Talk:If Americans Knew
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
If Americans Knew is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles. |
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
 Archives |
| Archive 1 Feb 2005 - Jan 2007 |
Contents |
[edit] Description of organization - questions to apologists
Can I infer from recent reversions, etc., that there are editors who believe that this organization:
- Truly is neutral to the conflict?
- Actually presents full, complete, and accurate information?
I'm tired of attempts at positioning this as an organization that is everything it presents itself to be, when in reality it's a virulently anti-Israeli organization that puts up a pretense of objectivity. --Leifern 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- No you can't, and please stop doing so. Thanks --Tom 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I will stop making that assumption as soon as I've seen you eliminate the phrasing about CAMERA to eliminate the view or implication that it's pro-Israel. Until then, we're looking at a huge double standard here. The organization is plainly anti-Israeli. --Leifern 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Leif, I went over to CAMERA and didn't see anything in the lead section that said it was pro-Israel. If something is not sourced, feel free to remove it per wiki policy or add the cite tag. Again, this site might be the scum of the earth, I haven't read their material, but sources are needed if you want to describe the site as being X,Y or Z. Anyways --Tom 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The intro reads "focusing primarily on correcting coverage that it considers inaccurate or unfairly skewed against Israel," without any source for that characterization. If you're going to accept that kind of summary one place, surely this organization deserves one that is equally clear. --Leifern 11:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it isn't sourced, remove it. Please keep the lead as simple as possible so consensus can be reached.--Tom 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I edited the camera article and would also point you to the Middle East Media Research Institute article. Should that lead be changed to.? Thanks--Tom 15:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it isn't sourced, remove it. Please keep the lead as simple as possible so consensus can be reached.--Tom 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- The intro reads "focusing primarily on correcting coverage that it considers inaccurate or unfairly skewed against Israel," without any source for that characterization. If you're going to accept that kind of summary one place, surely this organization deserves one that is equally clear. --Leifern 11:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've been busy the last few days, and took a look at this again. After a three day revert war over the lead paragraph, we're again back to where we started. Can we agree on "The site is generally critical of US policy with regards to Israel"? That's consistent with the cited reference, and not overly strong in any direction. --John Nagle 08:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Six edits later, we're back to exactly the same text. Give it a rest, already. If you don't like the organization, add sourced material to the criticism section.
- But please quit fighting over the lead paragraph. It's not getting better. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Leif, I went over to CAMERA and didn't see anything in the lead section that said it was pro-Israel. If something is not sourced, feel free to remove it per wiki policy or add the cite tag. Again, this site might be the scum of the earth, I haven't read their material, but sources are needed if you want to describe the site as being X,Y or Z. Anyways --Tom 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I will stop making that assumption as soon as I've seen you eliminate the phrasing about CAMERA to eliminate the view or implication that it's pro-Israel. Until then, we're looking at a huge double standard here. The organization is plainly anti-Israeli. --Leifern 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Original research?"
Catchpole, in a rather imaginative twist, seems to think that direct quotes and paraphrasing from the organization's website constitutes "original research," presumably because it is just too painful to read what this organization actually stands for. We can go around and around on this, but I'd like to see some sincere effort from our opponents on this issue to create an introductory paragraph that makes it clear that this organization is not neutral but has a political agenda. --Leifern 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Should we do the same for the other sites which support your agenda? Oh course not. All agendas and original research should be stopped, especially in the lead section it seems.--Tom 19:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- My agenda, whatever it might be, is absolutely irrelevant. Deleting quotes and accurate paraphrasing from the organization's own website can not be construed as original research. --Leifern 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Editing Wikipedia with an agenda is absolutely relevant because it seems that Wikipedia's "prime directive" if you will, is to edit from a NPOV as difficult as that might be. The original research comes when you post what the site says and then you exstrapulate(sp) some type of conclusion about what the site stands for ect. That is your analysis, which might be perfectly correct but is still original research. Just provide sources that says the site is X, Y, or Z and then feel free to add it. I am just concerned about the lead since this really should be locked down with consensus. Anyways --Tom 16:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- My agenda, whatever it might be, is absolutely irrelevant. Deleting quotes and accurate paraphrasing from the organization's own website can not be construed as original research. --Leifern 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quotes removed
I put up quotes said by members of the organization that were verified, and I sourced them, but they were removed. Why? Because they weren't flattering to the organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.6.12 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 July 2007
- WP is not a quote farm. --Tom 17:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I see it for other articles. Why not this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.6.12 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 July 2007
- Two wrongs don't make a right. --Tom 13:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- IFK's motives are straightforwardly patriotic, seeking to put the interests of Americans first. Meanwhile, organisations such as CAMERA, seeking to put the interests of other nations ahead of those of America, suffer no unflattering quotes whatsoever. Unbiased observers might think the latter organisation is border-line treasonous - what do you say? PalestineRemembered 17:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sudden rash of POV edits today
Sudden rash of POV edits today. No new info, some references removed. Reverted. The article had been stable for a while, and we seem to have reached a consensus of sorts. --John Nagle 06:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have restored my edits. I agree with you about the removal of the first paragraph of the Background, and have restored that as well. I do not see any removed references in the edits you are talking about. As for "stability", it does not trump NPOV, and consensus on Wikipedia only lasts until the next editor comes along. 6SJ7 20:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lead sentence
As it is now:
If Americans Knew is a non-profit organization that focuses on the Arab-Israeli conflict and United States foreign policy regarding the Middle East, offering analysis of American media coverage of these issues.
Can we reach any consensus here? TIA --Tom 13:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Today we have "The site is generally critical of U.S. financial and military support of Israel", which is a statement that both If Americans Knew and its critics should be able to agree upon. Every time someone changes that, after a few edits we end up back there, more or less. Really, the organization's position is simple - they want the US to stop supporting Israel. Just as AIPAC, "America's pro-Israel lobby", wants the US to support Israel. They're a lobby, with a position. -John Nagle 16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some recently added bad cites
Some poorly written citations have been added recently. We have New York Times links that lead to a login page. Can more open sources be found? Also, the cite supposedly from the Mercury News isn't from there; it's from "gradethenews.org". What they said is:
- "If it has been documented that Israeli deaths were considered more newsworthy than Palestinian," commented Stanford Communication Prof. Shanto Iyengar, "that's prima facie evidence of bias."
- Not so, protested Daniel Sneider, who was foreign and national desk editor at the Mercury News during the study period. He refused to say why on the record. But Mr. Sneider called a similar study to ours, conducted by an organization called If Americans Knew, "fundamentally flawed." Grade the News replicated and expanded the study conducted by the Berkeley-based media monitor. Because we included Palestinian deaths implied by the term "suicide" in our totals, Grade the News showed slightly less imbalance than If Americans Knew. Otherwise, our counts matched theirs.
- Two other top editors we contacted at the Mercury News declined comment, deferring to Mr. Sneider, who now writes a foreign affairs column for the newspaper.
What went into the Wikipedia article is: "The San Jose Mercury News called an If Americans Knew report "fundamentally flawed." --John Nagle (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] (redacted)
An inflammatory and potentially libelous comment was removed. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and controversial or negative material about living people must not be presented without reliable sources to back them. Also removed fallout from the original comment. <eleland/talkedits> 17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Came here from 3O
It's a little difficult to see exactly what the dispute is, but I don't see where "Numerous citations and additional information were added and then reverted." I did notice that a detailed list of the group's video productions were replaced with a general statement that the group has produced some videos - that seems appropriate per WP:SUMMARY style. Interested readers can follow some links and find the videos for themselves, we needn't detail every single one. Editorial comments about certain sources being "Jewish" were quite rightly removed, as were references to anonymous internet postings.
In general, all editors are encouraged to use the talk page for anything beyond the very simplest issues, since the concision required in edit summaries can lead to misunderstanding, especially when material is being removed. <eleland/talkedits> 17:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Big mess from anon
There have been some major edits by an anonymous editor recently, and they're not very good. I reverted the whole block of edits. Some of the info was just wrong.
For one thing, we don't have a cited list of board members for If Americans Knew, and some of the names we do have are bogus. For example Eugene K. Bird is dead. He was listed as "Eugene K. Bird who is known for developing a close relationship with Rudolf Hess, Adolf Hitler's deputy in the Nazi Party". The If Americans Knew site mentions an Eugene Bird, [1] an American foreign service officer. Not the same person. --John Nagle (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with some of the edits, esp. where Pipes' personal bog is used as source to accuse other persons of negative acts.Bless sins (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
These verifiable facts are now cited and Pipes' personal bog has been removed. Please add more facts if you wish but do not remove these (see Wikipedia rules). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.119.157 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If the anonymous User:128.252.174.116 (and other similar addresses) continues to place argumentative material in the article I will initiate procedures to have him/her banned.StN (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Having an author banned or threatening to do so without delving into why you believe the information presented is inappropriate is contrary to Wikipedia's rules.
Please explain how the information that you have been removing is not objective, relevant, and cited, and why you have labeled it "argumentative". It is certainly no more argumentative in nature than any other information posted; it only it presents more data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.174.116 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- The POV pushing by this anon is excessive. The hit section on the board members is a bit much. Almost all of them were notable US officials with long careers, yet they're identified almost entirely by something negative that "Honest Reporting" has to say about them. I haven't deleted that section, although it's tempting. The anon has now twice deleted citations from the BBC which contradict a claim the anon inserted. --John Nagle (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please list any deleted citations from the BBC and return them. Nothing has been deleted from the BBC as far as I can see. Please add information regarding the 'notable US officials with long careers' if you wish but the quotes listed are reflective of their views. The information about the board members and staff is not cherry picked, nor can you assume it 'negative' to the individuals quoted since it a common component of their dialogue. Multiple citations are attesting to this including the group’s website. The citation that uses Honest Reporting is directly linked to a video of Eugene Bird talking and even specifies the time that one can forward to see and hear him quoted. Honest Reporting is and need not be included in the other cited information that you continue to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.11.235 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] You Cannot Sensor Wikipedia
While editing this page people have been trying to shut out free dissemination of facts. Instead of adding new facts, they are removing verifiable, relevant, and cited data. Verifiable data regarding the leader and members of this organization, what they have said, and where they stand. Removing whole sections in their entirety only demonstrates refusal to confront or acknowledge the truth. Claiming that this page is an attempt to “balance” the scales or that the truth is unfair may occasionally be effective when attacking media stories you do not enjoy but it will not work here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.174.116 (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- 1. I think you meant "Censor".
- 2. Note that comments about living persons are subject to WP:BLP, which you should read.
- 3. If you're involved in editing contentious articles, it's best to register for a Wikipedia account, so that you have an established identity on Wikipedia and a talk page where you can be reached.
- 4. Please use edit summaries, to explain why you're changing something.
- 5. Please sign your talk page comments (click on the scribbled signature icon at the top of the edit box).
- Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
