Talk:Canary Mission

Le Monde

In what world is removing what Le Monde Diplomatique says a BLP action? Explain that abuse of process or this goes somewhere like ANI or AE. nableezy - 21:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Canary_Mission_and_Adam_Milstein nableezy - 21:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a RfC open on this issue in the BLP's bio. Le Monde Diplomatique merely describes the content of a leaked doco which was not published - being canned by AJ.Icewhiz (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the RFC is open on an EI source and including it in the lead of the bio. You cannot just blank reliable sources because you dislike what they said. Also both uninvolved editors at BLP/N agreed this material is not a BLP violation. nableezy - 15:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. There is a pending RfC, and it is far from going in the direction you desire, and in fact since RfCs require a clear consensus to add disputed material in BLPs you are in breach of it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The RFC is on using Electronic Intifida in the lead of a BLP. It is emphatically not on faithfully reporting what Le Monde Diplomatique and JTA have reported anywhere else. nableezy - 18:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The RfC is on whether the text is to be used, period. The person initiating the RfC cited four policies, principally UNDUE which is unrelated to sourcing, and the subsequent commenters (beginning with Icewhiz) were fully aware of the Le Monde Diplomatique op-ed. It had no impact on the RfC and did not make it "obsolete" or void or any other such rubbish. Coretheapple (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it very clearly says that EI reference in that lead, and I brought the Le Monde Diplomatique article, note not an op-ed as you dishonestly claim here, after the RFC was started, indeed after Icewhiz commented there, making that two false claims by you in one comment. I really dont know why you insist on distorting these things. nableezy - 19:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not responding to personal attacks anymore so as to perpetuate this circular and useless discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no personal attack there, it is a fact that the RFC statement clearly discusses text in the lead attributed to EI and Haaretz. You say otherwise. Icewhize clearly cast his vote prior to the Le Monde Diplomatique's article being brought to the talk page. Also a fact. This game of crying personal attack when your argument is shown to be false is quite tiresome. nableezy - 19:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

My !vote in the RfC takes into account Le Diplo's reporting on the canned doco via EI - I did not update my !vote as reporting on the canned video does not addreas the reliability issues. There is absolutely no need to call other editors liars.Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The very first time the Le Monde Diplomatique article was raised on that talk page is 22:20, 11 September 2018. Your vote was at 13:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Would you care to explain how exactly the statement the subsequent commenters (beginning with Icewhiz) were fully aware of the Le Monde Diplomatique op-ed is plausible much less true? And if it is not plausible, that would make it what, a false claim, correct? Is there any instance on this talk page of anybody saying the word lie or liar besides you? Yeah, didnt think so. nableezy - 21:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I, as well as any other editor following BLP/n and RS/n, am well aware of the Le Diplo coverage. This is furthermore self evident as I have responded [1] to your assertions regarding Le Diplo on the RfC's discussion section. Thus, it is not a false claim to say I was fully aware of Le Diplo's coverage of the canned dogo from circa 11 Sep.Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you are now aware. You however were not, as it had never once been mentioned at the time, and would not be for several hours. That is the false claim I was referring to. Again, I really dont see why this needs to be distorted anyway. nableezy - 22:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

So what? And what is the relevancy of this to anything? Coretheapple (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You claimed it was a personal attack to say that was a false statement. It wasnt, that was all. nableezy - 22:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

npov

The suppression of what has been covered extensively in reliable sources violates NPOV. The list of articles that cover Milstein being accused of being the founder and his denial ranges from Le Monde Diplomatique to Tablet to JTA to Haaretz. It is absurd that it is censored here. nableezy - 15:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This is disruptive. We have a BLP/n and RS/n discussion on this. Consensus has not emerged there to support your position. Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ill open another RFC where the issue is not obfuscated in due time. It is not disruptive to alert readers to an effort to censor material that is widely reported. nableezy - 15:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

If there is lack of editor consensus to include (or consensus to exclude) information on WP:V or WP:BLP grounds - a tag is unwarranted. Tags are meant to open discussions - they are not meant for use in situations that have been resolved. Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No, a lack of consensus is exactly a reason to include a tag. This has very much not been resolved. Again, I will be opening a new RFC to address the issues, issues that have repeatedly been distorted with outright false claims about the sourcing involved. nableezy - 16:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Mirror site

In regards to this revert, while Wikipedia is not and should not be a Canary mission mirror site, when Canary's activities receive wide and diverse coverage (e.g. in this case, Newsweek, Times of Israel, JPost and a whole bunch of other media outlets) - then placing a small snippet in our article is more than DUE. Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment and add that your insertion about someone entirely non-notable is just trivia. Zero^talk 22:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSes disagree - e.g. CBS, Fox, NBC. The not too notable (though they may be moving out of 1E territory - and I will note that the event of Firing of Lara Kollab probably would pass standalone event notability) resident is not an issue - it seems that RSes are focusing on the public health perspective/threat - Canary preventing the employment of medical staff that stated they would "Jews 'wrong meds'". So unless your trivia assertion is based on some policy based rationale, we follow the sources. Icewhiz (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It will be forgotten in no time and is a perfect example of why we have WP:NOTNEWS. Zero^talk 08:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

So far this has been covered much more widely (including international non-English coverage) than most of the other incidents/details in the page - per WP:WEIGHT this should be included. Public safety and health issues tend to be well covered. Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we use Canary Mission in some way at Francis Boyle?

@Icewhiz, Zero0000, Nableezy, and Coretheapple:IBoyle's lead describes him as "a staunch supporter of the rights of indigenous peoples and Palestinians." Canary Mission's page on him has a rather different take.[2] Doug Weller talk 12:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

More of a question for RSN or Boyle. Despite some editorial disagreement on Canary's own POV, Canary itself is generally meticulously accurate in information it collects on individuals - particularly well published information. Boyle's article doesn't properly reflect the significance of him publishing on Veterans Today who character was covered by the SPLC. At the very least, the Canary profile (all hyperlinked to other sources) raises several red flags worth pursuing - finding corroborating sources that may have commented on them. Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

e.g. the moment I saw he was writing for VT on Canary, I made a search for "Francis Boyle"+Conspiracy and got to a mention in - 2014 in conspiracy theories, Telegraph. Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: it is, but I thought I'd ask people here first who know more about it than I do. And who knows, some of them might be interested in the Boyle article. :-) Doug Weller talk 16:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No, not even a little bit. If they have sources for their material that are reliable then those sources could be used, but this isnt even a reliable source for things not covered by BLP. Canary Mission meets none of the requirements of RS, it is so far below that bar I am seriously surprised that the comment above this was not a single worded "no". generally meticulously accurate? Where are you pulling that one from? Canary Mission has been called a McCarthyite group that engages in slander. “Canary Mission information is often neither reliable, nor complete, nor up to date,” said Israeli human rights attorney Emily Schaeffer Omer-Man. It is nowhere close to an acceptable source, especially in a BLP. An actual reliable source lists its source of funding, who its editors are, what editorial control they have, they publish corrections. Canary Mission does none of that. nableezy - 16:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Omer-Man represents plaintiffs barred entry at border control due to Canary reports - which is a rather strong indication of Canary's reliability. Funding of a source is immaterial (and often unavailable). "McCarthyite" does not mean inaccurate. Per Canary's website they have strong editorial controls and an ethics policy. However, for high-profile individuals most of the stuff on Canary is available in NEWSORGs - Canary merely provides a convenient compilation of such reports. Icewhiz (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)