Talk:Just Journalism

Sharif Nashashibi
There are two problems with sourcing Sharif Nashashibi: firstly, the source provided for the accusation that Just Journalism is 'an Israel lobby' is that the source used was a third party attributing the claim to someone else (with neither party substantiating the claim); secondly, Sharif Nashashibi is not a reliable source as he is himself a member (and founder) of an analogous organization: Arab Media Watch.

Additionally, the phrasing of the sourcing was disingenuous- there was no attribution of Nashashibi's position at AMW, and it appears as though this role may have been intentionally obfuscated by subsituting it with his tenuous (but far less relevant) connection to The Guardian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with your removal of the letter addressed to the Guardian - clearly not a reliable source, but I'm slightly confused by the reason you give as that letter appeared to have nothing to do with Sharif Nashashibi.
 * For the bit that was referencing a comment by Nashashibi, I agree that the text as it stood was inappropriate, and have rephrased how the quote is introduced to remove excessive use of the word "critical" and to clarify that this is an opinion piece published in the Guardian rather than the Guardian itself. However, the fact that it is an opinion piece, and the fact that Nashashibi is a member of an Arab organisation are not valid reasons to suggest that the piece is unreliable. The former reason is covered by Reliable_sources, the latter is an ad hominem attack on the writer and therefore irrelevant to the content which the Guardian, itself a reliable source, chose to publish. GDallimore (Talk) 10:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also discovered and linked to the article about the writer so there is no obfuscating of who he is and what his associations are. GDallimore (Talk) 10:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contributions, GDallimore. I take issue with the claim that his position of founder of Arab Media Watch, another watchdog organization taking a position as self-appointed watchdog, is an "ad hominem attack," however. While I agree that his criticism should be posted, I certainly hope that you would agree that his position in a counterpart organization (similarly positioned as a 'watchdog' against 'media bias', but taking a contrary stance on most political issues) is relevant, just as criticism of Nasashibi by a member of Just Journalism should mention the critic's membership in the organization as well. Please let me know your thoughts on this, and if you disagree, your reasoning why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say calling him the founder of AMW was an ad hominem attack, I said that questioning what he said because he is the founder of AMW is an ad hominem attack. For that reason, I think I'm going to remove the mention of this in the article since that is not necessarily the most important piece of information about him; we could just as easily add that he won an award in recognition of his work in writing on the Palestine-Israel conflict, but we then might as well just quote his entire biography. If he didn't have an article about him, I would agree with you but, given that he does have an article, nothing is being hidden because the information about his other work/interests can very easily be found should someone care to click through. We're just not promoting one viewpoint of the accuracy of his writing over another. In particular, we're not implying the suggestion that he is biased against JJ - of course, if JJ wrote anything defending their piece in response to this criticism, then I would have absolutely no problem with a brief quote from that response being included here in balance with the critical quote. GDallimore (Talk) 11:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's pre-empt another protracted dispute on the validity of mentioning his role and simply ask for a third opinion. I am of the opinion that it is perfectly valid to point out his role (and that any such omission would undermine the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to be as informative as possible). I do not believe that mentioning his award would amount to being a biography, either. Let us have someone else weigh in as to how much information must be mentioned before the facts have become extraneous. --note: I've requested a third opinion so that this may be resolved as quickly as possible. I hope that we may still agree that the sourcing provided by Neon White is unreliable?
 * Just to clarify, GDallimore, I do not necessarily disagree with the logic that you are employing (that is, to avoid 'promoting one viewpoint of accuracy over another)- what I disagree with is the notion that intentional omission of relevant facts, in a phrasing which does not advocate a position in any way, is in some way a 'promotion' of such a position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Giving a third opinion: As far as I understand the above, the main issue is whether to include the mention of Nashashibi's affiliation with amw. Given the contentiousness of the issues I think it is useful for the reader to get some mention of what kind of point of view the source is speaking from - in particular since we're talking about an organisation (JJ) which seems to try to cloak its point of view in objective language. In my opinion, to improve the article further there should be some sentence making it clear that JJ is primarily engaged in promoting "Israel-friendly" media coverage - not because there is something wrong with that, just because it is a little annoying having to try to decipher what their point of view is.

Oh by the way, kudos for the unusually civil debate, folks! :) --Anderssl (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that, the organisation is irrelevant to his journalism and this article. --neon white talk 01:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think you've picked out a couple of good points and have modified the way the Nashashibi piece is explained to get across the "Israel-friendly" nature. Of course, I've stopped short of saying that or of saying that JJ is "pro-Israel" as another editor wants to suggest because the sourcing for that statement was not adequate in my view. I still think mentioning Nashashibi's AMW affiliation is unecessary, but I'm not too bothered either way. My main problem now is that the sentance looks clumsy...
 * As for the civil debate - 138 and I have bashed heads quite seriously in the past but this time I think we've got the same aim in mind: removing the inadequately sourced criticism of JJ which was in the article a few edits back and toning down the reporting of the Nashashibi bit in an effort to balance the article. I'm now happy that it's balanced based on the available sources and hope 138 feels the same. GDallimore (Talk) 16:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Toning down' criticism is unacceptable bias. We cannot pick and choose the least critical parts of a critique to try and negate it. --neon white talk 01:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand - what part of the criticism has been toned down, in your mind? As far as I can see the new version is more precise and informative than the previous, which just had very general statements about accuracy vs inaccuracy. --Anderssl (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In my view it has been toned down and needed to be toned down because the original criticism was represented excessively and therefore was not in accordance with the requirements for neutral point of view. For example, saying "The organisation has been criticised in the media..." implies more criticism than the one source that has been found. Also, the chosen quote was largely editorial and combative in tone rather than actually explaining his criticism using neutral language. GDallimore (Talk) 09:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See Neutral_point_of_view. GDallimore (Talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with your edits, it sounds better now and it's easier to understand what is the chore core of the dispute. As for improving the sentence structure, how about cutting out the guardian part? It's not really so important, and it's in the footnote anyway. Just a suggestion. --Anderssl (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Anders, and thank you GDallimore. I admit that we have bashed heads quite a bit in the past, but I do believe we have reached a consensus on the issue at this point in time. I have tried my best to make sentence flow a little more smoothly- I hope you don't mind the adjustments I've made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with your edits as well, better than my proposal. Keep up the good work! Nice to see that consensus can be reached once in a while. ;) --Anderssl (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article
Improving this article requires adding content from reliable sources - see WP:Reliable sources, not removing the only sources there are. As you say, their website has been updated, so source their aims to their new website, don't just rewrite the article removing the sources. Also, they say they're independent, but that's not a claim that should be put into the article without third party verification. GDallimore (Talk) 13:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The first line has been changed to reflect the change on the official website, with a reference added to the appropriate page. However, this new reference doesn't appear in the 'reference list'; this might require cleaning up. On a secondary note, the reference to the organisation being 'independent' has been omitted, in line with the above comment. (Clawes101 (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Thank you, your latest edit is good (in my opinion). I fixed the ref. --Anderssl (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
If this is indeed an article about an impartial, objective organisation, how come it is part of only WikiProject "Israel" but not of WikiProject "Journalism" or WikiProject "Palestine" ? -The Gnome (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the wikiprojects that have taken an interest in this article affects its neutrality. It is content that matters, not association. And are you accusing wikiproject Israel of being inherently biased? Not very conducive to a sensible discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 19:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When a conflict exists between two sides and a third party claims objectivity and impartiality for itself, shouldn't such a status be confirmed by either (a) both sides in the conflict, or preferably (b) both sides? I understand that organisations such as Doctors without Borders or the U.N. or Amnesty International have been denounced, in different occasions, by practically every side involved in conflicts. This, however, rather supports these organisations' claim for impartiality and objectivity. In the case of Just Journalism (of which I personally was not aware, by the way, until I stumbled upon its Wiki entry!), the organisation is part of WikiProject "Israel". Now, I will not claim that WikiProject "Israel" is "biased" - but I have to wonder how one would assess, for example, Amnesty International's claims for objectivity and impartiality if the relevant entry were part of WikiProject "Palestine"...
 * As to content, I agree. And I presume it is within Wikipedia's NPOV policy for a contributor to examine the actual workof the entry's subject, e.g. what percentage of Just Journalism 's work is dedicated to the presence of the Israeli side in the media and what of the Palestinian side. It is something which I believe would be worthwhile to do and present, without, of course, commentary.-The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is not up to you to analyse JJ's reporting. That would be WP:Original research. For the same reason, it is completely irrelevant what wikiprojects this article is a part of so long as members of that project write the article in accordance with the relevant policies. I think you're barking up the wrong trees and hunting for bias where there is no evidence that any exists. Personally, I also think you're being extremely rude to suggest that there is a problem under the circumstances. If you find a problem with the article, fix it or discuss it. If not, then what's your point? GDallimore (Talk) 13:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As to original research, I agree that this is not for wiki contributors to do. But the fact that it is "extremely rude" to pose a question about an article instead of or before "fixing" it?! I must confess that's a completely new perspective of "rudeness" for me. I'm always open to new perspectives, so (I guess) thanks are in order.-The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting that becase (presumably) Israeli people are interested in this article that it must be biased. I don't see how that could be anything other than rude, if not something far worse. GDallimore (Talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The summary of the organization, it's goals and aims were entirely unrepresentative, and had NPOV issues. It was presented as a neutral, non-partisan body interested in all ME issues, whereas it's website specifies that it primarily lobbies on Israeli issues, and narratives within the press Marty jar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC).
 * This appears to be a sourcing issue more than an NPOV issue - there are no independent reliable sources which discuss its goals and aims. While your additions were, I think, correctly removed for not correctly representing the source that exists, I believe the problem can be solved in a different way, and I will make some edits to flesh out the lead with commentary from the body of the article. GDallimore (Talk) 21:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issue is that the opening summary is directly from the organisation's website, and entirely fails to reflect their activities. The source cited alone is evidence of the summary being misleading, as does link 2 and several others already in the article. If you look at their website and activities, unlike the sentence quoted, ALL activity reflects their role in lobbying for and against media narratives related to Israel. They're not predominantly a 'research' organisation, but do support their lobbying through research, so both descriptions may be appropriate. Also, if you look at their output, the focus is not on the Middle-East as a whole. As a result, there isn't evidence that the current MAJOR NPOV issues are sustainable - it's incorrect to believe that content must be quoted directly from sources if the source is partisan or unreliable. Several current links on there reflect this. I'll keep a watch on it, as organisations regularly attempt to do so - may be an escalation matter. Marty jar (talk)
 * You have provided no source that says they're a lobbying organisation. I have already added to the lead that their focus is Israel, not the Middle East as a whole. I have therefore reverted your edits again. You will need to find a source which describes them as a lobbying organisation before you can categorise them as such. GDallimore (Talk) 02:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I detailed the content of their own website - it's incorrect to claim that every detail or word of articles needs to be quoted directly from a source, but rather it needs to be supported by a source. However, you may be right that to avoid the political aspect of 'lobbying', the term 'pressure group' is more satisfactory. That's very clearly supported by their website for the reasons I described at length - e.g. their website is dominated by large sections monitoring depictions of issues affecting Israel in the British press, with specifications of their complaints and interventions to the media outlets and regulators involved. Clearly this term is indisputably supported in this case - again by the citations on the same line. There are also already other citations on the page dealing with disputed neutrality (covered in your (GDallimore) insertion). Marty jar (talk)
 * Just Journalism is not denoted, in the article, as a neutral organisation but, rather, as a counter-propaganda organisation. Such organisations are not necessarily neutral; they may be legitimately countering the propaganda (or claims, if you prefer) of one side only. Just Journalism's work is indeed one-sided, in that it's confined in how Israeli actions or statements are misrepresented in western media. Just Journalism would have been neutral if it was doing this for both sides. (See what Just Journalism's former director Adel Darwish had to say about the organisation's neutrality when he resigned.) However, all this is not for Wikipedia contributors to say! We can only include in the article opinions, facts and/or data provided by third-party, reliable sources, per Wiki policy. Since there are no such sources that dispute what Just Journalism asserts in its Mission Statement, we can only quote them. Anything else crosses over into original research.-The Gnome (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments made by GDallimore in his latest edit ("The purpose of the WP:Lead is to summarise key article points. Since [the criticism by Sharif Nashashibi] is the ONLY independent commentary on the organisation, it is indubitably a key point in the article"). I trust that, now, my early suspicion abt the organisation's neutrality has been adequately explained -- see my comments above. We must always make a clear distinction between an organisation that wants to combat/refute/point out the propaganda/distortions made by one side in a conflict, and an organisation that wants to do the same work for both sides in that conflict. The former may be "independent", "objective" or "counter-propagandist" but it is not neutral. Neutrality means treating both/all sides in a conflict with the same, dispassionate eye. Just Journalism may be doing honest, commendable work but it's work focused on clearly one side only. Its work may indeed be "objective" and quite "truthful" but it cannot be denoted "neutral".-The Gnome (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Establishment date?
Source for date of establishment of organisation is required. -The Gnome (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)