Talk:Judicial Watch

Old uncategorized discussions

They're supposed to have put the video on their web site, but the site's totally down. Anyone aware of mirrors that would be suitable to put in External Links? Mbac 17:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, before someone makes the edit to the factual statements on the page, has any one actually seen this video?, I know I certainly have not..... (66.65.153.248 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

BBC has the video on their website [1]. Edwin Stearns | Talk 19:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm changing the description in the article. I dhave no clue what that video shows. All it is is the Pentagon security camera footage from the morning of 9/11. It is leading to state what occurs in the video in the description. (ImagoDei 20:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

I've watched both videos. They are apparently the two cameras at a drive-through security gate. You can even see a security car pass through. One camera is closer, but is partially blinded by lens flare from the sun. The second camera presumably includes the "housing" for the closer camera in its wider view. Since these are both security cameras, they apparently only record a few frames (if not ONE frame) per second, which is unfortunate. The "object" appears in both videos for ONE frame. Frame (01:26 / 03:11) in Video 1 and frame (00:24 / 03:22) in Video 2. It appears to be white. It appears to be nearly touching the ground. That's about all I can say about the two videos. Not very convincing. Judicial Watch's goal was to dispel conspiracy theories about what hit the Pentagon, but these videos really do not help their cause. I have serious doubts this is the best video the Pentagon has. --LPsiPhi 04:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

On reviewing (12/26/2006) Judicial Watch submissions on YouTube.com regarding the Pentagon 9/11 Flight 77 impact, I was struck by the fact that this group which espouses "openness of information" would disable the ability of other users to submit comments, as per usual YouTube practice, either to support or to question Judicial Watch conclusions and inferences. In the larger context of alleged US government infiltration by New World Order factions, I strongly urge all USA and international viewers to closely scrutinize all so-called "think tanks" for the ways in which they distribute information and/or disinformation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Codevictim (talk • contribs)

Wording

My editorial change was to conform introductory description to Judicial Watch's own mission statement. Undoing it as an act in retaliation to my edit work on the ACLU is a violation of WP:POINT. You can make your case here without doing so. If the ACLU's self-described purpose is good enough for the ACLU article, so too the Judicial Watch self-described purpose is sufficient for this article on Judicial Watch. C08040804 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusing me of the same thing you did on the ACLU article won't get you anywhere. What you did was rip out an entire section. What I did was restore a citation you deleted and incorporate your changes in the intro while fixing them to insure proper reference formatting and copyright compliance. That's proper Wikipedia editing, and accusing me of malfeasances for fixing your mistakes is a non-starter. Gamaliel (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you restored a citation, but it is a citation to the Nation, a publication that does not have a neutral point of view and is hostile to Judicial Watch. What you did was restore the introductory sentence of this article offering the Nation's description of Judicial Watch. If I changed the introductory sentence of the ACLU article to offer the National Review's description of the ACLU and then cited to a National Review article, you'd be all over me for non-neutral point of view. Your claim of a copyright problem is also a non-starter. Rather than have a continual battle, why don't we agree to put the introductory paragraph of Judicial Watch on the same playing field as the ACLU--that is, just as the intro paragraph of the ACLU describes the ACLU in accordance with the ACLU's web page, so to the Judicial Watch's introductory paragraph should describe Judicial Watch in accordane with the Judicial Watch's webpage. Why is this not reasonable? C08040804 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You may find it amusing to parrot phrases I use back at me, but you might want to first make sure what you are saying actually makes sense. I clearly identified the copyright problem to you. When you take words from other sources, you must put them in quotation marks, otherwise you are passing it off as your own writing and thus it is plagiarism and a copyright violation. I took the time to fix the mess you made and there was no need for you to remove the work I did (as well as the references I corrected) other than blind, thoughtless reverting. We take such policy violations very seriously on Wikipedia, and if you continue to make these sorts of edits, you will be reverted, and if you persist, you will be blocked. While I think I've pretty clearly pointed out to you what the problem was, if you really don't understand, ask instead of insisting there is no problem, and I will assist you. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the content of the article, I've made a minor change which I think will satisfy your concerns. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The changes that you made still leave the very opening phrase of the article describing Judicial Watch according to an editorial in the Nation, a publication that does not have a neutral point of view and is hostile to Judicial Watch. Accordingly, I have removed the reference. C08040804 (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You initially complained about the placement in the initial sentence and the initial paragraph. I moved the reference from both of those locations. Now you want to delete it entirely. This is not acceptable. The Nation qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia policies and what is taken from the source is a simple statement of fact, cooberated by other statements and sources in the article, and not an ideological judgment. Also, note that you've by removing the reference and making no effort to fix the <ref> tags dependent on that reference, you've broken reference links later in the article. See Wikipedia:Footnotes before you remove references in this or other articles again. Gamaliel (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is neutral point of view, not reliable source. A critical liberal editorial in The Nation does not qualify as a Neutral Point of View in describing Judicial Watch any more than National Review would qualify as a Neutral Point of View in describing the ACLU. It is not a simple statement of fact just because the Nation said it. The phrase "American government watchdog organization" ideologically implies that the organization is somehow connected to the government. Using the Wikipedia:Footnotes policy to justify inclusion of information in the very first paragraph that comes from a non neutral point of view goes against the very heart of what Wikipedia is all about. If you continue to make these sorts of edits, I will definitely report you and take you to arbitration if necessary. C08040804 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if your problem has been with the phrase "American government watchdog organization", then why didn't you say so earlier. I have no problem altering that phrase, and I think it's kind of awkwardly phrased anyway. I am not using the footnotes policy to "justify" anything, I'm telling you that you are breaking the footnotes and you need to fix them or you need to stop breaking them. Gamaliel (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem is not simply the phrase "American government watchdog organization", but all references to the Nation's non-neutral point of view in the basic portions of the article describing the organization and its personnel. I am working on some changes and will endeavor to fix the footnotes in doing so. This will also involve editing the personnel and/or creating a policy section so it is described according to Judicial Watch's website--similar to how the introduction and policy sections of the ACLU is described in the ACLU's own words, not the words of its critics. Of course, I do not have a problem with putting separate criticism sections in the Judicial Watch article citing to the Nation editorial, provided they are labeled as such and cite reliable sources, just as I think a criticism section in the ACLU article would also be appropriate. C08040804 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but the statement sourced to The Nation is not "criticism", but a simple statement of fact. Gamaliel (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the statements attributed to the Nation are not simple statements of fact just because you and the Nation say so. C08040804 (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Klayman founded Judicial Watch in 1994.", which you removed from the article, is not a simple statement of fact? The Nation is a reliable source according to Wikipedia policies. You must come up with a similarly reliable source to dispute this information, you simply can't declare I don't like it. I agree with some of the changes (we don't need the key personnel bios, for example), but you have removed too much and I'm going to restore some of it in a different fashion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to deploy inapplicable warning templates or revert my edits. My edits contained factual information from a reliable source. There is no justification for removing them. I have made every effort to accommodate your wishes and suggestions, many of which were reasonable, but you simply can't delete information because you don't like it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the circumstance, I'm inclined to agree with Gamaliel. It appears that C08040804 is more bothered by The Nation, not the content of the article itself. Every time his concern is addressed, it morphs into something else. I don't see the discussion moving forward from here... just seems more disruptive than productive. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

funding

Its mentioned in both the lead in a subsection and is all attributed to one less than neutral source. Could this be combined, or could the entire funding section be eliminated or at least rewritten? CENSEI (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the first funding mention is directly tied to the specific project the group remains best known for, it makes sense to leave it there, as well as have a funding section. However, funding probably should come after activities, and those should be chronological. Carol Moore 11:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Removing

Obviously not NPOV statement "It should be noted that the Judicial Watch does not present facts, but uses inductive reasoning. The website does not always give sources for quotes, and is obviously not bipartisan."

Gtbob12 (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)