of these occurrences.

First Five Paragraphs:

In the first five paragraphs and headlines, 157% of Israeli deaths and 200% of Israeli children’s death were reported. There were no additional mentions of Palestinian deaths, so coverage of Palestinian deaths stayed at 33%. One article mentioned in the second paragraph that one of the previously mentioned deaths was of a child, increasing the percent of Palestinian children’s deaths covered to 17%. Hence, the ratio of Israeli to Palestinian deaths covered grew from 3 to 4.7, and for children’s deaths it grew from 9 to 12.

Full Articles:

Expanding to an examination of the full articles, we find that Israeli deaths had been covered slightly more disproportionately than they were in the headlines and first paragraphs. Here, Israeli deaths were covered at a rate 3.1 times greater than Palestinian deaths (257% of Israeli compared to 82% of Palestinian) compared to a ratio of 3.0 in headlines/first paragraphs. Again, the distortion was even greater in coverage of children’s fatalities. Israeli children’s deaths were covered at a rate 10.3 times that of Palestinian children (400% of Israeli and 39% of Palestinian) up slightly from 9 times greater in headlines and lead paragraphs.

In other words, emphasis on Israeli deaths over Palestinian deaths, found in the above studies of headlines and lead paragraphs, persisted (largely through repetitions of previously reported Israeli deaths) when the entire article was examined. Chart showing that the patterns of distortion are present when studying the entire article. Chart showing that the patterns of distortion are present when studying the entire article. Chart showing where in the article the deaths of Israelis and Palestinians appeared.

Interestingly, a closer examination shows that every death mentioned solely in the last two paragraphs of an article was Palestinian. There were five Palestinian deaths mentioned for the first time in the second to last paragraph, including that of a 16-year-old girl shot through the chest by the Israeli army. Also, there were five Palestinian deaths mentioned for the first time in the last paragraph.

On July 6 an article was published with a lead paragraph that read “An Israeli Army officer and four Palestinians were killed in exchanges of fire early Tuesday around the Ain Beit Ilma refugee camp in the West Bank town of Nablus, Israeli and Palestinian security sources said.” The author devoted the rest of the article to details of the “exchange” and only mentioned that one of the Palestinian dead was a 15-year-old boy in the final paragraph.

Without these belated mentions, the percentage of Palestinian deaths covered drops to 65% (four times lower than Israeli deaths) and that of Palestinian children’s deaths drops to 28% (14.4 times lower than the corresponding Israeli number).

Since readership diminishes the further down an article one goes, such patterns reduce readers’ awareness of Palestinian deaths. In addition, The New York Times wire service provides its news stories to newspapers throughout the nation. When space limitations require that a story be cut, journalistic practice is to cut from the bottom. As a result, it can be expected that newspapers around the country omitted Palestinian deaths at an even greater rate than The New York Times. Chart showing 10 Palestinian deaths were reported solely in the final paragraph of an article.

7. Init claimes that "Palestinian violence is often the immediate cause of Israeli counter-actions," another inaccuracy. At least 140 Palestinians were killed in the current uprising before a single Jewish citizen Israeli in Israel was killed; over 80 Palestinian children were killed before a single Israeli child was killed. Israeli forces killed first and most.

8. Init commits numerous other inaccuracies that there is not space to go into here; in particular, he claims that If Americans Knew's history section is inaccurate, and he parrots many of Israel's founding myths. These myths are corrected on the [/ If Americans Knew History Section] and in its [/ Recommended Books]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 January 2007

Inaccurate information
1. The article states that If Americans Knew is a "pro-Palestinian" organization. The organization is actually a media watchdog organization that focuses on Israel-Palestine and whose mission is to provide information largely unreported by the mainstream US media. Its founder repeated emphasizes that the goal is to uphold universal principles of human rights and journalistic accuracy, not to engage in the "football-team approach" to conflict, in which someone takes a particular "side."

2. The article claims that "They have been heavily criticized for not citing the actual causes of deaths in the conflict. Some of their documents have been accused of being misleading." In fact, the only groups to have made this criticism are pro-Israel ones. Others have found the organization's studies valuable.

For example, Project Censored, a highly regarded journalism organized published a [/ chapter] by If Americans Knew in its book CENSORED 2005: The Top 25 Censored Stories.

Similarly, a media monitoring organization based at Stanford, Grade the News, did a similar / statistical study which substantiated If Americans Knew findings.

Another highly respected media monitoring organization, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has also posted If Americans Knew information, terming it a "valuable organization."

3. The Wikipedia article states that "the list of Palestinian casualties includes Palestinians killed by Palestinians, as well as suicide bombers, none of which is specified." This is entirely false. If Americans Knew statistics on deaths and casualties only include those killed by the other side, and this is made clear on the website. Disturbingly, Wikipedia continues to parrot pro-Israel misinformation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Incomplete Article - leaves out a major portion of If Americans Knew focus
1. If Americans Knew has increasingly focused on producing videos on Israel-Palestine, yet this is not mentioned in the article. As of now it has created / four videos: one is a trailer of their upcoming documentary, one contains information on prisoners, one is on Gaza, and one is on AP erasing footage of an Israeli soldier shooting a Palestinian boy. This needs to be in the article.

2. Alternate Focus, a nonprofit organization which is "dedicated to offering the American public media that provides balance to existing coverage of Middle East and related issues," has produced a video about If Americans Knew: / Off the Charts, producers: Paul Chek and John Odam (2006). A description can be viewed at http://www.alternatefocus.org/index.php?c=shows

All this should be in the article. - MidEastSpecialist —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 January 2007

Fix Article
I hope this will be fixed. I have tried to correct this article several times, yet it keeps reverting to the incorrect form I've described above.

How can this be fixed as soon as possible? I would like to try to edit it once again, but don't want to continue wasting time on this if someone is going to continually succeed in taking out accurate information and substituting inaccurate information. - MidEastSpeciallist —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 January 2007

Remove unreliable and inaccurate external link
The article by MiddleEastNow.com is anonymous and also contains inaccurate material, similar to that described above. For that reason it should be removed.

I will now attempt to make the adjustments I have explained above. I hope inappropriate edits of this material will not continue. - MedEastSpecialist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Inappropriate editing by Israel advocate
A person seems intent on promoting Israeli-centric editing rather than accuracy-driving editing. He made a major revision in the IAK page without any accompanying justification. This is inappropriate. For more information on his potential bias see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leifern —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 January 2007


 * I don't think there's anything on my User page that would make any reasonable person conclude that I'm a "Israel advocate," and my edits were simply a reversion of brochureware for the organization. I suppose my "potential bias" also includes Architecture, military history, geography, and Norway? This article needs a lot of work to be useful and unbiased, but we need at least a good starting point. --Leifern 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Your contribution history is much more revealing than your userpage. I'm interested that you wrote this: "Wikipedia benefits much more from the excitable editor who commits multiple 3RR and NPA violations than the sneaky editor who stays narrowly within the guidelines but pushes his/her POV at every turn." I agree entirely. I've been blocked for getting overexcited (well, drunk) and I get tired of multireverters who have no interest at all in creating a decent article but want only one that says something they can nod along to. But I'm wondering how you can square that statement with your behaviour? Grace Note 07:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph issues
We went through much the same issue with CAMERA, but from the other side. CAMERA is a media monitoring organization with a pro-Israel slant; "If Americans Knew" is a media monitoring organization with an anti-Israel slant.

The CAMERA article ended up with:
 * CAMERA is a non-profit, tax-exempt media watchdog group based in Boston chiefly monitoring media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and focusing primarily on correcting coverage that it considers inaccurate or unfairly skewed against Israel.

The current lead on "If Americans Knew" reads:
 * If Americans Knew is a non-profit media watchdog organization that focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, United States foreign policy regarding the Middle East, and media coverage of these issues. Its mission is to provide information largely unreported in the US media. The group is highly critical of U.S. support, especially U.S. financial support, for Israel.

Those are relatively close in tone. Attempts to put the word "pro-Israel" in the introduction to the CAMERA article were vehemently opposed. The language shown above has been stable for some time, with both sites not entirely happy. That's probably what we should aim for here. --John Nagle 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment
People who appear to have a pro-Israel agenda -- eg Jayjig, Leinert and others -- continue to insert inaccurate, unsubstantiated material into the entry about If Americans Knew. Since they revert the article in teams, they do not trigger the blocking that this should receive. Moreover, they do not even deign to offer substantiating material -- or even any explanation -- for reverting the article. They simply do it, resulting in an inaccurate, defamatory entry.

I showed above, in detail, the problem with their entry and with the external links they keep inserting. These explanations can be found under the following sections above: "unreliable and inaccurate external websites" "Inaccurate Information" "Incomplete Article - leaves out a major portion of If Americans Knew focus" "Fix Article" "Remove unreliable and inaccurate external link"

Another useful comment is under the heading: "Lead paragraph issues"

Since Wikipedia's success as a source of reliable information requires accurate entries under all subjects -- even those that are controversial, and therefore vulnerable to subtle vandalism -- I am asking that others work to make sure that the entry about If Americans Knew is accurate and that it not include external contain inaccurate material.

I will fix the mistakes in the entry. I hope others will ensure that it is not replaced by fraudulent statements and inaccurate and malicious external links. - MidEastSpecialist —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 January 2007


 * I've been trying to match the style to that of the CAMERA article. These "media monitoring" organizations are difficult to write about in a neutral way, because they claim to be neutral but are generally recognized as having a decided spin. What we seem to be ending up with are articles which admit the spin, but aren't too blatant about it. That's probably about where Wikipedia should be. The Fox News article has many of the same problems, so take a look over there and see how it was dealt with. --John Nagle 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

first of all to make this article better you need to eliminate the last part about wikipedia. that section is completly unrelated to the article and does not meet WP:MOS. also just go through the MOS so as this article can be improved. things like wikilinks and citations are almost completly missing. you seem to be afraid of people imposing a political agenda on wikipedia but it seems that you may be doing right here as well. i would sugest looking at WP:NPOV. keep on truckin'.--Tainter 04:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I read through the CAMERA article and I don't believe it's fit for inclusion. The first problem with it is that it's predominately about other media outlets, not about If Americans Knew. Secondly, its statements against If Americans Knew are entirely unsourced and the context of the quotations (which are only quotations of phrases) are unknown. As such, it's terribly uninformative. It's pretty much an extremely general, unsupported criticism paragraph. .V. (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The "criticisms" section is far too long. This article is not about CAMERA and it's enough to note that it makes criticism, without detailing it. Anyone who is all that interested can follow up the link. What we had before my edit was just POV pushing, a section that was longer than the one on what IAK does! Grace Note 10:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The subject is highly controversial, therefore criticism is relevant. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That there is criticism should be noted, Humus, but it's a frank breach of WP:NPOV to write more about the criticism than you do about the organisation criticised. Grace Note 05:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Need to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines
Regarding External Links, Wikipedia states that among those to be avoided are: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."

CAMERA, the article from FrontPage Magazine, and the site by the anonymous individual contain factually inaccurate material and should not be used. Therefore, per Wikipedia's quest to provide facatually correct information, I am removing these. Please do not place these on the page until you have shown that the false statements point out above are somehow not false. Until then, please stop subverting Wikipedia in order to try to smear an organization that provides essential facts that people have a right to know, simply because these include negative aspects of Israel and expose its numerous human rights violations and core racism -- and also demonstrates the disturbing pro-Israel bias in the US media. It might be a good idea for anyone who edits this entry and the entry on If Americans Knew to read its research to better understand this issue. - MidEastSpecialist —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 January 2007


 * It may be your opinion - to put it kindly - that CAMERA contains factually inaccurate information, but that doesn't make it so. CAMERA has a particular purpose and makes no bones about it, but that is apparent to anyone who consults the sight. As far as factual accuracy is concerned, it is hard to beat. And your absurd charge about "core racism" pretty much shows your own bias. --Leifern 14:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong. I showed above the false statements that it makes. Since you cannot prove that these are accurate, this disqualifies it as an external link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 07:20, 12 January 2007


 * Fixed some external links. The link to FAIR was a link to Google's cache, and the cache item had expired, so I removed that and put in a "citation needed" tag.--John Nagle 22:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The item is still good. I replaced it. - MidEastSpecialist —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 07:20, 12 January 2007


 * Google cache links are not good sources; they will disappear in days to weeks. I found a permanent link for the article and used that instead. --John Nagle 00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Correcting "Jewish-only" reference, adding information about external links, and again Request for Comments from Wikipedia community
1. Once again, I've added accurate material and taken out errors; for example If Americans Knew contains a great deal of information about Jewish-only settlements -- not roads. While only Jewish residents of the West Bank can use these roads -- not the Christian and Muslim Palestinians whose land was confiscated for these roads, they are accessible to a small number of non-Jewish drivers from elsewhere. In other words, they are largely, but not completely, "Jewish-only." License tags are color-coded. The settlements, however, also on confiscated Christian and Muslim land, are completely "Jewish-only," as all Christians and Muslims are prohibited (for "eternity -- Israel's terminology)from living in them. Even Christian and Muslim citizens of Israel are prohibited from living in these Jewish-only colonies, while Jewish Americans without any link to Israel whatsoever are often provided subsidized homes in them.

2. Added footnotes to Reaction section. It is important to note that the negative views come only from organizations that are seen as pro-Israel specialty organizations, while the positive views come from reputable general-focus media monitoring organizations without a connection to either "side". It is therefore not surprising that those who have a pro-Israel agenda continue to remove them.

3. Finally, to reiterate, external links with incorrect statements are not to be included, according to Wikipedia guidelines. Also, one of the websites that was inappropriately posted is by an anonymous individual who has animus towards If Americans Knew. This individual is a fan of Jon Stewart (as are many of us!) who was extremely angry about an article by IAK critical of one of Stewart's programs (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/jonstewart.html). She then created a website, rife with incorrect accusations, to "get back" at If Americans Knew. Disgruntled, anonymous webmasters, whose websites contain proven false statements, seem a highly inappropriate Wikipedia external link and violate Wikipedia policies regarding these.

Of course, I expect pro-Israel individuals, who seem to be trying to hijack the Wikipedia effort of creating neutral, accurate articles, will probably change all this, and will not even both to justify their changes or rebut the above -- since, factually, they can't!

I hope others, who are trying to make Wikipedia a useful and accurate resource, will continue to work to prevent the insertion of false statements and inappropriate links. - MidEastSpecialist —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 18:50-19:12, 11 January 2007


 * Added a direct quote of CAMERA's statement on If America Knew, in hopes of stopping the revert war. This is getting silly. --John Nagle 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a source for the claim that license plates are color-coded? This will have a bearing on a dispute at the article Racism. --MaplePorter 23:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes,of course! Anyone who has been to the West Bank has seen these. For a written source see: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/buttu.html and http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=94&aid=131&pg=3 and http://imeu.net/news/printer003659.shtml and http://imeu.net/news/article003070.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 07:10, 12 January 2007

To John Nagle: I can understand that it seems silly, but I do not feel that unsubstantiated and false statements should be inserted in entries. If people insist that the entry contain these accusations then the entry should also contain the facts that show it is false. You cannot have one without the other. Either have the accusation and the rebuttal, or have neither.

Similarly, I have shown that the websites being inserted by Israel apologists contain malicious and false material. According to Wikipedia guidelines, external links should be chosen with great care. They must not contain false information. Ergo, these external links should not be given as references. Including them is like referring someone who is trying to learn about astronomy to an astrological site.

(I went into quite a bit of detail about this in multiple entries above. It seems wasteful to repeat it here.)

Thanks, - MidEastSpecialist —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 07:10, 12 January 2007


 * You have shown nothing, except your own bias and prejudice. Please spare us the sanctimonious rhetoric. --Leifern 14:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Leifern please desist from ad hominem attacks. I took the time to provide substantial factual basis for my changes (because I respect the Wikipedia goal] . You don't do this. I suggest that is because there is no factual basis for your own.


 * 1. CAMERA states that If Americans Knew found that full article analysis favored Palestinians. This is false. It showed that for all ages the NYTimes emphasized Israeli deaths at a rate over three times greater than Palestinian deaths.


 * 2. CAMERA and the other sites you are fond of state that If Americans Knew includes suicide bombers in its statitistics on Palestinian deaths. This is false. This is easily seen when anyone simply goes to the If Americans Knew site for themselves. The site is quite transparent and shows its sources clearly.


 * 3. TheMiddleEastNow.com is an anonymous site -- that alone should disqualify it. Moreover, it repeats the false statements above. That also should disqualify it.


 * 4. You and the sites you continue to insert make a big deal of "Jewish-only roads" In fact, If Americans Knew does not say they are "Jewish-only roads" (even though that is what they are for residents of the West Bank -- a little like the old segregated south, except far worse). What If Americans Knew does emphasize is that there are Jewish-only settlements and communities. (To most people the concept of confiscating people's land to exclude certain groups based on religion, ethnicity, or race from living in them is repugnant. Yet, this is what Israel is doing. I'm curious, do you find this acceptable?)


 * - -MidEastSpecialist —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 07:20, 12 January 2007

Leifert -- ideological vandalism?
Leifert makes unsupported accusations, ad hominem attacks, and re-inserts statements proven to be false. Perhaps I have misunderstood the Wikipedia description of vandalism (particularly "sneaky vandalism") but Leifert's actions, particularly the third, certainly appear to qualify for that designation.

He tries to label the entry I and a variety of others have added to of being "vanity" but does not support this accusation. Where is the inaccuracy in our edits? Why is Leifert attacking with unsupported pejorative adjectives instead of using facts to challenge us? I suggest it is because the facts don't support his edits.

I worry that Leifert's apparent affinity for Israel is getting in the way of honest editing and civility.

I request that others study the If Americans Knew website, view the Alternate Focus video on If Americans Knew http://alternate-focus.blip.tv/file/85804/, and read the discussion on this page, and help mediate this situation.

I don't enjoy Leifert's mud-slinging and feel that others need to step in so that an accurate entry is produced with accurate external links. -MidEastSpecialist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 17:57, 12 January 2007


 * "MidEastSpecialist" doesn't sign his/her entries, accuses me of all kinds of things, and apparently characterizes everything he/she believes as facts. This article is a vanity piece because it takes everything this organization at face value. --Leifern 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments
In response to the Request for Comment, I will give some advice:
 * Stop reverting each other and start talking.
 * Giving undue weight to criticism is not acceptable.
 * Tagging every word with is borderline disruptive. If you have problems with a section, consider using  and explain why in the talk page.
 * Opinion articles are not valid references generally speaking, unless expressed on a way such as "the organisation has received criticism from...". In any case, refer to point three here.

I will watch the article. Hopefully no one will force me to use the admin buttons to stop disruptive edit wars. Regards, Asterion talk 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That won't necessarily help. Some of the people involved are admins. --John Nagle 20:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The consensus of others may help a little. Most web sites dealing with these subjects make an attempt at an even-handed presentation on at least the initial page. IAK does not. Nobody who sees it will be in the least doubt about their political view, and people can be expected to be able to judge the site for themselves from their own viewpoints, without the need for help from secondary sources. It is quite sufficient in this case to give an objective presentation of what is to be found on the site. It would be folly for the article to attempt to judge the site, and it would be sufficient to refer to the opposing views of accuracy. This is an argument which cannot be settled on WP, and very straightforward reporting is enough for us here. DGG 00:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what could be more even-handed than an opening page with simple statistics for both populations side by side. Is it simply that this provides information that most people have no idea about, and that you find uncomfortable?


 * I'm finding it disconcerting that few people seem to address the content of my edits and to share the goal of producing an accurate entry without false statements. I'm beginning to feel that the Wikipedia process simply doesn't work when there's a group with an agenda working to falsify facts, and when others are largely uninformed on the issues involved. This is a disappointment for me, but a learning experience.


 * I will now remove inaccuracies and inaccurate websites and will add informative ones. The entry is supposed to tell what If Americans Knew is. The program created by the organization Alternate Focus does just that. It should be an External Link. It is all right to post external links critical of the organization; it is not all right to post external links that make false allegations -- this does NOT tell what the organization is. If you don't like things that If Americans does, object to those -- not to things it does not do or say! Debate on facts, not through misinformation.


 * I realize that my action will once again by overturned by zealots, and that I will be admonished by those who perhaps do not yet care very much about the life-and-death situation in Israel-Palestine. I hope that whoever now blocks me from further edits, will at least inform him/herself about the tragic and extremely dangerous situation in this region. - MidEastSpecialist —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 04:05, 13 January 2007


 * There's far too much wholesale reverting going on. Independent of the content issue, typos and bad links are being re-inserted by reverts and cut and paste work. We have periods in the middle of sentences, links to Google's cache, badly formatted Wikilinks, and similar junk being re-introduced by reverts. This has to stop. I'd like to go back to "20:15, 12 January 2007 Nagle" and go on from there. Is this acceptable? I'll wait a day for comments. Thanks. --John Nagle 22:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be good to begin a more rational process. However, the version you would like to start from has numerous errors. I'd rather work from the one posted now (01:29, 14 January 2007 MidEastSpecialist), which is accurate and has very few (if any) typos. I've removed the link to a cache and instead just put a more traditional citation in its place, if that works. For the most part, I think the entry is in good shape, but I would be glad to fix, or have others fix, any real errors, typos, bad links, etc. --User:MiddleEastSpecialist 01:34-01:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have rewriten the article, removing what I considered biased language put in Wikipedia's institutional voice. I also got rid of the external links, except for the official one. The links are now under references. Anything that is not quoted or made a reference to in the article does not belong here. Wikipedia is not an undiscrimate collection of links. I will appreciate if the reverts stop and you all discuss any changes beforehand here. Regards, Asterion talk 11:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: The description of the organization activities from a neutral perspective need to be added. In the current article, criticism amounts to almost half of the text. I have tried to rewrite the criticism to make it clear it is coming from CAMERA, not Wikipedia. Asterion talk 11:38-11:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The following text needs to be rewritten somehow as it reads as if Wikipedia supports CAMERA's views: the claim that "in 1948, Israel declared its 'independence' on 78% of Palestine" (when in fact the country declared independence only over the land allotted to it by the United Nations – about 10 percent of historic Palestine or 55 percent of Palestine without Transjordan). Regards, Asterion talk 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to say that Asterion's edit (and the subsequent edits after that) do fix a lot of problems with this article. I think the editors involved did a fantastic job. .V. (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work, Asterion. Jayjg (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your impression is incorrect. Please see below. user:MidEastSpecialist20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you persist in trying to turn this from a Wikipedia article into a gushing promotional and propaganda piece, you will find yourself squarely in conflict with Wikipedia policy and other editors. Jayjg (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, because we only allow those sorts of articles for pro-Israeli organisations. Grace Note 05:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Neutral Edit" Retains Errors and Inappropriate Slant

 * Unfortunately, the truth is that Asterion's edit largely perpetuates the problem. Please look at my previous postings and read the information on the If Americans Knew website to learn more about the issues involved. Following are comments I posted on my talk page yesterday. Asterion stated that he had completed a "distant rewrite" -- following is my response:

1. Your "distant" rewrite contains 13 lines under Criticism and 2 lines under Reactions. How do you justify this?

2. It also contains external links that contain inaccurate statements. How do you justify including these?

3. It leaves out the program about If Americans Knew by Alternate Focus, an independent organization based in San Diego. Why is this omitted?

4. It appears that you only place negative views about If Americans Knew in the entry (even when they are inaccurate), and omit the far more numerous positive ones -- from considerably more reputable sources. How do you justify this slant?

5. Your opening states that "If Americans Knew claims to provide full and accurate information." Actually, the website states: "Fortunately, the American media cover many events in Israel with great detail and thoroughness. Therefore, we are not repeating that coverage here. Instead, we are attempting to fill in the many important news items – most of them about incidents in the Palestinian territories – that are not available in the U.S. media." This statement is posted prominently on the If Americans Knew website; why did you leave it out?

6. This entry is supposed to about If Americans Knew. Instead it is largely about CAMERA and other Zionist organizations and their false allegations about If Americans Knew and Israel-Palestine in general. How do you justify this odd approach?

I look foward to your response. I hope these were honest errors. Regards, User:MidEastSpecialist20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but as I said above, "The description of the organization activities from a neutral perspective need to be added. In the current article, criticism amounts to almost half of the text.". Feel free to contribute. I simply tried my best. Regarding why I left the Alternate Focus link out, the reason is because this is not made reference to in the article text. It is not technically possible for me to watch the video given my slow internet access. Nonetheless, you could indeed add references and comments from the video to the article and then add it to the references. Regards, Asterion talk 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. However, you didn't cover all of my points (which I will now number, to make referring to them easier).
 * It would be helpful if you could also respond to #2 and #5.
 * Also, I'm curious -- why did you choose to work from versions I had shown had serious problems instead of from others, for example one of the ones I had put up? No one has refuted any of my facts. Regards, User:MidEastSpecialist22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Re. 2: Wikipedia does not do "Truth" but "Verifiability". As long as a mention is verifiable and not put on Wikipedia's "institutional voice" (i.e. reader gets an idea of who is saying what), this is fine; Re. 5 and other question, I did work from the most recent version I found when I started my edits. Regards, Asterion talk 23:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just put up a better version for you to work on. I have to run to an appoiintment now but will add more later.User:MidEastSpecialist23:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Did some minor cleanup. Added "Activities" and "Mission Statement" section headers, but the content hasn't changed. Wikipedia's house style discourages long first sections; it messes up the box formatting. --John Nagle 07:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine that anyone would think the sentence Actually, however, it is the Israeli settlements -- illegal colonies in the West Bank -- that If Americans Knew describes as "Jewish only." in any way meets Wikipedia content policy requirements. Please review WP:NOR, WP:N, and WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vanity piece - AFD?
This is an organization of questionable notability and a clear POV, but some editors keep trying to present it as a neutral source of information on the Arab-Israeli conflict. We either have to see a serious effort into making this an NPOV article, or else it should be deleted as a promotional piece. And please, no more objections and personal attacks based on an anti-Israeli tirade. --Leifern 12:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree; the current version is marginal, but a couple of editors appear to be trying to turn it into an advertisement or promotional piece for the organization. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure it's a vanity piece of questionable notability. After all, the organization has been praised by several media watchdog outlets, as well as being a registered non-profit. That seems to place it certainly in the realm of notability. I also don't see any particular POV in this piece either way at the moment. Could you point out the POV you reference? .V. (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with V. The organization is notable, as its been recognized within the field of major progressive media non-profits, such as the bias-combating groups like (FAIR), which has commended the organization's work. As for POV, I corrected a couple of minor POV problems, already.Giovanni33 06:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Leifern and Jayjg's inappropriate comments
The above comment is without substantiation. Unfortunately, Leifern and Jayjg continually revert edits that have removed inaccurate statements and added accurate information. The fact is that If Americans Knew is widely used and cited; the only groups that speak negatively of it are the Israel-Right-or-Wrong groups and individuals who frequently falsify or bury information about Israel. Leifern and Jayjg have never once shown that the material removed was accurate and they have never once shown that the material added was inaccurate -- because they can't. Hence, they revert to unsubstantiated attacks, such as above.

The behavior of Leifern and Jayjg is part of a common pattern -- for example, see the / paper by Harvard University Professor John Walt and University of Chicago Professor Stephen Mearsheimer, which had to be published in the London Review of Books, because it was blocked from publication in the US. Its section on media, particularly in the / full version published on the Harvard website, is particularly valuable in understanding what is going on with Wikipedia.

Similarly, If Americans knew contains an /article showing that the Washington Post "reviewer" (Jeffrey Goldberg) of Jimmy Carter's recent book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, is an American who emigrated to Israel, took Israeli citizenship, enlisted in the Israeli military, and served as an Israeli prison guard at one of its notoriously cruel prison camps, Ketziot. Amazon then, which normally posts two short, industry descriptions of the book on its Product Description page, instead posted as one of the two this extremely long attack by Goldberg, again without telling readers of his substantial bias on this issue. It is extremely odd for a bookseller to attempt to convince readers NOT to buy a book. Quite likely their action is also due either to internal or external pressure on behalf of Israel.

Just as people with a pro-Israel agenda so often control the mainstream media, they are attempting to control wikipedia as well -- Leifern and Jayjg are just two examples. Unless more people start to investigate this situation, such disastrous obfuscation will continue.

Jayjg and Leifern must not be allowed to remove verified information and substitute unverified material and websites with unverified statements.

I will now revert the version to the previous one, in which the statements are verified and the external links contain verified material.User:MidEastSpecialist18:12-18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't know what edits you're talking about that are false. Speaking for myself, I am only editing the article so that it complies with NPOV and be a reasonable article rather than one that looks like a promotional piece. I haven't inserted any unsubstantiated facts but rather used phrasing that clarifies what this organization is all about. As for your allegations that Jews control the media and can't be trusted to give objective reviews of a book, I think they speak for themselves. --Leifern 18:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:SOAP as well. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SOAP would clearly disallow the use of the article to mirror anti-IAK propaganda too, but I see that that has not been bothering you too much. Maybe it's you who needs to re-read the policies in question. Grace Note 07:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable?
Is journalist "Lee Kaplan" notable enough to have his/her criticism in wikipedia?Bless sins 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been looking for some better criticism of "If Americans Knew". We have CAMERA (which is the pro-Israel counterpart of "If Americans Knew"), and we have FrontPageMag, which attacks a broad range of opponents. ("the Democratic party, the media, the environmental movement, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, left-wing interpretations of feminism, Islamism, socialism, communism, anarchism, anti-war groups, the United Nations...") But nothing from mainstream media or published books. Searching Google for '"If Americans Knew" "Israel"' yields mostly advocacy sites for one side or the other, and blogs. Many, many blogs. But not reliable sources. --John Nagle 06:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Reliable" is in the eye of the beholder. If articles on pro-Israeli organisations were larded with details of the "criticisms" of their anti-Zionist equivalents, they'd be "made more neutral" by the pro-Israeli lobby here by simply removing them and denying that they were "reliable". It would be much more reasonable if we could all agree on ground rules, rather than have double standards imposed by fiat. In any case, it is a "criticism" of CAMERA that IAK makes false claims. Listing out the claims that it says are false is not appropriate. How can it be? The article is not about Claims that CAMERA thinks are false that IAK makes, nor should it be. That is far too finegrained, and biases this article in a way WP:NPOV, which some of the editors here are fond of alluding to, explicitly disallows. It's fair to say that there is criticism but sticking in a huge list of the particular things it doesn't like is not fair and would not be permitted in other articles. Grace Note 06:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From now on anything that doesn't comply with your POV is declared non-notable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Humus, are you even reading what I'm writing? CAMERA is clearly not very notable. It's not the New York Times. It's a pro-Israeli shoutsite. I wouldn't consider IAK notable in this context either! If someone wanted to do the same thing to an article on a pro-Israeli site, I'd oppose that too. Try having a think about what I'm actually saying. That there are criticisms is fine to mention. That the criticisms are about "false claims" is fine to mention. A list of the "false claims" is not. Can you truly not see that? You could have even said that it published a list of claims, but to mirror that here is simply unacceptable. Grace Note 07:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Edits verging on vandalism
The reverting thing has reached the point of vandalism. In particular, this revert by Leifern discarded the work of four other editors. That editor has added almost no useful content to the article; most of the edits from that source are sizable reverts. Even cleanup edits are now being reverted. This is a serious violation of WP:OWN. Should we request a block? --John Nagle 06:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing can be done about it. Some editors' "contribution" to this article and others like it is solely to revert to their own "neutral" version of the article. Once a dispute has reached a certain point, which can be very quickly if one side has no intention to be constructive (and sometimes it is the one side, sometimes the other), there's nothing to be done. If it's pursued, usually the less empowered editors get themselves blocked or lose interest in fighting over it. You cannot have the editor in question blocked for it, because he and his friends are supported and endorsed by the people whom you would be asking to do the blocking. Grace Note 06:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That particular reverse was hasty, and I'll cop to that. Guys, let's get real. This is an organization with a clear agenda that under no circumstances can be viewed as neutral or objective. The issue really isn't whether any of us agrees with the agenda; the issue is whether the article doesn't mislead readers into thinking that the organization is something that it isn't. There are countless organizations dedicated to this controversy that would like people to believe that they are neutral and informative, and I haven't found a single one that truly is. Alison Weir is reported to have demanded that the New York Times hire more Muslim reporters to outweigh what she thinks is a preponderance of Jewish reporters in the paper. (Which I think is an insult to both Jews and Muslims, which is beside the point.) The point is, however, that this can not be presented as a mainstream, academically oriented think tank with a balanced objective. --Leifern 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't be concerned about misleading readers or not. That might sound odd, but "misleading" (in this particular case) implies that we know what is the proper "lead." Neutrality means that we present the side of "If Americans Knew", then present criticism. If a reader finds the IAK more persuasive, then so be it. If they find the criticism more persuasive, then that's alright as well. But the key issue to be taken care of here is that all parties mentioned in the article get at least a fair treatment. .V. (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course we should be concerned about misleading readers. I've looked up this organization and the founder, and it seems to me that she does an excellent job of getting on panels for debates about the conflict, especially in the East Bay. As far as "new" information is concerned, a) I see nothing in her materials I haven't seen dozens of times before; and b) it certainly is easily exceeded by an order of magnitude by Wikipedia articles on this topic. It is one of many many organizations that claim some kind of original angle to the conflict, so what we're left with is a bureau that sends out pamphlets and provides speaker(s) to activist events. There's nothing wrong with that, but what is wrong is trying to make it sound like this is anything more than that. --Leifern 14:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We went through much the same arguments with CAMERA, which is the pro-Israel counterpart of "If Americans Knew". The problem is that CAMERA, like "If Americans Knew", makes a pretense of being neutral, and there are some editors who insist on going along with that pretense. One could classify both CAMERA and "If Americans Knew" as "grey propaganda" organizations, although that term is somewhat archaic. Today we'd say "spin control". They don't usually lie, but they choose their sources and targets based on their political position. Treating both organizations similarly seems to be appropriate for Wikipedia. --John Nagle 18:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is precisely the problem with articles in this area. We do not use the same standard for all. I do not want to see swathes of articles stuffed with propaganda, either way, but this is an outcome of the way it has been working here. A big problem is that both sides think that what they are promoting is "neutral" because they don't ever step outside their bias. I've tried presenting objective arguments on several of these pages, but you will not get engagement from the editors concerned. They demand that you accept that their view is value-neutral before they will engage with you (and editors who have been willing to do that have had (limited) success in neutralising some of the more rabid edits). If you refuse to accept that, you have no chance. Grace Note 04:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well, in the article on CAMERA it pretty clearly states "focusing primarily on correcting coverage that it considers inaccurate or unfairly skewed against Israel." I certainly agree that the same standards should be applied, but to say that CAMERA is the "pro-Israel counterpart of 'If Americans Knew'" is kind of laughable. --Leifern 12:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


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

Criticism
While I think that the ADL's calling IAK "anti-Israel" is so banal that anyone even approaching sane would not consider it worth mentioning (and the ADL does not, so far as I know, give any reason for smearing IAK in this way; one presumes that it would consider anyone who presented information on Israel that wasn't positive as anti-Israel, even if the lack of positivity is down to its not being positive in itself), and it is clearly included to advance a viewpoint on IAK rather than illuminate the reader, I urge someone to fix the sentence so that it reads:

The Anti-Defamation League has described If Americans Knew as an "anti-Israel organization".

I'd do it myself but I have used three reverts and don't want to find myself blocked by a headhunter on the other side.

Actually, it is not a particularly strong criticism of IAK to say that it is "anti-Israel". Most of the world is in this sense, as it demonstrates whenever given the opportunity to censure Israel in the UN, or in newspaper articles or in other forums. (I note that our article on Israel is not chockers with the many criticisms of that nation: obviously, none of the editors who feel it so necessary to list exactly what some website says about IAK feel it's necessary to do the same for Israel -- and I don't either). I think we should give serious consideration to not including this sort of "he says, she says" stuff in these articles. It really doesn't add much, if anything. And I mean not from either side.Grace Note 05:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with that, and I noted that the ADL is a pro-Israel organization. These are all advocacy organizations. --John Nagle 05:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An "advocacy" organization? I thought some people were arguing earlier that this "If Americans Knew" group was a "media watchdog" group. At least we have gotten away from the pretense that they are "neutral." 6SJ7 12:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They're politically opposed. Nothing bad about that. The organizations on one side criticize the ones on the other. Somewhere between them may lie reality. That's politics. --John Nagle 19:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is where I think phrasing is very important. My view is that we should try to characterize behavior rather than attitudes, or even biases in our descriptions of organizations (when citing critical voices, we should of course quote as much as possible). The Anti-Defamation League, for example, is not pro-Israel per se, but is rather dedicated to combating bigotry and discrimination in general and antisemitism in particular. They will get involved in the debate on the Arab-Israeli conflict to the extent that it contributes to antisemitism. That may seem like a trivial difference to some, but it does matter for how we phrase things. --Leifern 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We should not try to "characterise" anything. We should let others do the characterising and just report what they say. Dude, we know that you guys like to "phrase things" in a way that puts a positive spin on "your side". Your reading of ADL (which is rabidly pro-Israel and everything it does) is ridiculous though. Read this page and connected links before writing any more of this ill-considered commentary. This is not "getting involved... to the extent that it contributes to antisemitism" in anyone's language. Grace Note 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And 6SJ7, it's pretty rare that "media watchdogs" don't have an agenda of some sort! No one is pretending that IAK doesn't have an agenda. I mean, look at its name: "If Americans Knew... ", one presumes that there is a "they'd want it changed" to follo, doesn't one? So they are advocating a change in policy, quite obviously.

IAK says of itself: "It is our belief that when Americans know the facts on a subject, they will, in the final analysis, act in accordance with morality, justice, and the best interests of their nation, and of the world."

The clear implication is that without those facts, they do not. Grace Note 03:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "TheMiddleEastNow.com" probably isn't a reliable source per WP:RS. It looks like a mashup being built from RSS feeds. --John Nagle 18:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tried to tone things down a bit after the last few edits. I'd be inclined to delete "TheMiddleEastNow.com" material, as noted above, but let's hear some comments on that. I also added a basic article for DAFKA, a new advocacy organization of the neocon persuasion which someone cited. Please expand that article. Thanks. --John Nagle 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The group claims to provide "full and accurate information," but its publications consistently condemn Israel and U.S. Middle Eastern policy.
This sentence keeps undergoing revisions, but it is in fact true. The organization claims one thing, but its publications suggest something completely different. I suppose that in Alison Weir's universe all the information leads to only one conclusion, but that is clearly her point of view. We can debate whether her conclusions do anything less than condemn Israel, but the two sentences, joined with the "but," are entirely NPOV. We shouldn't draw the obvious conclusion but rather let the reader do that. --Leifern 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence is not NPOV. The use of the "but" implies that the claim of "full and accurate information" is refuted or cast into doubt by the fact that "its publications consistently condemn Israel and U.S. Middle Eastern policy." There is no reason to assume this; in fact, I think this juxtaposition with "but" is probably OR. To be neutral, you need two seperate and discrete sentences. --MaplePorter 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "but" implies strongly that if it were full and accurate, the information would favour Israel and US Middle Eastern policy! We should seek language that does not take a view. In any case we should not comment on what its publications do or don't do. I know it's crying into a hurricane to try to stop you guys from putting this sort of commentary in, and maybe you're just not aware that it isn't "neutral", but I do urge you to stick to reporting, not editorialising. Grace Note 03:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a strawman argument. Full and accurate information couldn't possibly conclude that every publication should favor Israel and US policy, just as full and accurate information couldn't possibly conclude that Israel and the US was wrong at every turn. --Leifern 14:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to warn you, Leifern, that much as I enjoy discussing these issues with pro-Israeli editors, I start to lose interest when they use terms like "strawman argument" when they mean "an argument I don't have an answer to". I didn't actually understand the rest of your comment. Grace Note 06:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence. Please read the explanation.


 * Its publications are highly critical of Israel and U.S. Middle Eastern policy.

We need to source commentary such as this. "Highly critical of..." is a judgement. If it is one readily made, it will be no problem to find a source that makes it. If it isn't, we are indulging in original research to include it. What you may consider a criticims, I may not. You must bear that in mind. If their publications say in their own words "we are critical of ..." "we condemn ...", this is perfectly adequate as a source.

I also urge the pro-Israeli editors here to reconsider the ADL sentence. It seems ridiculous to include "he says, she says" type commentary. It smacks of "we trawled the web to find someone saying something nasty about these people", which in fact you did. It is not the outcome of an analysis, or even the point of a piece written by the ADL. It's just a passing comment. You would not tolerate it in an article about one of the organisations you approve of. Nor should any of us. Let's put blue water between decent, fair editors and POV pushers by opposing this sort of thing across the board. Grace Note 03:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Which pro-Israeli editors are you talking about? --Leifern 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read up on what the OR policy actually says. The issue has to do with premises and conclusions. It's safe to say, for example, that a legislator who consistently votes in favor or tax reductions is a fiscal conservative, even if his/her website doesn't state it that way. --Leifern 14:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No it isn't safe to say that on Wikipedia. Unless you have sources that say "so and so is a blank", you do not include it because it is your analysis/original research. --Tom 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOR and then let's discuss; you may also want to read about Rhetorical fallacy, etc. --Leifern 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Leifern, I read NOR. The part that strikes me is :"It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". Anyways.--Tom 16:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be original research if someone wrote "Alison Weir and her organization falsely claim to be impartial and imbalanced when they in fact are militantly anti-Israeli," even though such an assertion is plainly true. It is not original research to juxtapose two true statements that plainly stand in contrast with each other. Nor is it original research to make a conclusion that logically follows from unassailable premises. To be sure, there would be a burden to prove that the premises are unassailable and that the conclusion must follow, but it wouldn't be original research if someone met that burden. There is a problem in general with "true believer" organizations such as this one, because Weir in all likelihood believes that any reasonable consideration of the facts would lead you to the conclusions that she's made. We can't on the one hand simply accept as true this kind of belief; but on the other, it's hard to put in place the right disclaimers so that the reader doesn't think that her opinion is the final word. Imagine if CAMERA and others just couldn't be bothered to write about this organization; the lack of objecting voices wouldn't make her points of view any truer. --Leifern 17:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's pointless discussing this issue with you if you insist on this kind of special definition of every term in the policy. Tom's discussion is exactly correct. It is "original research to make a conclusion that logically follows from unassailable premises". The policy specifically says so, for good reason. Your "unassailable premise" is my "cartful of bullshit" and vice versa. It's original research to draw any conclusion of your own whatsoever. Are you just not clear on that? We report. We do not interpret, synthesise, make logical deductions or work anything out for ourselves. Grace Note 06:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Grace, very well said, thanks. I like to think of ourselves as mindless pilei :) --Tom 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
It is absolutely unacceptable that this organization be presented as it presents itself. It is clearly an advocacy organization - and not a very good one - against Israel. I'm open to suggestions as to how we do this, but it can not stand the way it is. --Leifern 18:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My suggestion would be to keep the header as basic/simple/undisputed as possible. Then go into in depth analysis below. Folks can digest the facts and decide for themselves. Unless you can provide sources that say it is x,z or z, its best to leave it out. This really isn't whitewashing. I'm sure you can expose them for who they really are with sources. Wikipedia should just present already established material and let the reader make their own determination. Also, my comments in no way endorse or support this outfit. They my be the scum of the earth, I don't really know nor care perticularly. also sorry for my crap spelling skills. Cheers!--Tom 19:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On this topic, there must be hundreds of organizations that a) present themselves as neutral, information-oriented, etc., and b) have a point of view they won't admit to. It's worth considering how we introduce them. I honestly can't think of a single one that is truly unbiased, though the accuracy and completeness of the information, and the strength of their arguments, obviously varies. It might be worth looking at organizations related to other controversies and see how this gets worked out there. --Leifern 19:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Prime example would be Jew Watch. There is ample evidence about them which is included in their article. --Tom 19:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I'd argue we need to delete the article. If you insist on a certain number of citations pointing out the obvious (that it's a strident anti-Israeli organization) before we can make that clear in the introduction, then we need to delete the article. Can I count on your support for an AFD? --Leifern 20:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats the rub. You say "pointing out the obvious".Its not up to editors to include obvious material because that can be subjective. Anyways, I really don't have a horse in this race and for you Leifern, I'll support anything :) just kidding. Have a pleasant weekend and please don't take this stuff to seriously. Most readers can visit this site and figure out whats going on. Cheers! --Tom 20:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, on the IAK site, the first thing they show is a bar graph showing 122 killed Israeli kids and 899 killed Palestinian Kids...so what, what the hell does that show? It shows me sqwat.They have an agenda. Lets keep it off wikipedia.--Tom 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I put in "The group is generally critical of Israel and of U.S. policy with regard to Israel.", which seems to be a reasonable statement of the group's position. The group itself says "Although it is not often reported by the press, a large proportion of American diplomatic and military experts have long held that U.S. support of Israel is often contrary to and, in fact, extremely damaging to U.S. interests." . --John Nagle 01:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed that the site is critical of Israel. This may be in fact true, but the source provide is a link to their own web site?? We need to provide reliable sources that say "x is y" ect. To go to their site and decide something is not appropriate. Again, I do not support these folks even though that shouldn't matter. Thanks --Tom 15:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As it stands, even the statement about them being critical of US policy is unsourced, but hey, this is Wikipedia, so when has that slowed anything down ;). Sorry for the sarcasm, but seriously, easily 90% of the material on this project is unsourced when in fact providing sources is one of Wikipedia "prime" directives. Just venting. Thanks.--Tom 15:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If they say they're an activist organization for one side or the other, we're certainly entitled to cite them as such. This shouldn't even be an issue. The other case, organizations which claim to be neutral but are essentially advocates for some position, is much tougher, and we have ongoing problems on Wikipedia with that. See Astroturfing. --John Nagle 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I am more worried about people who go to a web site and then based on the material make interpretations as to what the site is about. Anyways, no biggy. --Tom 18:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


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

Kaplan criticism
Kaplan criticises Weir, not AIK, in the terms given. His criticism could be included in an article on her, but not on AIK. We obviously cannot allow criticisms of people to be applied to groups they are part of; NPOV does not permit "guilt by association". If you want to quote Kaplan's saying that IAK is "anti Israel" and uses "misleading statistics", there is absolutely no problem with that. Grace Note 03:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, when I made that change Giovanni33 reverted it. Strange, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Jay, I'm not really following you. I'm not responsible for other people's edits. Like I said, I support your making that change. Grace Note 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous double standard
Apparently at least one of the editors here believe that we can characterize CAMERA as "pro-Israel" based on an opinion piece published by Aaron Masters in a student newspaper, but we can't characterize IAK as "anti-Israel" even if the ADL says it is. This kind of poisoning the well and abusive double standard really needs to stop, for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the double standard you speak of. My edits reflect and acceptance of the ADL characterization as "anti-Israel," (as long as its in quotes), and I think some characterization of CAMERA as "pro-Israel" should also be made (that the ADL is pro-Israel is self-evident). My objection is to citing the journalist Lee Kaplan without someone showing why his views are notable. That he is an editor for FrontPage doesnt quite do it. I also strongly object to characterizing his activist group as "pro-American," esp. not even using quotations. Hopefully that kind of propaganda doesn't need any great explanation for why it should be removed.Giovanni33 05:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately you cannot simply imply that all the criticism of this organization comes from pro-Israel group without a source and then attempt to put it on other people to provide sources to disprove your assertion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm then by the same standards why is it acceptable that the critial organization be labeled as "pro-American" without a source? That term is really meaningless. I'm out of reverts so I hope someone else can see the NPOV problems with the text.Giovanni33 05:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think those qualifications are relevant and therefore I removed them. I also removed a most likely fake Tom Campbell's quote: he's never been a US Senator (but he was in the US House and ran unsuccessfully for US Senate in 1992) and the quote is totally not like him. And the "quote" itself is about Weir, not IAK. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I have to say that the ADL only once in passing mentioned that IAK was "anti-Israel". I noted above how hollow a criticism it was. I note that your sense of outrage is not sparked off by using a characterisation that is not argued or reasoned, but is simply boldly given in the source. The Stanford Review discusses CAMERA at length, in an article that is actually about CAMERA. And we've had this discussion before, Jay. The proponents of views should be correctly characterised. It's misleading not to so characterise them for the uninformed reader. CAMERA is not just any old website. Moshe, all the criticism of this organisation does in fact come from pro-Israel groups, and I sourced that view.

Humus, I would have removed that Campbell quote myself but I had run out of reverts for the day. There is no double standard here. Nice to see that you prefer revertbotting to discussion though. We had an indepth discussion of the edit you keep putting back in above. It's entirely unsourced. Please source it or do not replace it. Grace Note 06:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An op-ed in a student newspaper is not a reliable source. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's hard to take you seriously when you insist that an op-ed by an unknown in a student newspaper is a good enough source for the purposes of poisoning the well about an organization of which you disapprove, but a statement by the ADL is not a good enough source to characterize a group of which you approve. Now, I happen to have found an op-ed piece in another student newspaper which states that "Weir delivers bias, bigotry in anti-Israel talk" and goes on to describe Weir as a "self-proclaimed journalist, savior of the Palestinian people and anti-Semite extraordinaire" who "brought shame to the journalist's trade". I also found an op-ed in j. which describes "anti-Israel propaganda pamphlets published by If Americans Knew",, a piece by HonestReporting that says "Weir is the founder of If Americans Knew, an anti-Israel group", and Steven Plaut's description of IAK as "an anti-Israel web site". Now, since you think it's so important to properly "characterise" the various sources in the page, would you mind inserting a description of If Americans Knew as "anti-Israel", and Weir as an "biased, bigoted anti-Semite"? In line with your Wikipedia editing standards, of course. Jayjg (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jay, I repeat once more, because you either ignore what I said or do not understand it: the ADL do not analyse or discuss IAK. They simply say once that it is "anti-Israel". And it wouldn't surprise me to see you and your partisans insert that material. Perhaps the people concerned should set up a "foundation". Instant legitimisation!


 * I note also that 1/ no one has suggested that "pro-Israel" is a negative characterisation (although you suggest this "poisons the well") and 2/ I have not removed the quote by the ADL. I simply suggested that it was not a very strong criticism. This whole "poisoning the well" thing is ridiculous, Jay. We've discussed this before. You think it is "poisoning the well" to say who people are; I say that if you don't, they are just disembodied names, and one can ask "why should anyone care what they say?" Grace Note 04:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I remind myself that you hilariously consider it "poisoning the well" to mention that a commentator on a government's actions is actually a part of that government! I still laugh every time I see his name, Jay, because it reminds me of that. Grace Note 04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Grace Note, what is ridiculous is to poison the well about a group based on the claim of an unknown writing in a student newspaper, and worse, to state their opinion as fact. Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself. Jayjg (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jay, it's as plain as day that CAMERA is pro-Israel. You know it, I know it, even Leifern knows it. It exists to "correct" what it sees as anti-Israeli bias in the press, just as IAK exists to correct what it sees as pro-Israeli bias in government policy. It's trivial to find a link to the guys behind it discussing what it's for. I just took the first thing I could find. Pretending otherwise is what is embarrassing here. Also, your insistence on reverting to this sentence: "The group is generally critical of U.S. policy with regard to Israel.[1]" This is embarrassing, Jay. The "source" does not say this. You know it doesn't. It's an interpretation of what the source says. This is why no one who deals with you respects your bs about "policies". Because you use them as a weapon, not as something you actually believe in. If you did, we could probably resolve the fighting over these pages. You're smart enough to realise that this sentence is a clear breach of WP:NOR and should not be included. We would actually be able to build something here if you would cease to deploy your attitude, and start to believe in making fair articles. But you have never been and will never be interested in anything other than a war with the weapons at hand, because you are able to win it. Sound familiar? Grace Note 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Censorship"
I'd like to point out to Humus Sapiens that his personal view or characterisation of IAK is not permitted in the article by Wikipedia policy. He must find someone who says that IAK is critical of US policies, not simply write it himself. I'm sorry that he feels that he is being "censored" but I have to point out to him that Wikipedia articles are not forums for the expression of our personal opinions about their subjects, and he will continue to be censored in this way. Grace Note 05:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My edit summary was cut off. 1) Student newspaper is not a RS. 2) For those who defend their "right to criticize," you provide a perfect example of hypocrisy. "He must find someone who says that IAK is critical of US policies, not simply write it himself." - total nonsense. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1/ Student newspapers are perfectly respectable sources. Please read the policy. Please read in particular the section on extremist websites. Also the section on "replicability". My source explains his view. The ADL simply states in passing that AIK is "anti-Israel". 2/ Not only is it not nonsense, it is the policy of this encyclopaedia. I refer you to WP:NOR: "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing 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." I ask you to quote me from the source you use for the disputed sentence that AIK is critical of US policy.


 * If you continue to revert my edit to this article without addressing this point, I will take further action. You cannot simply mindlessly revert over and over to your own personal reading of a source. You must adhere to what those sources say. If you do not, you need to be censured. I ask the other editors involved on this page to return the article to the version without the disputed edit until Humus quotes the source saying what he claims it says, or finds another source that does say what he wants to include. Numbering your edits will not save you, Humus. 3RR does not give an allowance. You are not trying to move on. You are simply reverting -- without due discussion. Now, the policy is clear. You must source your inclusion and you must adhere to what the source says, not your interpretation of it. Grace Note 06:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not original research to say they are critical of Israel. Humus is using their own critical words as a source. This is not an original synthesis of data. Take a look at what they say about themselves:

"One further point: being Jewish ourselves, the position we present here is critical of Zionism but is in no way anti-Semitic. (Source: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html)"

As far as the United States, here it is being critical of the US in its about us/"Mission Statement" (meaning not just a rare instance, but a description of their overarching views) section:

"Empowered by American money, Israel is occupying land that does not belong to it, is breaking numerous international laws and conventions of which it is a signatory, and is promulgating policies of brutality that have been condemned by the United Nations, the European Union, the National Council of Churches, Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, and numerous other international bodies. (Source: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/about_us/)"

Now, let's discuss CAMERA for a second. While Grace is right about college newspapers being reliable sources, the fact still remains that CAMERA cannot be called something because its called that in an opinion article. That's like saying because an opinion article says Bush is anti-gay we can say, "According to the anti-gay president Bush..." Puhleez. --Urthogie 16:09-18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Urthogie, the quote you gave does not actually say what the text says, does it? And it is indeed a synthesis that is not permitted by WP:NOR to say that "the words seem to me to be critical, so I can say that it's critical". You need to find a source that says that IAK is critical, or you need to remove the comment. I do not see anything in the quote you gave that says anything about being critical of anything. You must adhere to the words of the source, not your interpretation of it.


 * Your distinction between "opinion" articles and others is meaningless in an encyclopaedia that is built on sources, Urthogie. You need to think a bit more about that.


 * As for your Bush thing, consider this (and I mean, consider it, don't just dismiss it because it doesn't jibe with your POV): in the context of an article about gayness, it would not be out of place to state that Bush is "anti-gay". One might find a wording that is descriptive without being loaded, such as "Bush, who has (done some things that are antigay)..." but it would not be wrong to characterise the people we are discussing. We say when a person has qualifications that entitle them to be considered sources for this reason.


 * In this case, CAMERA is not just anybody. It's not some disembodied organisation. It's a pro-Israel watchdog. Does it really matter whom we source calling it that? Are you seriously disputing that it is? It exists to correct what it sees as anti-Israeli bias in the media. It's not a denigration of it to say that it is pro-Israel. It's not an insult! It's actually perfectly okay to be pro-Israel. Why do you think it is not? Grace Note 01:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Newspapers may serve as source for news, not for scholarly analysis. Op-ed is not a reliable source. If WP will characterize CAMERA as "pro-Israel", and many editors here insist that it is an antipode of IAK, then WP should characterize IAK as "anti-Israel". You can't have it both ways. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing is being synthesized by saying IAK is critical of Israel. We are using a source talking about itself to establish a fact and present it. Synthesis means using two or more sources together to establish a fact. You have a flawed understanding of NOR. --Urthogie 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No matter how many times I show you how it was synthesised, you will say "it was not synthesised". There is no statement in your source that "IAK is critical of US policy". You are clear on that, right? So to arrive at that statement, you require two elements: what is in the source and your interpretation of it. I am not going to indulge you any further, Urthogie. It is pointless to argue with someone who is willing to descend this low in their sophistry.
 * Humus, you do so characterise IAK in the "criticism" section, and although I've explained why I think it is a weak edit, I have not removed it. I am not suggesting that CAMERA be characterised in any particular way in its article, which is not the same thing. In any case, my contention is that "pro-Israel" is not actually an insult or a smear! I don't know why you think it is. I think that "anti-Israel" is though. AIK is not "anti-Israel". It's "anti-Israeli-policy". There's a difference.
 * And, as I said, Humus, I used the first source I came across. Choose another if you prefer. Grace Note 07:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Double Standard
One activist group is described as critical towards Israeli policies, ect, while the other is activist group is one that defends the state policies of Israel, ect.--however its not ok to characterize the latter group but only the former? Why the double standard?Giovanni33 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I self reverted myself back to Slim's version because I didnt' want to violate the 3rr rule (I checked afterwards), but I'm sure Im not the only editor who feels that both groups, esp. and activist group should be characterized so as not to get the impression that their POV is neutral.Giovanni33 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you actually looked at the discussion page, man? Read what I wrote... I explain why its not the same when someone describes you one way as when you actually describe yourself that way. There's no double standard here... read what I wrote!--Urthogie 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did, that is a distinction without a difference. The point is that the nature of the group is an activist, advocacy group. In fact it represents the right-wing of the Israeli political spectrum, and acts like an ultra-right pro-Israel lobby group, towing Israel's party line. We are allowed to have some characterization of this group, even if we use the word "controversial." Otherwise it looks like we are just referencing a nuetral, indpendant group with no axe to grind and this would be deceptive.Giovanni33 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'd rather we don't use them as a source for this claim at all (we should use sources people respect as more mainstream), thus avoiding this issue... I'll set off to find one--Urthogie 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, please do leave that one. It nicely reflects the forces in play here. Grace Note 07:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's important to make biases clear. It says in WP:NPOV: "It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them." I believe that strongly. Jay thinks it's "poisoning to well" to have any explanation that CAMERA's criticisms are informed by its being noted that it's pro-Israel, but I think we are deliberately misleading the reader if we do not note it. Jay's fond of throwing policies at people, but this is one he has ignored. He also ignores, from WP:RS: "Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion." CAMERA is biased in this instance. It's not sinister, but it's something that should be made explicit. Grace Note 01:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


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


 * But If Americans Knew is anti-Israeli and you don't want that to be mentioned. Why the double standard? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Slim is correct-- IAK calls itself anti-Zionist, and is thus anti-Israel. "Zonism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel."--Urthogie 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * IAK is characterized correctly as being generally critical of Israel, hence no double standard. Zionism is a lot more than just support for the existence of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. True that is the essetial aspect of the political movement, but one can support a homeland in an anti-Zionist framework, ideologically. I do not oppose characterizing IAK as anti-Zionist.Giovanni33 03:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you find me someone who supports a Jewish state of Israel who is anti-Zionist? A single person...?--Urthogie 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Setting aside the rather strange reasoning about Zionism and anti-Zionism, I think we should write in the introductory note that IAK describes itself as an anti-Zionist organization and leave it at that. Anyone who hopes to get an unbiased and complete account of the conflict from this source will then get the caveat emptor. --Leifern 04:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then by the same token so must CAMERA have such a caveat emptor. Even better is to use a better, more balanced and neutral source than CAMERA.Giovanni33 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, although Giovanni, I would say you're anti-Israel because you're against it as a Jewish state, which is the whole reason it was created, the only reason it continues to exist, and is marked on its flag. It's the jewish state. Israel. You're anti-Israel. The book list you linked me to includes the like of Norman Finkelstein, a man who says we should "support Hezbollah" in its fight against Israel. Honestly...! --Urthogie 05:05-05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm anti-Israel in the manner that Israel is currently constituted as a settler colonialist state, and this stems from me being an Anti-Zionist, consistent with anti-racism in general. However, I'm NOT opposed to a national homeland for the Jewish people in the land of Israel, which proves my original point that one can be for this and still be anti or non-Zionist. Finkelstein is without a doubt one of the very best Jewish academic and Anti-Zionists experts in the midle east conflicts along side Chomsky.Giovanni33 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't the right place for discussing this. I'll bring it to your talk page.--Urthogie 05:51-05:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


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

What a mess. After about 25 edits, the point of view is about where it was two days ago, but the style is worse. "All of the group's publications" is too broad a phrase, and "read dozens of books on the subject" doesn't add much one way or the other.

Why is there so much controversy over this article? It's a straightforward political organization with a stated agenda. Wikipedia has problems with articles on the organizations which claim to be neutral but have a specific spin, like CAMERA, MEMRI, and Fox News. But the openly partisan organizations, like AIPAC and BICOMM, usually don't provoke editing wars; they say where they're coming from. This organization is in the latter category. --John Nagle 07:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, quite. The problem is that it's easier to characterise someone positively than it is to characterise them negatively. If we were to write that IAK was an "advocacy group", we wouldn't have a problem. It is for change. But writing that it is "anti-Israel" is problematic, because it could correctly argue that it is not "anti" Israel at all, only anti some of the things it does. What I find problematic is the desire of some editors here to characterise their groups positively and other groups negatively, rather than to characterise all by the same standards. This stems in part from the ludicrous pretence indulged in by hasbara groups like CAMERA that they are neutral. It doesn't help either that practically the only people who pay these organisations any mind are activists on either side, so good sources are quite thin. Grace Note 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is about IAK, and the point of the article is to describe IAK. Therefore, saying they are anti-Zionist isn't an issue, and anyway, IAK would agree with the description. The article is not about the sources we use. There can be no well-poisoning regarding sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not "well poisoning" to characterise a source. Please have a look at the policy I quoted for Jay. And if IAK agrees with your description, one presumes you can readily find them doing so. Source please. Grace Note 08:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I must agree with Grace Note. The tedious pretense that the grandiosely named Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is a neutral source is symptomatic of the failings of large swathes of Wikipedia to live up to its own NPOV policy. Catchpole 08:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now read this: The tedious pretense that the grandiosely named If Americans Knew is a neutral source is symptomatic of the failings of large swathes of Wikipedia to live up to its own NPOV policy. --Leifern 12:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"All of the group's publications are critical..."
You've read them all?

Wait! Don't answer. Because if you do, and you say yes, you admit that it's your opinion that they are all critical. Because the source you give does not say that. It does not say anything about IAK's publications. Not a word.

So who exactly are you sourcing this from? Grace Note 07:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence is sourced to the organization's own website. Please do not make straw man arguments. Beit Or 07:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I do not understand how this is a straw man argument. Do you understand what one of them is? Could you please quote me the part of the website that says what you are saying. If you cannot, you are in breach of the applicable policy, as I've described, several times now. Perhaps you have not read the discussion on this page. If not, please do. Simply reverting edits because they do not agree with your POV is unacceptable. Grace Note 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you find a single article or publication that isn't critical to Israel? It is not original research or POV to summarize something that is plain to see, and in this case the assertion is verifiable. If you feel that way, 99% of all the articles in Wikipedia need to be deleted. --Leifern 12:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually what you just described in quintessential OR, but I understand that you feel strongly about it which makes it difficult to discuss it. --64.230.126.208 18:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOR. If I read everything the organization has published and find that all of them are critical to Israel's existence and what Israel does; and can find not a single document that is positive to what Israel is and Israel does; it is not original research, and certainly not "quintessential" original research. --Leifern 11:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable, secondary source that says "All of the group's publications are critical (of Israel/US policy to Israel etc)", then you may/should include it. If you do not have such a source, then you should not include the statement - unless you wish to have your edits criticised for Original Research. Reckless breaches of Wikipedia policy risk accusations of disruptive behaviour. If you have a reliable, secondary source that says "All of the group's publications are critical (of Israel/US policy to Israel etc)", then you may/should include it. If you do not have such a source, then you should not include the statement - unless you wish to have your edits criticised for Original Research. Reckless breaches of Wikipedia policy risk accusations of disruptive behaviour. PalestineRemembered 09:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well-poisoning, propaganda, etc.
It isn't clear to me why this article attracts so much POV-pushing, but I'd like to make an appeal that people try to be reasonable here. It is not reasonable to represent this organization as a neutral arbiter of facts; or to even represent it as an authoritative source of information. It would appear that the organization - and some of its supporters - are convinced that they have found the final truth on this issue, but that claim is hardly unique. --Leifern 17:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I echo this appeal. Wikipedia itself can't present this group as neutral or in a negative light. We should simply repeat what the sources say about it, fully attributed and not in Wikipedia's voice; what the groups says about itself; and what it says about its subject matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Leifern, Wikipedia users are not endorsing this site, at least I am not, by saying what the group claims as its objective x y and z, even if those objectives are not the "truth" whatever that truth might be. Its like the Jimmy Carter article episode where you didn't like that Carter said his main points of his book where X, Y and Z and you wanted that changed becasue he was stating false information or something. My suggestion would be to keep the intro as short and consise and as agreeable to all parties and then rip them a new one with reliable sources further into the article. Again, it isn't about the "truth" but about presenting already established material that can be well sourced by reliable authors and references. Anyways, --Tom 18:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC) ps, I see that the part about IAK being critical of US policy towards Israel was removed from the open. That could probably go back in. I didn't see a source for that but...--Tom 19:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some editors seem to want it both ways: when I try to add direct quotes in the introduction from the organization's website that clearly indicates its bias, you want it buried in the text; when I try to summarize the bias, you're asking for direct quotes. It seems that nothing will satisfy you except a tacit endorsement of the organization's claims to objectivity. Aside from the fact that no such consideration is given to ostensibly "pro-Israeli" organizations (a double standard that is all too familiar), it is fundamentally dishonest. So here's where I'd put it: either come up with a phrase in the intro that makes it clear to the casual reader that this is an organization with a clear bias against Israel; or allow the direct quotes to stand. If we have to choose between precision and unwieldy language, I'll opt for unwieldy language any day. --Leifern 19:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tom, I agree with you in general, but if IAK calls Israel an "exclusionist entity," it can hardly claim to be impartial, because that's strong language. I think the lead does need to give some indication of the very strong objections some people have to this organization. I suggest we add to the lead one quote from a source in support of IAK, and one against. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Slim, thats sort of my point, they can claim whatever they want. What we need to do is find sources that counter those claims. Jew watch come to mind even though I am not sure these guys are on that level. I am just against personal analysis where we read the sites material and then decise that they are X, Z or Z even if thats the case. Anyways, I've mellowed out alot as far as editing this stuff so feel free to add as you see fit. Cheers! Also, while I have you, could you check out User:Epeefleche and his talk page and our on going discussion about having ethnicity mention in the lead section of living people's bios. As you know, this has been a pet peev of mine for over a year. I have relented but wouldn't mind another set of experienced eyes such as yours taking a peek. Thanks --Tom 19:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's an artificial standard. It simply is not original research to synthesize information, and if we were to follow your reasoning, a virulently bigoted organization can have its assertions stand as long as nobody has contradicted it. --Leifern 19:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats the price to be paid if this project is serious about abiding by its policies and guidlines. Sometimes the "truth" takes time to be synthesized and accurately presented eventhough there is still edit battles going on about stuff that happened 60 years ago. Anyways, I really like this project because its trying to present material that is fact in a cyber world filled with lots of trash and misinformation. I personally don't believe a thing on the web. wouldn't it be a perfect world if we could come here and have confidence that the material being presented is accurate and fair? Anyways, sounds like a dream world :) Cheers!--Tom 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Resetting indent: Although I agree with most of what you say in principle, the rules and guidelines are not intended to make us abdicate our smarts and common sense. If Americans Knew is clearly a stridently anti-Zionist site, and Weir's idea about having it directed by someone with no "ethnic" connection to the area is borderline bigoted, as well. Attempts to present it as neutral are blatantly propagandistic and reek of double standards. There's gonna be advocacy here, and much of the articles are forged through a dialectic approach. But if we're going to invoke guidelines and policy, let's be honest about it. --Leifern 11:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Leifern, we shouldn't "present" this site as neutral or as bigoted or as anything. We/you/I should provide what reliable sources have said about this site; be it good, bad or ugly. Topics like this are extremely difficult for the project because we all opinions and emotions and feelings. We are humans not robots. If this was about how many atoms obit the nucleus of a proton in a certain material, its pretty clear cut I guess. NPOV is sort of a joke on many articles because we all bring different perspectives to the project which acually is a good thing eventhough it can prove problematic. Anyways, carry on :) --Tom 15:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, I move that we put this article through a speedy delete process, since we can't agree on a single reliable source about it. The organization's website is nothing but a pack of lies and distortions, and clearly there are editors who think that CAMERA is unreliable. I assume I can count on your support for such a delete? --Leifern 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Leifern, I wouldn't assume anything around here :). But seriously, I probably would have no problem with that but I am just one itsie bitsie tiny editor. If I had my way, I would probably delete about 3/4 of the material on Wikipedia since 90% or more of the material on this site has no sources or references. Cheers --Tom 17:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)