Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/If Americans Knew

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	If Americans Knew
Status	closed
Request date	18:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	StN (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Parties involved	Unknown
Mediator(s)	Ltwin (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment	case closed, issue unresolved

Mediation Case: 2009-01 If Americans Knew

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Where's the dispute?

If Americans Knew

What's the dispute?

This article concerns an organization that is critical of Israel's policies. A group of editors persists in adding to the lead allegations by a group called CAMERA (without citing it as such, but linking to the allegations later in the same article). There is no dispute about including CAMERA's allegations in the article itself, since there is opportunity there to include citations concerning the discrediting of CAMERA's charges by independent sources, and CAMERA's biased campaign to remove materials critical of Israel from Wikipedia (Wikipedia campaign). The problem is, they want CAMERA's allegations to be part of the article's lead.StN (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Mediator notes

January 29- As of yesterday I have only had contact with two people. However, both seem to be open to some form of Proposal 2 (listed below). However, many details need to be worked out. The Requester would prefer that very little criticism be in the lead section, while another user will not except a general sentence recognizing that the organization is controversial. So at this point, I think our greatest hope is trying to reach for something about where Prop 2 is.

February 15- Per request of Flawfixer, I have contacted WP:Mediation Cabal requesting assistance and alternative mediation. To let everyone know, I am not going to stop assisting in finding consensus. I believe all my efforts here have been appropriate, however, I recognize that my efforts to maintain the integrity of the mediation process may have inadvertently compromised that mission. Ltwin (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

February 17- Closed with no resolution. Comments given below at Status of mediation.

Comments, concerns, discussion

Feel free to leave comments on the process here! Ltwin (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for compromise

• Proposal 1:IronDuke how important is this for you? Would you be willing to accept not having criticism in the lead, as long as it is included in the body of the article? If not,
• Proposal 2:If IronDuke's proposal was in the lead, but was cited by a reliable source, other than the wikipedia article itself,and the lead also included information about IAK that would balance the critcism(for lack of a better term), would it be acceptable to everyone it may concern? The key being everything is written in a NPOV and balanced way. If not,
• Perhaps ideas could be articulated below in Questions for IronDuke and/or anyone else.

---

I'll just say re Proposal 1, that would not be the best way forward, I think. No one is really disputing there there should be criticism in the article, it's really about the lead. IronDuke 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, however, it was important for me see how committed you are to this. I realize this article has a tumultuous history. I spent last night and today reading the archives and talkpage discussions. They were very interesting. Alot of controversy. What do you think about Prop 2? Is that alright with you? Ltwin (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think Prop 2 would work. IronDuke 23:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions for IronDuke and/or anyone else

IronDukes proposal is below. To comment on IronDukes proposal list under his section. Anyone else with a proposal make their own section with their name so people can comment on your idea/proposal.

1. Anyone else beside IronDuke, what would you add to the lead? Can you give me an idea or model of what would be added?
2. Anyone, why shouldn't this be added?
3. Is there room for compromise on this?
4. Will this or any other proposal improve the article?
5. How necessary is this? How much support is there for keeping the lead the way it is? Ltwin (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

IronDukes proposal

• "The site and some of its members have been criticized for having a pronounced bias against Israel, employment of poor methodology to support that bias, as well as the use of antisemitic statements and motifs. The organization stands by its methodology."

IronDuke's sentence should not be added in my view, because the source is primarily CAMERA, and, as indicated in the talk page for this article and on the site for CAMERA, CAMERA itself makes unsupported allegations. These allegations can remain in the text of this article because there they can be accompanied by documented rebuttals. Putting the allegations in the lead provides undue weight to an unreliable source. Accompanying it with "The organization stands by its methodology" is absolutely no help. I edited IronDuke's statement when it was present to cite a newspaper article describing the controversy around CAMERA's campaign to remove statements critical of Israel from Wikipedia, but IronDuke removed it, even though that source is also cited later in the article. It appears that the goal of these edits is to indicate to the casual reader (i.e., someone who might only read the lead), that the organization (IAK) has been accused of reprehensible views and activities by a source that has not iself been so criticized. In fact, if you look at the preponderance of opinion from a variety of sources cited later in the article, and on the talk page, CAMERA's methods are much more questionable than IAK's. Quoting their opinion in the lead would be highly misleading.StN (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Since sources could likely be found to make accusations against IAK, as well as against Israel and its supporters, even if other sources than CAMERA could be found which criticize IAK, unless the critics of those sources are also mentioned in the lead, placing those criticisms upfront, unopposed except by IAK's denial, would only serve to make IAK look bad. That is why I think this is better reserved for the body of the article.StN (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't sourced primarily from CAMERA... there is also crit from the ADL, NYTimes, and San Jose Mercury News. How would you sum up everyone's criticism (and IAK's response) in the lead? IronDuke 23:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think there should be criticism in the lead (not taking sides, just asking questions)? Ltwin (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure... the reason I think it shoulud be in the lead is per WP:LEAD, e.g., "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." IAK is a controversial org, therefore it makes sense to discuss that up front, so that the lead could reasonably stand alone. As it stands now, it couldn't. IronDuke 23:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. Would you be willing, though, to amend your additions. For example, saying something like this "The site is generally critical of U.S. financial and military support of Israel, and this has created controversy." (This is not the final product, its just the beginning of an idea. Only the last part of the sentence in italics is new. The rest was already in the article.) Ltwin

Well, that implies that it is the site's criticism, rather than eg flawed methodology, that has caused controversy. IronDuke 00:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said its not final. It was just an idea. Of course it needs tweaking. What changes could make it work? Ltwin (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC) We could have a completely separate sentence, such as "Its (positions, statements, actions, or whatever) have attracted controversy." Followed by citations. Ltwin (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I appreciate the idea. I have some more thoughts, but I'm going to take a step back and let others weigh in with how they might like to see the crit incorporated into the lead. 01:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

StN, you implicated in your comment that a problem you had was that the criticism was coming from CAMERA. Since you fill CAMERA is not a reliable source you think it should not be cited. Am I right? So if the statement was tweaked and rephrased and sources found that could be considered reliable to you and IronDuke both that would help wouldn't it? Ltwin (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

An outside view

Not knowing whether I should contribute, I first looked at similar-type articles conveniently corralled here. Although the list is not comprehensive in the wider field of the I/P ‘narrative wars’, I note that criticism is missing from the lead in most (all?) cases, except for CAMERA. This would seem to consistently break WP:Lead within this group of potentially contentious articles; a good implementation of 'exceptions' for these generally short articles. At the same time, it seems to set a precedent with articles of this type within the I/P arena. Because these articles are what they are, and Wikipedia well knows the arena is what it is, I would venture that the lack of criticism in the lead is a more neutral approach and provides a better NPOV lede. This approach allows all sides to say what are/do in their own words, which is neutral and fair. The inclusion of a needed criticism section is undisputed.

That being the case, we can debate policy versus precedence and go on for ever. I would argue that there is a need to keep this precedent within this arena to limit wider occurrences of mediation. If policy rules, then the inclusion of criticism in the lede should be short, broad and vanilla. Something like ‘These views are criticized by pro-I (pro-P) supporters." In the end it’s vanilla-ness becomes meaningless and it is better handled in criticism, where it belongs. I suggest the status-quo in the narrative wars to limit an assortment of consistent problems. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Hopefully more people will share their views also. Ltwin (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

More than this needs to be addressed -- also ADL smears

I'm repeating some information that I also posted on the If Americans Knew discussion page, since it seems important to make sure it's part of the discussion.

It is odd that the page stalled for awhile with a version that included ADL libels without giving the facts that show them to be inaccurate. As was made clear on the talk page some time ago, the ADL claims do not bear up to scrutiny. Therefore they should either be removed or they should be clarified, as I have just done.

Second, it is inconsistent to have a page that includes criticism without also including validation, awards, and praise. It makes no sense to include one without the other -- especially since the latter is from established, respected, neutral groups -- eg Grade the News and the Phi Alpha Literary Society. Keeping the page in this condition is inappropriate. This also had been adequately discussed on the discussion page previously. I have added these to the page.

I wonder if people with a pro-Israel bias are once again trying to manipulate wikipedia For example, one person editing the page seems especially angry about Weir, where he wrote:

"After she spoke I was tempted to smash her computer. --Saxophonemn (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Litwin has asked me to revert the page to its previous pro-ADL smear status. This makes no sense.

It is against Wikipedia policy to repeat invalid statements against a living person. In fact, when it becomes clear that these smears are invalid, repeating them, without including the context showing them to be inaccurate, probably demonstrates malicious intent. Flawfixer (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your input. This specific dispute is about what will be in the lead. If people fill that the issues discussed here should extend to the other issues then thats fine with me. I think for now however, you are on the right track by citing your concerns on the talk page. Lets give the other users a chance to comment there before we extend the discussion here. Good day. Ltwin (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy and Balance

Ironduke has reverted the page without giving any explanation. If this is to be mediated then the page that stands during this period should not contain criticism sections that are not balanced by counter facts. Alternatively, put in the criticism with the countering facts. Either alternative makes sense. Just leaving the criticism -- particularly the ADL's inaccurate defamation of Weir -- is not acceptable and is not a compromise. It is a pro-Israel distortion.Flawfixer (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I did give an explanation. Can you say what other accounts you have used in the past? IronDuke 19:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok this back and forwards needs to stop

Please no matter who you are stop reverting. Either on this page or the talk page enter into a conversation with each other. Talk about what this article needs , what is nuetral. Also LISTEN instead of simply reverting. Why can't we come to some kind of agreement. Ltwin (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

Ltwin, I can suggest something to add in the lede, which may help the mediation. The current lede frames the article toward a view of how they are perceived, while skipping over what they do. This somewhat ‘cuts to the chase,’ and misses a main point. The present version appears to misrepresent IAK’s mission, with a ref to a specific ‘US Interests and Israel/Palestine’ page[1], rather that to their ‘Mission Statement’ page[2]. Their mission statement says in part: “[I]n any democracy, it is essential that its citizens be fully and accurately informed. The mission of If Americans Knew is to inform and educate the American public on issues of major significance that are unreported, underreported, or misreported in the American media.” This I believe, gives rise to the words shown on every page of its website, namely, ‘If Americans knew’ "what every American needs to know about Israel/Palestine." Properly including their real stated mission in the lede, would allow some discussion of what they do, namely ‘offering analysis of American media coverage of these issues’, [which they consider unreported, underreported, or misreported] and then can be more accurately criticized.

Under ‘Background’ or ‘Positions’ the editors should include some of IAK’s newspaper analyses, particularly those specifically included in ‘Criticism’ below. This might provide a reader with an understanding of what the criticism is all about, with technical criticism of their journalistic analyses. One of these points is the impact of headlines and positioning in the front pages versus more complete coverage the middle, where fewer readers care to look, but where their critics appear to scour every word, as indicated by the CAMERA ref.

Currently the criticism section includes quite pov’d words, which appear to cut to another chase; that of who might better report the news, rather than how it was specifically presented and analyzed; this seems rather off-topic. The San Jose Mercury News paragraph seems particularly flawed, given the refs. The first is the IAK ‘Report Card’ on SJMN’s coverage, which should properly be moved to an earlier section (an example of what they do). The second ref is from Grade the news[3], which reports the quoted "fundamentally flawed" term. This is the applicable passage from which the paragraph was constructed.

"If it has been documented that Israeli deaths were considered more newsworthy than Palestinian," commented Stanford Communication Prof. Shanto Iyengar, "that's prima facie evidence of bias." Not so, protested Daniel Sneider, who was foreign and national desk editor at the Mercury News during the study period. He refused to say why on the record. But Mr. Sneider called a similar study to ours, conducted by an organization called If Americans Knew, "fundamentally flawed." Grade the News replicated and expanded the study conducted by the Berkeley-based media monitor. Because we included Palestinian deaths implied by the term "suicide" in our totals, Grade the News showed slightly less imbalance than If Americans Knew. Otherwise, our counts matched theirs.

The current version appears to be a poor Wiki-presentation of what the RS says. I believe this paragraph should be re-written. Possibly, “Daniel Sneider, foreign and national desk editor at the San Jose Mercury News, protested that the IAK analysis was "fundamentally flawed," but refused to say why [or ‘elaborate’], when questioned by ‘Grade the news’. Additionally, I believe the same ref should be included above in an earlier section, to indicate that the IAK results have been replicated by another RS. This points directly toward IAK's reliability regarding their described methodology. It might also aid a neutral understanding to mention two recent books noted here; these academic sources also tend to support IAK’s views and are certainly noteworthy.

I can understand how difficult this mediation must be, especially when the points being criticized are not currently included. This too seems fundamentally flawed, but at least an explanation was attempted. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I can only add that Daniel Sneider's position as foreign and national desk editor at a local newspaper doesn't in itself make his private opinions notable enough for Wikipedia. Also, I find inclusion of ADL's criticism problematic, as basic fact checking makes it glaringly obvious that their accusation of anti-Semitism on Weir's part is a pure fabrication. The fact that the ADL has a well-documented history of levelling the same baseless accusation against other critics of Israel compounds the issue. Their claims are clearly not lead material. Re CasualObserver's suggestion, I concur, though I have no specific opinion how to word it. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion re the ADL is interesting. Can we cite it in the article? IronDuke 17:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Status of mediation

I've brought this subject up with StN and so I thought I'd bring it up here. I might be wrong about this, but there doesn't seem to be any interest in the initial reason for mediation here. People have seemed to move on. So unless the parties think that mediation should continue I'll probably close the case unresolved. Just wanted to let yall know. Ltwin (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's ok with me, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "lead" issue that spurred the request for mediation recurs in the future. NostradamusStN (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised either, considering that you abandoned the mediation you yourself initiated. IronDuke 20:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)