This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zaicatpointmack (talk | contribs) at 08:23, 15 October 2013 (→General comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:23, 15 October 2013 by Zaicatpointmack (talk | contribs) (→General comments)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Palestine B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Membership and corrections figures
An encyclopedia usually has facts and figures. i added the number of members and the number of media corrections made in response to camera interventions. it is entirely normal to get membership figures from organizations themselves. the facts are footnoted, so readers can see where they come from. whoever undid this work, please explain your rationale.--Cimicifugia (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia
- the work is already in the "structure, staff, and activities" section. it doesn't seem appropriate to include the work in every section of the article in a high level of detail. we should try to find one place in the article for the information.--71.156.84.44 (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- i brielfy summarized in the lead. another possible idea would be to find a way to briefly represent this in the article's information box, but the lead/infobox should be non-redundant and provide an overview of the rest of the article.--71.156.84.44 (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Supporters and detractors
I put in names of prominent supporters so that readers can place CAMERA accurately by judging the people who criticize or support the organization that are familiar to them. i wanted to add prominent critics, but a quick search on the web didn't turn up any names. can someone help on this. has Chomsky, for example, criticized them by name? others? the way the article was written, with a quote by an unknown person named Gershon critcizing CAMERA in the introduction, was not normal for an encyclopedia entry. it just sounded like a polemic--Cimicifugia (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia
- thanks for putting this on talk. viewpoints about the organization should not come from the group itself. please see WP:SELFPUB. including information from third party reliable sources is perfectly acceptable though. so if Dershowitz, etc. have said something about CAMERA we just need a source apart from CAMERA which says this. hope this helps, --71.156.84.44 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
a LIST OF PROMINENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOUT CAMERA, SPOKEN AT THEIR ANNUAL DINNER TO DO FUNDRAISING FOR THEM IS NOT A 'VIEWPOINT COMING FROM THE ORGANIZATION', IT IS A FACTUAL MATTER OF RECORD. IF DERSHOWITZ SPEAKS AT CAMERA CONFRFERENCES AND FUNDRAISING EVENTS, HE IS A SUPPORTER. I TRIED TO PUT IN DIRECT QUOTES FROM DERSHOWITZ AND SHARANSKY AS THE FOOTNOTE, BUT THEY WERE TOO LONG TO FIT INTO THE NEW 'REFERENCE' POP UP. HOW DO YOU PUT IN LONGER FOOTNOTES? i haven't tried to edit wiki for months, and am completely lost with the new improved editing icons. HERE ARE THE QUOTES “We all know that CAMERA's mission is important not only for the Jewish community, but also for the integrity and vitality of American democracy. It is not just on one occasion that I wished there were an Israeli branch of CAMERA.” – Democracy activist and Knesset member Natan Sharansky
“The answer to false speech is not censorship but more true speech. The answer to half-truth is full-truth. The only people who should and do fear CAMERA are those who should and do fear the truth. ... he First Amendment was not erected to help the media but to help the people.” – Harvard law professor and civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz
~cimicifugia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimicifugia (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Banned or Sanctioned
The article at the top of the page says five wikipedian editors were banned while at the bottom it says they were sanctioned. Anyone know the exact status so we can clear up this contradiction? 8.19.92.171 (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Bans are sanctions. For more info, read this. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Shortening of the lede
Hello. I have moved the criticism of CAMERA from the lede down to the Reception section. I notice that no other page on an I/P advocacy organization or other organization that takes a strong position on I/P issues has similar criticism in the lede. The general format of all these other articles is for the lede to describe the organization itself and its mission, generally followed by history, current status, etc., then finally a "reception" or similar section devoted to criticism and praise. Examples are: (from a pro-P perspective) Electronic Intifada, CounterPunch, Democracy Now; (from a pro-I perspective) NGO Monitor, Commentary (magazine). Having criticism like this in the lede for this but for no other similar group implies either that this organization is uniquely illegitimate or (more likely) that the article has POV problems. As for the lede section on Misplaced Pages's run-in with CAMERA, I would have moved that down to the appropriate section but that section already has plenty of information (arguably too much) on what in the grand scheme of things was really a single, fairly minor incident. (Remember that WP's purpose is to accurately cover the world as a whole, not to navel-gaze.) Benwing (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, what goes in the lead is governed by WP:LEAD. The lead should present the key points of the article, which in turn come from sources. So if sources on CAMERA emphasize the criticism, then it should go in the lead. What other articles say about other topics isn't an argument for modifying the lead here. FWIW, CAMERA is more illegitimate than e.g. Electronic Intifada which has a rather good reputation, whereas CAMERA is notorious. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact that a person who calls CAMERA "illegitimate" and "notorious" speaks of Electronic Intifada as "good", speaks volumes on the mindset of those above who attack CAMERA (and want the CAMERA Misplaced Pages entry to focus on attacking CAMERA). And Gershom Gorenberg, described as a "journalist" here (to legitimize his attacks on CAMERA) is actually a self described agenda driven "leftist" according to his Misplaced Pages entry, for those who bother to check. Bottom line: CAMERA may be "pro-Israel", but the fact is that a review of the actual contents of their websites shows that their reports and commentaries are accurate and truthful. Any specific examples where they got the story wrong? CAMERA recently ran a report criticising 60 minutes for doing a long piece focusing on archaeology politics in Jerusalem that made zero mention of the Wakf's recent buldozing of Temple Mount Haram Al Sharif archeological sites. This is legitimate media analysis and criticism. In fact one could reasonably argue that CAMERA showed 60 minutes to be a propaganda tool in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.56.241 (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Image
I changed the website infobox to an organization infobox but the image doesn't seem to be working correctly. Can someone please fix? Also, I would appreciate it if someone was to tell me what I had done wrong. Thanks. Poyani (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
General comments
I removed general comments as it is not fair to stick them here. He wasnt just talking about CAMERA. He was talking about lobbies in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- The statement says "According to Friedman, "CAMERA, the A.D.L., AIPAC and the rest of the lobby don't want fairness, but bias in their favor. And they are prepared to use McCarthyite tactics, as well as the power and money of pro-Israel PACs, to get whatever Israel wants." I have highlighted the relevant word. Please self revert. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I have seen this word but it looks to me as if this is general criticism of Israeli lobbies nad he is saying a few examples. These are examples of a bigger picture and not the actual target of his view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't important how things look to you. What matters is what sources say and this one says something about the topic of this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree but the artcile is only talking about one lobby and this is talking about them generally. Maybe see if other sources mention this about camera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Go do that then, but before you do, you should restore what a reliable source said about CAMERA which you have removed for invalid reasons. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
--- This looks like a prime example of "Zionist" wiki-washing. No honest person could think CAMERA is anything but a pro-Israel group, it is manifestly not about providing 'balance'. It's one reflexivelt pro-Israel group responding both to reflexively anti-Israel stuff, as well as fair and honest coverage of Israeli war crimes, or anything true but negative about Israel or Judaism or Jews.
Look, even Sourcewatch indicates that there ought to be a section in this article about bias: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CAMERA
If you dont put in such a section, this article simply becomes a poor reference article. To not discuss CAMERA's bias, is simply absurd.
50.136.54.23 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)jpt
- There's a reception section that describes views of the organization published by reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting how whenever someone complains about Misplaced Pages's extreme pro-Islamic bias, their complaint is always removed as "soapboxing." I suppose "anti-Zionists" have free reign over Misplaced Pages.
Categories: