Talk:Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

Suggestions for Improvement

• When was it founded and by whom?
• Does it mention specifically that it tends to only criticize bias (or percieved bias) against Israel?
• Where does its funding originate?

HHT. --Ben Houston 17:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: the second point, assuming "it" means the organization themselves: no, they don't say this themselves, but it is abundantly clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We now have when and by whom founded. The article seems to cover CAMERA's positions adequately. It's not clear where the funding comes from. --John Nagle 19:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The refusal of Charles Jacobs to disclose in an interview the sources of funding of and financial contributors to organizations that he founded and co-founded is mentioned in an article about the controversy at Columbia University listed in the David Project. --NYScholar 03:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Charles Jacobs did not found CAMERA. He served as its deputy director for its Boston Chapter, but he was not involved in its founding. Nehemiah123 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What conflict?

Why the change from "Arab-Israel conflict" to "Palestinian-Israeli conflict"? CAMERA also addresses Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, etc... I've changed it back to the former. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gni (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006.

NPOV

[pertains to the cleanup tag.] This article needs development of additional citations and examples to promote more NPOV. I made some additions today toward that end, but more are needed. NYScholar 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Further updated with NPOV in mind. NYScholar 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability?

[pertains to the cleanup tag] [Moved from body of article here; needs actual citation that can be verified:] Unable to verify the following:

• Alan Dershowitz

"As a life-long civil libertarian, I am committed to the proposition that the answer to bad speech is not censorship, but more good speech. 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."

Note that the dates given in previous versions of this passage are inconsistent. The text described it as a speech given in 1998, but the citation says that the conference occurred in October 1989 (perhaps a typographical error originally?). Where is a verifiable text of the speech published (either in print and/or on line)? See W:Verifiability. Except for previous Wikipedia articles on this subject (CAMERA), I cannot find a verifiable source for this exact quotation, so I have relocated it to this talk page (at least for the time being). Perhaps someone can give a source that enables people to verify the accuracy of the quotation.

I do find an allusion to Dershowitz's supporting CAMERA in a speech on the media representation of Israel at an October 1989 Boston conference launching the organization in another source cited in the same section, but not giving the exact quotation.

The Boston organization's coming-out party occurred in October 1989, when about 1,000 people, paying $25 a head, turned up at a CAMERA conference in the Park Plaza Hotel to listen to speakers decry unfair treatment of Israel in the media. The headliners included Harvard law professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz.

And I did find an subscription-based archived "Letter" in Commentary (NY) magazine for October 1989 (issue 4) mentioning the conference and Dershowitz's having been a featured speaker at it. NYScholar 10:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, thus far, the only references to the exact quotation that I have found is this article in Wikipedia or other articles or comments quoting it. (It seems to fall into the category of "no original research until a verifiable source can be cited.") Updated NYScholar 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added an alternative reference to Dershowitz that is verifiable.--NYScholar 07:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The original Dershowitz quote that was removed was recorded and published by CAMERA, and sent out in a mass mailing to its members along with other testimonials. Is that enough verification? If so, the original quote, which is about CAMERA in general, should go back up instead of the new quote, which is about a more narrow aspect of the organization's work. I will check back for comments. If there are none, I'll put the original quote back up. Gni 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Gni: You put it back before I saw your comment asking for discussion first. There are problems with doing so given your lack of a "reliable" published source that is verifiable. If, as you say, the "quote" (or the speech it comes from--which?) "was recorded and published by CAMERA," where is it published that other Wikipedia readers can actually access? A "flyer" or a "mass mailing" that was distributed only to the organization's own members is not a publication that is verifiable and thus considered a "reliable source" by Wikipedia. (It is basically serving as an advertisement for the organization--see Wikipedia policy on "no ads" in articles.) There is no way for other Wikipedia readers to verify a "flyer" or a "mass mailing" that was sent to the organization's "members." It sounds a bit like a letter from the organization to its members: is there an online version of it? (Plus that kind of "mailing" introduces problems concerning lack of NPOV; see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The way you have used a flyer relates to "WP:NOR"; even if one went to the speech and recorded it and cited that recording, that is not a verifiable published source that other people can fact-check/verify. (Again, where is the transcript of the speech published?) The organization's own flyer is neither a "reliable source" because (1) it may contain errors that cannot be checked against a published source; (2)it is not a published transcript of the speech produced by a neutral news organization, or even a news article reporting objectively on the speech, which other people can read in a library or online. A "mass mailing" from an organization is not issued by a peer-reviewed source. That is an objection to the quotation that has been restored. It is not verifiable and has not been verified by anyone except the previous user. A link to the full text of the flyer or to a pdf file of it, or to a jpg scan of it could be presented in this discussion page as proof of the quotation in the flyer, but that still is not verifiable evidence that Dershowitz actually made the remarks in a speech (though he could have). Basically, the "mass mailing" sounds like an advertisement for the organization. (See Wikipedia policy on "no ads" in articles.) I've sought a reliable source and not found it. Therefore, I provided the other development, which can still be restored. That additional development, which was from a reliable and verifiable source, and it is important information too. I'll see if I can find it to post it here for further discussion. One could still add it back into the article's section where I placed it before. Please do not remove sourced and verified information (Wikipedia editing policy); and if in doubt, move it to talk where it can be discussed. Don't just delete it entirely. Re: what constitutes "reliable sources" see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and W:Citing sources--NYScholar 09:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"No ads" certainly does not mean that we cannot quote from the materials created by the organization that we are writing about. Yes, if the only source for the quotation is the group's own materials it should be clearly cited as such and you are right that a PDF would be very helpful for verification of that; copyright may prevent reproducing that PDF on line, but it can be made available to anyone who doubts it. I would think that CAMERA would be a reliable source on a quotation from Dershowitz: he's certainly a supporter of theirs, and I can't see what they'd stand to gain by misquoting him. - Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading the above: when it comes to the fact that someone said something, not only NPOV sources are citable. The issue here is the intellectual honesty of the source in the matter, not whether they have a point of view. Otherwise, we could never even cite the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which was often very opinionated. - Jmabel | Talk 04:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is Wikipedia:Verifiability: see the section heading. A source has to be verifiable by ALL Wikipedia readers, not just someone who belongs to an organization that has sent out flyers to its members. Read the Wikipedia policies relating to citations and verifiability. They are clearly stated. A "flyer" that other people cannot access is not a "published" source that is "verifiable." The premise that the "flyer" even exists is based on hearsay (of a Wikipedia editor), not a "verifiable" "published" "source." Wikipedia editors themselves are not "verifiable sources"; the WP is No Original Research. Using flyers that one W editor or some W editors have personally as if they were "evidence" is not presenting "verifiable research"; it is "original research." Using such (purported) sources (as opposed to verifiable sources) is counter to Wikipedia policy. Many talk pages re: many articles discuss this point. The fact is that none of us other than the person or persons (?) posting the purported quotation has access to a verifiable source proving that Dershowitz has said the "quotation"; one does not know for sure that it is a quotation or an accurate quotation; we (other editors and readers of W) thus cannot "verify" it because there is no text to check it against that everyone can read. One needs a published verifiable source that everyone can access. --NYScholar 19:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an internet summary. Here it may still be an issue, but generally it's enough if a source can be verified by a reasonable fraction of the editors (including only Ph.D., only people in a specific city, etc). CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I am much more interested in the general issue of what is citable than with this specific instance, I've continued this with a comment at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I heard about this from Jmabel's comment at WP:V, and I find that I agree that the direct quote is insufficiently sourced. At a minimum, the title, the date, and a few sentences of surrounding context from the "fund-raising flyer" need to be provided; this information is undoubtably available to anyone with access to the flyer, so requiring it is not an impossible burden. If two known (i.e. ~ 500 edits) Wikipedians confirmed that they had personally reviewed independant copies of the flyer, and the provided details were correct, I'd be delighted to include it myself. Without that, I'd be leary, but I wouldn't object if someone else wished to include it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What I removed is below:

In a speech presented to a conference on "The Media, the Message, and the Middle East," convened by CAMERA at the Park Plaza Hotel, in Boston, Massachusetts, on [[October 29]], [[1989]], Professor [[Alan M. Dershowitz]], of the [[Harvard Law School]], has purportedly been quoted as saying: "As a life-long civil libertarian, I am committed to the proposition that the answer to bad speech is not censorship, but more good speech. 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."<ref>Dershowitz as qtd. in a fund-raising flyer distributed to members by CAMERA [n.d.], [(date accessed?)] [still needs verifiable citation; such a flyer is not a verifiable publication]. For information about the conference, see Jurkowitz: <blockquote>The Boston organization's coming-out party occurred in October 1989, when about 1,000 people, paying $25 a head, turned up at a CAMERA conference in the Park Plaza Hotel to listen to speakers decry unfair treatment of Israel in the media. The headliners included Harvard law professor and attorney [[Alan Dershowitz]] and a former US representative to the United Nations named [[Alan Keyes]], who would later go on to fame as a talk-show host and fringe African-American Republican candidate for the presidency. Keyes wowed the Park Plaza crowd with his passionate defense of the Jewish state.</blockquote></ref>

Alan Dershowitz comments re: CAMERA

Here is the information that User Gni removed from the article, restored from History page:

<< Responding to CAMERA On Campus managing editor Deborah Passner's questions "about issues confronting college students and how they can better defend Israel," Dershowitz says:
"Free speech should become part of the ammunition of the pro-Israel student groups. . . . There have been many efforts to try to divest from Israel. One has to try to keep up with that and fight it at every turn. Students can fight it with facts. The anti-Israel side relies completely on ignorance. And, the answer to ignorance is truth. And that’s the key. Get the facts out." >>

That information might be useful for the article on the David Project since it is only indirectly relating to his views of CAMERA per se. If one understands that CAMERA claims to be posting "facts" and "truth" as opposed to bias and lies, then it is a statement in support of CAMERA's goals too. One might want to read the source cited for more information about the case in which Charles Jacobs, CAMERA, and the David Project have been involved. Again, it deals w/ a controversy discussed in more than one of the articles on organizations that Jacobs has founded. --NYScholar 09:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[Please leave the Notes section at the end of this talk page; and please place new sections above this area. Thanks. --NYScholar 09:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• More appropriate to just let the Notes section follow this immediately. Otherwise, the "+" tool won't work right. - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the Notes feature, since the Notes are cumulative throughout this talk page (I introduced them to begin with, and since notes also follow this section. --NYScholar 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Commentary/Critique

I've removed the FAIR critique to keep a balance of critiques vs. praise. The Wash. Report. quote is anti-CAMERA. The Dershowitz quote is pro-. The Boston Globe quote is somewhat neutral. The FAIR quote would tip the balance and gives the impression of "stacking the deck" with anti-CAMERA quotes. Gni 14:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Put FAIR comment back in. You can add another pro-CAMERA comment if you wish, but removing criticism is probably inappropriate. It's deceptive to claim that CAMERA is neutral; it's pro-Israel, and there's not really much argument about that. Even the Jewish World Review says it's pro-Israel. [1] --John Nagle 16:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The FAIR comment was put in after there already was a balance in in commentary/critique section. I'm taking it back out. Wikipedia should not be a contest to see who can add more skewing information faster than others have a chance to counter with balancing statements.

For the record, since you mention "deceptive"ness, I'll add that it's deceptive to refer to CAMERA as representing "the right-wing of the Israeli political spectrum," as FAIR asserts. CAMERA may be considered pro-Israel because it feels the media is biased against Israel, but it is apolitical. It does not advocate any particular political position within Israeli (or American) politics. Gni 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also restored the quotation of the comment by FAIR. (The link to FAIR makes clear that it is a "liberal" organization and thus may exaggerate in its description of CAMERA; but it is still a critical description that exemplifies what other organizations and observers say about it; there is no reason to suppress or to delete it; it is a fact that that is what FAIR says about CAMERA, and it is an example as stated; see WP:Verifiability; this is a verifiable viewpoint on CAMERA; it does not have to be "true" according to WP:Verifiability.

If you look at the "contents" of the article, there are now four subsections in each comment and criticism section; with the additional information of the sourced quotation from Dershowitz, there is more balance.

There is still the WP:Verifiability problem of the first quotation. I've provided more accurate presentation of the quotations using transitions. It is important for readers to know that Dershowitz's speech was presented at a CAMERA-sponsored event, a conference CAMERA organized; see earlier discussion of this conference with the quotation from the news article about it. The article needs to cite published sources, not flyers distributed to the organization's members as part of fund-raising. One needs to see the quotation in the context of the whole speech also. Right now, without a transcript of the speech, there is no context for the quotation. But, clearly, Dershowitz was speaking at an event sponsored by the organization that had invited him to speak, and that context suggests that his comments might be pro-CAMERA, because they were part of a conference held in a way as a celebration of CAMERA. Those are non-neutral contexts. It is not that the comments (if he made them--and that too is not verified or apparently verifiable) cannot be cited; but the fact that he actually said them needs a citation supplied, a published, verifiable, reliable source, not a biased flyer-advertisement that Wikipedia's readers cannot access at all (See earlier comments). --NYScholar 10:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with NYScholar's point above (in the "Alan Dershowitz" section) that the second Dershowitz quote "is only indirectly relating to his views of CAMERA per se," I've replaced that quote with another from Ed Koch. Gni 21:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Note well

What's "Note well"? Is this an Englishing of n.b. (nota bene)? I don't think it's Wikipedia style, in that we don't usually say "pay attention to this".

"N.B."=Nota bene (Note well); this is not "Englishing"; it is the translation into English of the common Latin words (Nota bene) signified by the abbreviation (N.B.); such common abbreviations are listed in a Wikipedia editing page; see WP:Cite or W:Citations and so on; I can't remember precisely where the abbreviations are given. "N.B." is an extremely common abbreviation in notes and texts; "Note well" is fine too; they are the same and mean precisely the same thing, and both appear frequently in research-related and other common writing. Please look it up before criticizing it as if it were strange or wrong; it is neither. I've already explained what "N.B." is on a talk page relating to Charles Jacobs (political activist), the founder of CAMERA (see cross-refs.). --NYScholar 06:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC) [Updated]--NYScholar 23:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously from the very comment you are replying to, I am familiar with "n.b." and knew what it stood for; I was just surprised to see it rendered in English. By the way, neither WP:Cite or W:Citations makes even the slightest reference to it. As far as I know, I've never had occasion to look at the Charles Jacobs (political activist). But a have looked at several thousand others, and it is my impression that this is not Wikipedia style. Please understand, that doesn't mean it's "wrong" in some objective sense, just not the style of the project we are working on. - Jmabel | Talk 02:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the List of classical abbreviations (not translated); sometimes, when I am not sure that most readers would recognize "N.B." (or "NB"), I translate it into English as "Note well"; these are synonyms. Wikipedia gives this abbreviation here and elsewhere. See the W article Nota Bene; cf. Nota bene [as redirected]), and in relation to WP:Cite and W:Citations. All these references suggest to me that it is permissible in Wikipedia; as the article says, "Note well" is common English usage. There is no single "Wikipedia style" (as Wikipedia's editing policies regarding citations in notes frequently point out). --NYScholar 08:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In any event, the statement that "CAMERA criticizes the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs for 'promot[ing] a virulently anti-Israel position'" is doubtless true, but needs citation even though it is inside a ref. Unfortunately, {{citequote}} won't nest inside a reference. - Jmabel | Talk 03:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That did not originate with me; look back at History; I've been trying to correct alterations in the citations that previous editors recently introduced; they screwed up the presentation of the citations, and it's taken over 2 hours to try to fix them. Please don't introduce so many changes that alter what were already accurate citations. The format was okay before, but if you're going to make changes from a list of items (paralleling the earlier section of bulleted list of items), then try to keep the references intact and don't chop up sentences with citation numbers unless they are completely unavoidable. Most professional editors know that notes are placed best at the end of sentences; the sentences are more readable that way. So please keep readers in mind when editing. (These changes are still pending.) Thanks. --NYScholar 06:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Did I say that it originated with you? But it does need a reference. (By the way, when I go through editing an article, I rarely look neatly through the history to see who wrote what, unless something strikes me as likely vandalism. My comments above were on the article, not on some particular contributor.)

As for the other matter, the way the article was before my edits, it was little more than a string of quotations. That is hardly "keeping readers in mind." Wikipedia emphatically does not have a style standard against footnotes within paragraphs: it is clear in our policies that it is far more important to make it clear what material comes from where. Sorry, I see your issue was about footnotes within sentences, not paragraphs. There was exactly one of those in my version, where a direct quote was not at the end of a sentence, and required a citation for the source of the quote.

I just looked (via the history) at the version as I left it. I checked half a dozen footnote links, more or less at random. All appeared correct. What exactly are you saying I broke? Clearly, I did not break the mechanism in general. - Jmabel | Talk 02:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Koch "support" was an out of context quote.

New York's former Mayor Koch was quoted as a supporter of CAMERA. The quote cited doesn't say that. What Koch actually wrote was "I read the New York City newspapers every day. It happens that when the apology appeared, I was having my annual medical tests and did not see it.When back in my office, I recalled the incident and looked for the news story, but could not locate it. There is, however, one source you can rely on when it comes to keeping track of news stories on the Middle East — CAMERA — Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. CAMERA did indeed have both of Ricks’ statements, which are enclosed."[2]. Koch is actually praising CAMERA's search engine, as is clear from the full quote. Even CAMERA's critics agree that CAMERA does an effective job of tracking and logging stories about Israel.

Previously, the Wikipedia article just quoted the sentence that reads "There is, however, one source you can rely on when it comes to keeping track of news stories on the Middle East — CAMERA — Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America." Taking that quote out of context distorted what had been said. So I added more of the quote to the article and made the context clear. --John Nagle 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So why don't we let the context speak for itself, rather than presume he was talking about their "search engine". I've taken out your prefacing remarks, but left in the extended Koch quote so that people can decide for themselves what Koch meant by "you can rely on" and "keeping track." --Gni 08:53, 22 August 2006

The context is clear enough if it is restated as I have just done in the current revision. Anyone who wants to read the whole context can read the full text of the letter for it. I've also revised the "supporters"/"detractors" headings to a more general, more neutral format. The editor who introduced the "supporters"/"detractors" format following the quotation from Jurkowitz adopted Jurkowitz's pov as the only way to regard the commentary/critique examples. That proved problematic. As another comment points out above, that opposition (support/oppose) does not work consistently with the examples subsequently added by a number of editors. --NYScholar 17:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative comments removed by previous editor(s)

Someone removed the following, which is another example agreeing with previously-quoted negative comments on CAMERA: << Nuclear Spin presents CAMERA as "a Boston based powerful ultra-right pro-Israel lobby group that tries to suppress criticism of Israel on US media. It uses its financial and political clout to force media elements to tow Israel's party line.">> There seems to be a tendency among editors of this article to remove comments and critique when they don't want to see them in the article. That is not consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There is no policy that states that if, say, 2 negative comments are presented as examples, then they must be balanced by the same number (2) of positive comments (or vice versa). Apparently, people are having difficulty finding positive comments about CAMERA that are not being generated by CAMERA itself (those working for it). Its "supporters" (like Professor Dershowitz, e.g., apparently) tend to have its "bias," so that finding non-biased, actually "neutral" perspectives on CAMERA (both pro--positive--or con--negative) becomes especially difficult. Editors of articles on subjects like this one need to be especially cautious so as not to interject their own personal biases into the article. --NYScholar 17:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Other relevant material removed from this article

[Wikipedia editing policy is not to remove information from articles. See the policy and help pages relating to editing.]

This is another relevant passage that someone removed:

Harvard University Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, who "frequently lectures at colleges to make the case for Israel," addressed "allegations of intimidation and bias" at Columbia University in his appearance there, in March 2005, when he was interviewed exclusively by CAMERA On Campus managing editor Deborah Passner. In their interview Professor Dershowitz "examines the Columbia University case," specifically "issues confronting college students and how they can better defend Israel," telling Passner: "Free speech should become part of the ammunition of the pro-Israel student groups. . . . There have been many efforts to try to divest from Israel. One has to try to keep up with that and fight it at every turn. Students can fight it with facts. The anti-Israel side relies completely on ignorance. And, the answer to ignorance is truth. And that’s the key. Get the facts out."

There should be some way to re-incorporate some or all of the above information in this article's section(s) relating to CAMERA's involvement in the controversy relating to Columbia Unbecoming and Columbia University. --NYScholar 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See Charles Jacobs Discussion page

I just added an explanation there of material that I added to note 12 in this article. See discussion section on "Jacobs and Orientalism (book)." --NYScholar 18:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Founder issue

An anon, 64.115.149.138 (talk · contribs), recently changed the name of the founder of CAMERA from Charles Jacobs to "Winifred Meiselman", without providing a cite.

This may not be vandalism. In the 1999 corporate filing for CAMERA [3], Winifred Meiselman is shown as a director. (He's not listed in the latest filing.) So that name didn't come out of nowhere; she does have a documented association with CAMERA.

Winifred Meiselman is barely mentioned in Google; she's only in one blog, and not as the founder of CAMERA.

Multiple sources indicate that Charles Jacobs was at least a co-founder of CAMERA:

• This David Project press release says he did.

• This site [4] claims to quote the David Project site as saying he did. But the current David Project site no longer has bios of its people, just names and titles. (Archive.org is having server problems today, so checking old versions of the page isn't available right now.)

• This article [5] cites "The New York Times, August 2, 1988; also, The Boston Globe, March 29, 1989; interview with CAMERA president Andrea Levin, 12/6/99" as a source that he was. But I can't find those articles in the Boston Globe or NYT archives.

• A 2005 article in The Nation says he's the founder of CAMERA [6].

• So does Sourcewatch.[7] But the text in the Nation article is essentially the same as the text in Sourcewatch, so those aren't two sources.

• "Forming the nation’s foremost pro-Israel media-watchdog group would be enough of an accomplishment for most people to hang their hat on. As a co-founder of CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting In America, (camera.org), Charles Jacobs has the gratitude of thousands of lovers of Zion." Kansas City Jewish Chronicle - April 16, 2004. That's from the intro to an article about a talk Jacobs gave in person, so it's probably valid.

Note that this says "co-founded", so there are probably multiple founders. Anyone have any solid info here?

CAMERA itself doesn't say on their website. --John Nagle 05:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, got it. David Project "about us" page from 2004-02-05. "The President of the David Project is Dr. Charles Jacobs, founder of the American Anti-Slavery Group and co-founder of CAMERA." So I changed the CAMERA article to "founded by Charles Jacobs and Winifred Meiselman", and left the {{fact}} tag in place, because we need a cite for Meiselman. --John Nagle 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The multiple sources are wrong. Charles Jacobs did not co-found CAMERA. And yes indeed, Winifred Mieselmen did. Nehemiah123 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a cite. We have to go with published sources; an unsubstantiated claim is not enough. See WP:V. --John Nagle 05:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Another "vote" for Mieselman and a Wiki question: So what does one do when certain published sources are wrong? Jacobs did not co-found CAMERA, although he was involved early in the game. As noted above, it was founded by Mieselman. I would suggest tracking down the incorporation documents (or whatever they may be called--the official papers filled out when CAMERA formally came into existence. I will also try to garner a copy, which I have reason to believe will have Mieselman's and not Jacobs' name. But once/if I find these documents, how is one able to use them as proof. Is it necessary to post it online to convince the wiki community that it is a "published source"? (see dershowitz argument above) Gni 20:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can get the early years of CAMERA's corporate filings with the state of Massachusetts, scan them in, and put them on a web page somewhere, that would be good. The online records only go back five years, so we can't see 1982. The incorporation papers themselves aren't necessarily that significant; sometimes, a corporation is formed with some dummy directors (typically the lawyers involved) before the people who really run it come on board. (In Nevada, there's a mini-industry doing that. Finding out who's behind a Nevada corporation is tough. But CAMERA is incorporated in Massachusetts, which requires good corporate filings.) So we should see who the directors were for the first few years after 1982.

The most solid sources we have are directly traceable to Jacobs himself. One is from the David Project, which he runs, and one is from the intro to a talk where he was speaking in person. So at least he used to say that he founded the thing. He doesn't seem to say that any more; in recent quotes, he never mentions CAMERA. One wonders why. --John Nagle 17:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles Jacobs did not found CAMERA, but he did work as the Deputy Director of its Boston chapter in the late 1980s. I contacted CAMERA and suspect there will a detailed history of its founding online eventually. Will such a history be sufficient proof of foundership? Nehemiah123 23:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've found some info on Winifred Mieselman. There's a reference in "(L. Farnum Johnson, Jr. & Jeffrey J. Fairfield, Managing Co-Trustees of the Ruth C. Launders Marital Trust, David I. Meiselman and Winifred C. Meiselman, Trustees, and Meiselman Family LLC)" in a Fairfax County, VA public meeting agenda.[8]. So Winifred Meiselman may be the wife of David I. Meiselman, a moderately well-known free market economist. David I. Meiselman has a mention in the Milton Friedman article and is involved with the Cato Institute[9], as well as the The Israel Center for Social & Economic Progress[10]. But we can't yet be sure this is the right Winifred Meiselman. --John Nagle 20:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Nehemiah: I don't know about "sufficient proof", but certainly a citable source. Usually, if we have contradictory information in sources that would normally be considered reliable, we mention the contradiction; if there is consensus on what is most likely, that goes in the body of the article and the rest goes in a footnote. If CAMERA themselves say something about their own founding, I'd expect to put that in the main line of the article, but I'd still expect to mention in a footnote, with the citations that we have, Jacobs' claim to be a founder. If CAMERA specifically says he was not, then we'd have to work out exactly how to handle that. - Jmabel | Talk 20:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

CAMERA has added a history page to its Web site. This page clarifies the roles played by the various officials--Mieselman, Levin and Jacobs. I assume this settles the issue, so I've updated the article appropriately. Follow the citation link, or see http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=48 Gni 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's helpful, since it has actual images of old documents from CAMERA starting from 1988. Nothing back to 1982, though. It would be nice to see some documents from the founding years. Incidentally, this new page on the CAMERA site needs a little work; it was copied from page 44 on the CAMERA site ("Conference Signup Form") and still has the old title, description, and keywords, plus some form validation Javascript that's not used. Also, it needs to be linked from somewhere on the site and the site indexer run, so it will get indexed by CAMERA's internal search engine, which currently reports a no find for "Meiselman". Google hasn't yet indexed the page yet. How did you find it? --John Nagle 05:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The CAMERA site has now been fixed; the page title is now correct and the index (which is just Google site search) has now updated. Date of the new page is Oct 19, 2006. Thanks. --John Nagle 05:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see updated clarifications added to the talk page for Charles Jacobs (political activist) in the section added by JN on "reconciling pages": Charles Jacobs Talk. Thanks. --NYScholar 02:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm repeating the material that I added there below: The current version of this article now cites A Brief History of CAMERA", which makes clear that Charles Jacobs neither founded nor co-founded CAMERA. CAMERA has a single founder, Winifred Meiselman, identified as such in its account of its own history. Apparently, Jacobs' involvement with CAMERA began after the founding of the Boston chapter in 1988 by Andrea Levin, its executive director (head); he became the "deputy director" of the Boston chapter, which, after the retirement of "Win" Meiselman, the founder of CAMERA, became the national headquarters, etc.; Levin (not Jacobs) succeeded Meiselman. See W's article on CAMERA for more information as well. --NYScholar 02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are the relevant passages quoted from that "Brief History of CAMERA" just linked above and in the notes to the article:

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, or CAMERA, was founded in Washington, DC in 1982 by Winifred Meiselman, a teacher and social worker. Mrs. Meiselman formed CAMERA to respond to the Washington Post’s coverage of Israel’s Lebanon incursion, and to the paper’s general anti-Israel bias. Joining CAMERA’s Executive Board in the early days were such prominent Washington-area residents as Saul Stern and Bernard White. Win also recruited an Advisory Board which included Senators Rudy Boschwitz and Charles Grassley, Congressman Tom Lantos, journalist M. Stanton Evans, Ambassador Charles Lichenstein, Pastor Roy Stewart, and Rabbi David Yellin.

Under Win’s leadership CAMERA created chapters in major cities, including New York, Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and in 1988 a Boston chapter and office, founded and led by Andrea Levin. Ms. Levin had taught English in inner city Philadelphia, and later served as associate editor of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

CAMERA opens Boston chapter (click for full size). [photo on site]

In 1989, CAMERA took a large step forward with a highly successful conference organized by the Boston chapter: “The Media, The Message and The Middle East.” The event galvanized public interest concerning the media’s power to sway public opinion on Middle East policy – and the potential harm of distorted coverage. Held at Boston’s Park Plaza Hotel, the conference drew an overflow crowd of more than 1000 attendees, and featured such well-known speakers as Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary Magazine, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Professors Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University, Ruth Wisse of McGill University, Jerrold Auerbach of Wellesley, and David Wyman of UMass Amherst. Joining these speakers were Ms. Levin, who documented the Boston Globe’s bias against Israel, and the Boston chapter’s Deputy Director, Charles Jacobs, who critiqued a biased teacher’s guide which accompanied a PBS documentary.

. . . . In 1991 Ms. Meiselman retired due to health problems, and leadership of the organization passed to Ms. Levin. The Boston chapter became the national – and eventually the only – office of CAMERA, as the local chapters were allowed to reincorporate separately or to close. (Notably, the San Francisco chapter, headed by entrepreneur Gerardo Joffe, became FLAME, Facts and Logic about the Middle East, and exists to this day.)

A 1991 letter to CAMERA members signed by Ms. Levin and by Win Meiselman, CAMERA's Founder (click for full size).[Photo on site]

Under Ms. Levin’s leadership CAMERA’s membership grew within a few years from 1000 to over 20,000, and now numbers over 55,000, and besides the Boston headquarters the organization also has offices in Washington, DC, New York, Chicago, and Israel. . . . (bold print added)

--NYScholar 02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[Please add new discussion sections above the section for "Notes." Thanks. --NYScholar 02:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)]

Cleanup

The parenthetical reference -- (See Some examples of commentary and critique relating to CAMERA) -- unnecessarily clutters the page. The section being linked to is found immediately below the link! It is in effect a hyperlink to the next sentence. I've removed the sentence. Gni 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear spin verifiability

The entry states:

Similarly, in August 2006, Nuclear Spin presented CAMERA as "a Boston based powerful ultra-right pro-Israel lobby group that tries to suppress criticism of Israel on US media. It uses its financial and political clout to force media elements to tow Israel's party line." (That text was deleted from its database in September 2006.)[17]

Two questions: 1) Is it appropriate to point to a statement that has been withdrawn for reasons unknown? and 2) Does the statement meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirement since the assertion is not published? Gni 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Addressing only the latter, presuming that it was published, even if it was later removed from the site, I imagine that it can be verified through the Internet Archive (have you tried?). - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried www.nuclearspin.org on the "wayback machine," to no avail. I plan to remove the seeminglyh unverifiable reference to this particular critique unless someone can verify it. I'll wait a few days to give an opportunity to verify/respond. Gni 20:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Somewhere along the way, the lead sentence must have, maybe not, been moved down in the article. The first sentence should summarize the article. As it stood, the lead sentence said they are in Boston? If folks want to tweek the lead sentence, fine, but lets give the reader a good summary in the first sentence. Thanks and Cheers.--Tom 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed material that was unsourced. It seems that we should keep the lead sentence(s) as simple and sourcable as possible. There is some debate on how to handle all these sites that have agendas to promote. The other site is If Americans Knew. Anyways --Tom 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

The recent set of edits have reverted to a version with broken mediawiki markup, and more importantly, that is full of unsourced anti-CAMERA critique. That you feel this entry is "biased for CAMERA" is a reason to see what other users think, and not to 'balance' it with your own complaints. Perhaps we can stop the revert-warring now? Tewfik^Talk 21:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So the fact that all criticism on this article is reduced to one piece by the Washington Post doesn't bother anyone. This is deleting valid criticism and attempting to biased the article in CAMERAS FAVOR. Why do organizations like this always get off so easy on wikipedia, but organizations like CAIR get accused of terrorism.annoynmous 22:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's easy enough to answer-- it is because CAIR is accused of terrorism. (by Steve Emerson et al)

Well, it bothers me if "all criticism is reduced to one piece". However, you can't cite dead links as evidence I'm afraid, because we only have your word for it that the link said what you claim it did. If you want to add more criticism, fine, but you will have to find active links or other refs that conform to WP:RS. Gatoclass 16:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It does seem that criticisms of CAMERA were removed under questionable circumstances. It's certainly not hard to find cites to FAIR's criticism of CAMERA. Here's one example: "Those Aren't Stones, They're Rocks: The pro-Israel critique of Mideast coverage (March/April 2001) By Seth Ackerman". I'll put that back in as soon as the article becomes unprotected. --John Nagle 06:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs some reference to questionable motives

This article is laughably missing any criticism. This is particularily odd when compared with organisations such as "If Americans Knew". IFK is functionally "patriotic", whereas CAMERA's motivations are questionable, apparently seeking to put the interests of Israel ahead of those of the US. How come the former is treated as if it's motives were questionable, whereas this organisation is not? PalestineRemembered 17:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a more neutral lead which discusses the way CAMERA is cited within the media. It may still make sense to make a represenative and attributed criticism section. --68.72.37.26 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be too much for the lead paragraph. Also, realize that this is a highly controversial article, and if you're going to edit it, it's best to register a Wikipedia account. --John Nagle 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I shortened the lead as you suggested. My username and password are buried somewhere and rather then retrieve them I usually just edit on the fly since the main point of an account is supposed to be greater anonymity. Since this is a highly controversial article, I'll try to keep your concern in mind and find my info for the future.. --68.72.37.26 17:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

what's wrong with wikipedia

Is this article very encyclopedic? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the bulk of the article is a list of quotes...and it's not like the quotes say anything new about CAMERA; the opening two lines pretty much cover it. It seems the article was written by someone who loves CAMERA, edited by someone who hates them, then back, etc. The result is sections names like 'Some examples of commentary and critique relating to CAMERA,' chances for people to put up their favorite or most hated aspects of the group while giving us no better understanding of them (Except that they hate all media except Fox News, apparently.).

In my opinion, it's articles like this that drag down Wikipedia's credibility (and there are a LOT of them). People put up very POV stuff on both sides then try to make it look NPOV. No hate to anyone who wrote this, really; maybe this would be better suited for Wikiquote. Not sure what other people think, maybe I'm completely off base, but I would delete everything after 'Structure and Staff.' Maybe write something like 'CAMERA has criticized, among other groups, NPR and Encarta for their coverage of Israel' and cram it in the history section...okay, I'm done.

--Marco Passarani (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Marco, I tend to agree with your sentiments and see it as something broader and approaching systematic bias. I appreciate your NPOV eye, and please keep your eyes open. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cameralogo.jpg

Image:Cameralogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

NPR/Dvorkin

Another mention from Jeffrey A. Dvorkin here. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Commentary and Critique Section -- deck should not be stacked

Is this a joke?? The deck should not be stacked for positive, or for negative comments about CAMERA.

It goes from this:

• Positive:

Professor Alan M. Dershowitz, of the Harvard University Law School, presented a speech praising the work of CAMERA to a conference on "The Media, the Message, and the Middle East," convened by CAMERA at the Park Plaza Hotel, in Boston, Massachusetts, on October 29, 1989.[14]

Nearly two decades later, after finding on CAMERA a "news story" that he had had initial difficulty "locat[ing]," former Mayor of New York City Ed Koch describes CAMERA as "one source you can rely on when it comes to keeping track of news stories on the Middle East. . . ."[15]

More recently, in his April 6, 2006 "Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt 'Working Paper," entitled "Debunking the Newest – and Oldest – Jewish Conspiracy," Dershowitz cites Alex Safian's "Study Decrying 'Israel Lobby' Marred by Numerous Errors" posted on CAMERA for support five times.

• Negative:

In the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs — an organization that CAMERA claims "promotes a virulently anti-Israel position"[16] — Mitchell Kaidy writes that "CAMERA depicts Middle East issues in black and white, with no gray areas of doubts or complexity. According to CAMERA, Muslims are the villains, because they are Muslim; they hate Jews because they are Jewish. Have historians therefore been consistently wrong in concluding that Islam, which honors many Hebrew prophets, has been more tolerant of Jews than Christians have been? CAMERA thinks so."[17]

To this:

• Positive:

Former Mayor of New York City Ed Koch described CAMERA as "one source you can rely on when it comes to keeping track of news stories on the Middle East. . . ."[19]

• Negative:

In the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Mitchell Kaidy writes that "CAMERA depicts Middle East issues in black and white, with no gray areas of doubts or complexity. According to CAMERA, Muslims are the villains, because they are Muslim; they hate Jews because they are Jewish. Have historians therefore been consistently wrong in concluding that Islam, which honors many Hebrew prophets, has been more tolerant of Jews than Christians have been? CAMERA thinks so."[20]

Mitchell Kaidy writes in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs — which CAMERA claims "promotes a virulently anti-Israel position" — that "national president" of CAMERA "[Andrea] Levin . . . indicts the National Geographic, Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East, Webster’s New World Encyclopedia and even the Encyclopædia Britannica for 'unabashed inventions', and 'mutilations of fact'. She offers no documentation or authority for these attacks. . . . Levin urges CAMERA supporters to 'make a point to visit bookstores . . . and to note the lineup of books and periodicals available on the Middle East.' If they find works by Noam Chomsky or Edward Said 'posing as Middle East experts,' they should 'talk to the manager.' . . . CAMERA promotes even more aggressive tactics against university libraries. The publication CAMERA on CAMPUS has advocated that students scour campus libraries for 'offensive' books, and pressure universities to remove them."[21]

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) — "the largest liberal media watchdog" according to Michael Scherer in the Columbia Journalism Review — describes CAMERA as "media criticism from the right-wing of the Israeli political spectrum."[22] Similarly, in August 2006, Nuclear Spin presented CAMERA as "a Boston based powerful ultra-right pro-Israel lobby group that tries to suppress criticism of Israel on US media. It uses its financial and political clout to force media elements to tow Israel's party line." (That text was deleted from its database in September 2006.)[23]

Writing about attempts by CAMERA to get a local Pasadena, California church to cancel an appearance by Palestinian activist Reverend Naim Ateek, Rob Eshman, Editor-in-Chief of The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, writes "I'm always leery when Jewish groups ride in from out of town to try to save us from the bad guys. We have plenty of sharp-eyed Jewish defense groups locally who can tussle on our behalf. It's just a bit condescending to think we rubes, out in America's second-largest Jewish city, don't know how and when to fight. Or whom."[24]

I will therefore put back in some of the positive comments which were removed, and remove some of the negative comments which were put in. If anyone has any other suggests, do feel free to offer them up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.135.162 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've removed the following passage from the intro section. Criticism belongs in the comments and critiques section. If people insist that the criticism should stay in the intro, it would seem only fair for that to be balanced by positive commentary in the intro.

News media cite CAMERA as an advocate of Israel and discuss the organization's mobilisation for the support of Israel in the form of full-page ads in newspapers , organizing demonstrations, and encouraging sponsor boycotts. Critics of CAMERA call its "non-partisan" claims into question and define its alleged biases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.135.162 (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to make substantial POV-related changes to a controversial article, please register for a Wikipedia account. Otherwise, this looks like a sockpuppet account. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Even the Koch quote is pushing it. The full quote is: "I read the New York City newspapers every day. It happens that when the apology appeared, I was having my annual medical tests and did not see it. When back in my office, I recalled the incident and looked for the news story, but could not locate it. There is, however, one source you can rely on when it comes to keeping track of news stories on the Middle East — CAMERA — Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. CAMERA did indeed have both of Ricks’ statements, which are enclosed." So Koch is praising CAMERA for its tracking and search capabilities (currently powered by Google), not for the accuracy of its statements. --John Nagle (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hail Google. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, your suggestion that Koch is praising CAMERA because it allows people to use google to search the CAMERA website doesn't really make that much sense. Nobody is saying that he specifically cited "the accuracy of its statements. Or, for that matter, the web design, the clever titles, or anything other specific. The article is relaying, verbatum, what is clearly praise by Koch. Gni (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly "praise" from the NYTimes (and the quote is doctored)

I'm sorry but how exactly is the following "praise?"

The New York Times has characterized CAMERA as "temperate" and as a "muscular pro-Zionist media monitor."

first of all, the Times never calls CAMERA "temperate", it discusses in the next sentence "Less temperate groups on each side..." so please let's not doctor quotes to give a false importance to a source; secondly, the Times is referring to how groups discuss the Times, which hardly characterizes the Times as offering some NPOV praise (but you'd never know from the Wikipedia version) and finally, how on Earth is "the muscular pro-Zionist media monitor" a term of praise." Would "the muscular pro-terrorist media monitor" be a term of praise, or "the muscular pro-eggplant media monitor." Please, anon, don't revert back in without addressing this. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dershowitz praise

I tagged this recently as needing a source. If anyone can provide one, please do; I'll wait a few days and lacking a WP:RS, I'll remove the entry. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion of this subject above Gni (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I looked. Do you have a WP:RS for Dershowitz praising this group? Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There's now a link. Gni (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA website testimonials. Pretty weak sources. Boodlesthecat (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It seems to be a perfectly legit source. Gni (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak if these claims have received no coverage other than on CAMERA's website. And one can assume Dershowitz was paid to appear, yes? Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"is pro-Israel" vs. "cited as pro-Israel"

Nagle,

As its name shows (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), CAMERA’s explicit mission to be fair and impartial. Therefore, to label it pro-Israel or pro- anything is an accusation of hypocrisy, an accusation presented as an accepted fact. Such accusations belong under the criticisms section, not in the lead paragraph summarizing the story. This is a general rule followed throughout Wikipedia.

Take for example the opening paragraph (below) of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs article, the organization of Mitchell Kaidy, the major critic cited in the CAMERA article.

"The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs states that it does not take partisan domestic political positions, and that as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242´s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents. According to its web-site, the Washington Report 'supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination, and fair play.'"[1]

This paragraph basically repeats the organization’s explicit mission statement. To be consistent with the treatment of CAMERA, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs should be labeled “anti-Israel” in the opening paragraph. But to follow this practice throughout would cause Wikipedia to collapse.

Every organization that deals with political topics is accused of bias. And these accusations should be aired, but under the criticisms section. But we’re not going to open the article on the New York Times or CNN with accusations of bias by conservatives. There is a time and place for everything. The opening paragraph is not the place.Jamesegarner (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, perhaps we should discuss this here before further revisions to the first sentence. (i.e., I'll leave your undo alone so as to avoid a revert war until, hopefully, we can get this sorted out.)

It seems clear that the latter option in the above headline is more accurate, and more NPOV than the former. Yes, we now have to citations of journalists labeling CAMERA pro-Israel. We surely can find more. But what this means is that "News media cite CAMERA as an advocate of Israel," as the second sentence rightly asserts. It does not necessarily mean that they "are" pro-Israel. That said, it seems that the appropriate way to have the opening here is to remove the redundant "is pro-Israel" and leave the "cited as pro-Israel" portion of the opening, with whatever citations we need there. Gni (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post and the Jewish Journal (LA) say they're "pro-Israel". Those are reasonably reliable sources for whether an organization supports Israel. It's not as if only their opponents say they're pro-Israel. Here's another cite: "How You Can Help Israel", a list of pro-Israel organizations from the Orthodox Union. CAMERA is on the list. What more do you want? --John Nagle (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, c'mon, this is silly. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

None of this addresses my point above, but all of it wonderfully support the second paragraph's assertion that "News media cite CAMERA as an advocate of Israel," which actually is NPOV and should certainly satisfy you since it conveys the info you want out there. I find it extremely interesting, Nagle, that you weighed in on this exact same type of controversy apropos of If Americans knew by saying on their discussion page:

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)

How is it that you find this somewhat more nuanced, equivocal description appropriate for an organization that's virulently anti-Israel and blatently pro-Palestinian, while you at the same time insist on putting a black and white POV -- even if it's a pov that the Orthodox Union shares with you -- in the lede of this article? Let's be consistent. All that aside, it is redundant to twice convey this same concept in the first two paragraphs. I will change it back pending further discussion -- note that the "pro-Israel" comment in the lede was inserted by an anonymous user without any discussion. (Actually, looking again I notice it is doubly redundant. The initial paragraph also says that the organization was founded "to respond to perceived anti-Israel bias in The Washington Post." This, combined with the "news media cite" comment is more than enough to convey your point with NPOV statements.) Gni (talk), 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, changed to "generally pro-Israel" in the lede. Please don't remove citations. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Additions to History section

The following are the full passages from Rubenberg, concerning edits to the history section:

<Cheryl A. Rubenberg: Israel and the American National Interest: A Critical Examination, University of Illinois Press, 1986. ISBN 0-252-06074-1> Rubenberg, p.339

Another pro-Israeli organization that was formed after 1982 to monitor the media is the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA).

Rubenberg, p.353-54,

The term “Israeli lobby” loosely refers to the approximately thirty-eight major Jewish groups that concern themselves with Israel and with influencing US Middle East policy to serve the interests of the Jewish state. (Since the 1982 war in Lebanon, there has been a proliferation of new groups, in addition to the thirty-eight, such as ASFI, CAMERA, and others.) Only one of these organizations is registered as a lobby --- the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It is of interest to note that AIPAC is registered as a domestic, not a foreign, lobby, having been exempted from the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)