This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikidemon (talk | contribs) at 08:24, 10 January 2016 (→Unverified statement re-added: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:24, 10 January 2016 by Wikidemon (talk | contribs) (→Unverified statement re-added: comment)(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 |
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)
| off topic, flame bait |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
--- 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
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaicatpointmack (talk • contribs) 08:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Funding sources?
I wonder if there's any information out there about how this NGO is funded. Mainly because I'm wondering if their Misplaced Pages activities should be included in the article state-sponsored internet sockpuppetry. Esn (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you mean, did the State of Israel pay the people who infiltrated Misplaced Pages, I don't think anyone has ever suggested that it did and there isn't any evidence to support that as far as I'm aware. Funding-wise, it's true that the article should probably say more about CAMERA'S funding. That seems like a bit of an gap now that you mention it. They have membership fees of course and fund raise at their conferences and presumably elsewhere. There's this info which doesn't help much. The Wexner Foundation probably provides some funds. I guess someone will need to do a bit of research. The information is presumably out there somewhere. It doesn't seem on be on CAMERA'S site. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- If an organization is pro-particular-country, I naturally wonder if it receives any official funds from that country. In the link you posted, the most recent financial information is from 2011, and it says that $2,600,069 of revenue came from "Contributions, Gifts & Grants", $631,918 is listed as "Other Revenue", with nothing at all from membership fees. It doesn't give any further details, though. Is the information really out there in principle, or would it be lawful for an NGO to keep it secret? Esn (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Unverified statement re-added
See my edit + es. Here Averysoda re-adds it without honoring the WP:VERIFY argument already noted in the editsummary (in other words: adding the name of the source to the text does not make it a verifiable statement). Also, likely a WP:1RR violation. -DePiep (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The official website of CAMERA is reliable with attribution. It's like saying "According to CAMERA, the organization has 65,000 volunteers." This is not necessarily a 'fact', but a statement. Opinionated sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, as long as they have correct attribution.--Averysoda (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- 1RR. WP:VERIFY. Don't say "nonsense" as an argument. You have been warned. -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- This article says "EI was founded in February 2001" and "In 2010 it received US$130,000 in donations from individuals and US$83,000 from private foundations", using Electronic Intifada as a source. I don't see you complaining and warning... or do you think that pro-Palestinian organizations like EI are more reliable than pro-Israeli organizations like CAMERA?--Averysoda (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- 1RR. WP:VERIFY. Don't say "nonsense" as an argument. You have been warned. -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- The problem, Averysoda, is that statements about financial contributions to nonprofit organizations registered in the United States (which includes both CAMERA and EI) are independently verifiable. US nonprofits are required to file form 990, which includes information on all income sources, and which is published regularly by the government on the Internet. If the nonprofit also undergoes an audit by an independent organization like American Institute of Philanthropy, then the number of volunteers would also be verifiable. However, CAMERA has never undertaken an audit to my knowledge, so their claim that they have 65,000 volunteers is unverifiable. What's more, it's completely fantastic. Where are these 65,000 volunteers? What do they do? Is there a list of them somewhere? Maybe the International Red Cross has 65,000 volunteers. But CAMERA? We should try to keep the article within the bounds of the faintly credible. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
A year later -- This completely ridiculous statement that CAMERA has 65,000 "paying members" remains in the article, despite my previous protests. CAMERA yearly files form 990 with the US government, confirming that income from membership dues is zero. If there are no further comments, I am taking this statement out of the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Go for it! A statement like this, if challenged, needs a reliable source. It might be okay to attribute the statement, i.e. saying that "in , Camera stated that it had more than 65,000 members". Note that the self-sourced claim does not assert that these are paying members, just members. Small organizations are notoriously unreliable in their membership claims FWIW.- Wikidemon (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)