The article is missing a criticism section, hence the tag. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wrote to Alison Weir about casualty statistics. This is her reply:

Thank you for contacting us about this.

This allegation is quite false. If you'll go to our website, you'll see that we gather statisticson the number of people killed on both sides by the other -- we do not designate, on either side, which are civlians or which are combatants.

Since they were not killed by the other side, we do not include in this listing suicide bombers, or Israeli soldiers who commit suicide, (which actually exceed the number killed by Palestinians or any other cause: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/suicide.html)

Our statistics for deaths come from the Israeli human rights organization, B'tselem, (which, by the way, does not include suicide bombers among its statistics for deaths, which can easily be determined by going to its website, or by emailing them directly, which we do whenever we have questions about their numbers).

By the way, while we find B'Tselem an excellent source of information, it is quite likely that they, unintentionally, at times undercount somewhat the number of Palestinian deaths. In one of our studies, we saw the numbers on their website of Palestinian deaths go up by approximately 100 over the course of a few months, as they were able to confirm more deaths.

If you look at the Palestinian Red Crescent Society information -- also an excellent and reliable source -- you'll see that this organization often places the number of Palestinian deaths higher than B'Tselem's count, since PRCS (unlike B'Tselem) is located in the Palestinian territories themselves. We use B'Tselem, however, since this organization provides statistics on both Israeli and Palestinian casualties.

Incidentally, Front page is an extremely unreliable source for information. For example, when I saw the article you refer to, I attempted to correct their report immediately, by submitting the following letter. They never posted my correction on their website. I will paste my letter below.

Finally, I hope that this information will suggest to Wikipedia that it reconsider using contributions from the person who submitted such fallacious infromation.

Sincerely,

Alison Weir

Executive Director

If Americans Knew

http://www.ifamericansknew.org

310.441.8580

-- Viajero 21:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did you expect them to issue correction? B'Tselem is a controversial source and its numbers have been widely criticized. Both orgs are biased and they don't even hide it, but you present your article as if it is neutral, which of course it is not. You can't have it both ways. Either include criticism or POV tag. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have added a line indicating the sources for this groups casualty statistics. As I am sure you are aware, there is discussion about the validty of B'Tselem's stats in that article. As for the rest, just because the organization has a clear ideological orientation (it is indeed an advocacy group), does not mean by definition that this article is slanted, but I suspect this distinction is lost on you. In any case, I will agree to a POV tag in this article if you agree to a POV tag in, say, Anti-Defamation League and The New York Times. -- Viajero 11:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't reflect that "the organization has a clear ideological orientation" and "it is indeed an advocacy group". OTOH, the ADL article clearly states their agenda and a half of it is dedicated to criticism and controversies. I don't care about the NYT, it's not a part of my camarilla. Please refrain from violating WP policies concerning assuming good faith, ad hom attacks and POV tag removal. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Two wrongs make a right" is not a very strong argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ghettoizing criticism or controversy in a separate section is simply bad style. (Almost as bad as, say, a ==Trivia== or ==Miscellaneous facts== section, which I always try to eradicate.) It's usually better to integrate the facts behind the criticism into the article.

One could do that with FrontPage's criticism if it weren't so vague. The only piece I found on the IAK site which explicitly advocates the end of U.S. aid to Israel is an opinion piece by Charles L. Black, but that's just a reprint of something first published by the Jewish Committee on the Middle East. I can't find anything saying that a Palestinian state should replace Israel, but I can find advocacy for the two-state and one-state solutions.

However, since many of the opinion pieces on their site are compiled from work that was first printed in other sources, it's rather misleading to say that the organization itself advocates anything without reference to the primary source, which is fortunately only a click away.

Lastly, since IAK doesn't compile its own casualty statistics, but rather relies on other groups which are better-equipped to compile such numbers, FrontPage's complaint is more relevant to the articles on those other organizations. Simply say that they use statistics from this, that, and the other group, link to those articles, and put any discussion of casualty figures there. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 17:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The choice of articles promoted by the organization indicate what it advocates; I think it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True, but the writings represent a range of opinions. The general orientation of these opinions is obvious. However, picking one opinion out of that range (and another which is apparently not represented anywhere on the site, though I may have missed it), and to hold that up as the opinion of the organization, is equally disingenuous. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Under the Israel advocates make false claims if Americans knew is where I am disputing the neutrality. It actually favors if Americans knew which is anti Israeli propaganda.-Dendoi November 8, 2006 12:28 PM Template:NPOV

I disputed the neutrality here. That par tof the articcle is biased in favor for IfAmericansKnew which is also anti Israeli propaganda. It makes tha t myth that pro Isralei advocate s make false claims about that site.-Dendoi December 9, 2006 Saturday 10:36 AM

IfAmericans knew has no other source. When you click on view source, you stay on the same website. The part that I disputed the neutrality on, I am challenging that whole part of the article including it's accuracy.

This article did improve alot. One thing. The view source does not view any outside source. It only views another part of their own website.-Dendoi December, 12, 2006 Teusday 11:27 PM

I am still mad about before when this article was false accusations of pro Isralei advocates about ifAmericansknew. i will only stop if this article is saying the trut about how IfAmericansKnew sucks.-Dendoi Sunday December 24, 2006 5:47 PM

Wikipedia says that "Links normally to be avoided" include: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."

Therefore "Scholars for Terror" by Lee Kaplan and the CAMERA article need to removed, since both contain falacious material.

Lee Kaplan and David Horowitz, the founder of FrontPage Magazine, are well-known as zealots who defame and fabricate materials about people who are critical of Israeli actions. This article contains a number of inaccuracies.

I will address the most glaring ones:

1. First of all, the article only glancingly mentions If Americans Knew; why would it be considered an important external link? Out of 2,705 words it addresses 187 words, most of them maligning If Americans Knew founder Alison Weir. This is hardly a resource on If Americans Knew.

1. Despite the small amount of verbiate about If Americans Knew, Kaplan manages to write a number of errors. For example, he states that If Americans Knew says that "a Palestinian state should replace Israel." This is absolutely false.

2. Kaplan says: "the Web site’s statistics on Palestinian casualties include suicide bombers and armed combatants as “civilian casualties.”" This is absolutely false.

Weir sent a letter to the editor correcting these fabrications and other inaccuracies. The letter was never published or acknowledged.

3. Similarly, CAMERA is passionately pro-Israel. The article by Gilead Ini also contains numerous errors, among them:

4. Ini states that If Americans Knew: "described Palestinian terrorism as a "legitimate right and ... moral duty." This is absolutely false.

5. Ini claims that If Americans Knew: "parroted discredited claims that Israel attacks Palestinians with "mysterious poison gas." If Americans Knew did not "parrot" these, it reported first-hand observations. Second, while Israel, of course, has denied these charges, others have also written reports about this unidentified gas. There is a sequence about it in the documentary "Gaza Strip" that is valuable to view.

6. Its "critique" of the If Americans Knew study of the New York Times contains glaring inaccuracies. This can easily be ascertained by reading the [/New York Times study] itself. Ini states that "Palestinian fatalities were overwhelmingly combatants or Palestinians killed by other Palestinians" Both of these statements are absolutely false.

His analysis of the study itself is silly -- first, he "reveals that the study largely focuses on headlines and first paragraphs -- a fact that the study makes clear high up in its Methodology section: "Our decision to look at only headlines and first paragraphs was motivated by the goal of assessing the average reader’s experience and the prominence given to the coverage. In addition, we conducted a sub-study of full articles in one month-long period." These are extremely significant categories. Second, he ignores the fact that the substudy that considered full articles found that the patterns discovered about headlines/first paragraphs remained true for full articles as well. In fact, the pro-Israel distortion slightly increased. This can be seen clearly by reading this section:

V. Coverage of Deaths in Full articles: 2004

In order to determine whether the patterns found in the above studies of headlines and first paragraphs are amplified or diminished when a larger portion of the article is examined, we did a study of full articles of an arbitrary month-long period in 2004.

From June 28 to July 27 seven Israelis were killed, including one child. 60 Palestinians were killed by Israelis, roughly 8.6 times the number of Israelis killed by Palestinians. 18 Palestinian children were killed. Hence, this month-long study period was roughly representative of 2004 in general, in which Palestinian deaths outnumbered Israeli deaths by a factor of about 7.6 and Palestinian children were being killed at a rate approximately 22 times that of Israeli children.

In the headline and first paragraph of articles printed in this study period, there were mentions of seven Israeli deaths, including one child’s – 100% of the deaths that occurred during this period; 33% of Palestinian deaths were reported, and 11% of Palestinian children’s deaths.

In other words, Israeli deaths were covered in headlines or first paragraphs at a rate three times greater than Palestinian deaths. Israeli children’s deaths were covered in headlines or first paragraphs at a rate nine times greater than Palestinian children’s deaths.

In this sub-study we looked further into the articles, and recorded the first paragraph in which a death was mentioned. Thus, if a person’s death was reported in the fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs, we counted it as appearing in the fourth paragraph. Although repetitions within articles were not counted, we did count repetitions in different articles, e.g. if a death was mentioned in one article in a headline and then in a later article in the fifth paragraph, we counted both of these occurrences.

First Five Paragraphs:

In the first five paragraphs and headlines, 157% of Israeli deaths and 200% of Israeli children’s death were reported. There were no additional mentions of Palestinian deaths, so coverage of Palestinian deaths stayed at 33%. One article mentioned in the second paragraph that one of the previously mentioned deaths was of a child, increasing the percent of Palestinian children’s deaths covered to 17%. Hence, the ratio of Israeli to Palestinian deaths covered grew from 3 to 4.7, and for children’s deaths it grew from 9 to 12.

Full Articles:

Expanding to an examination of the full articles, we find that Israeli deaths had been covered slightly more disproportionately than they were in the headlines and first paragraphs. Here, Israeli deaths were covered at a rate 3.1 times greater than Palestinian deaths (257% of Israeli compared to 82% of Palestinian) compared to a ratio of 3.0 in headlines/first paragraphs. Again, the distortion was even greater in coverage of children’s fatalities. Israeli children’s deaths were covered at a rate 10.3 times that of Palestinian children (400% of Israeli and 39% of Palestinian) up slightly from 9 times greater in headlines and lead paragraphs.

In other words, emphasis on Israeli deaths over Palestinian deaths, found in the above studies of headlines and lead paragraphs, persisted (largely through repetitions of previously reported Israeli deaths) when the entire article was examined. Chart showing that the patterns of distortion are present when studying the entire article. Chart showing that the patterns of distortion are present when studying the entire article. Chart showing where in the article the deaths of Israelis and Palestinians appeared.

Interestingly, a closer examination shows that every death mentioned solely in the last two paragraphs of an article was Palestinian. There were five Palestinian deaths mentioned for the first time in the second to last paragraph, including that of a 16-year-old girl shot through the chest by the Israeli army. Also, there were five Palestinian deaths mentioned for the first time in the last paragraph.

On July 6 an article was published with a lead paragraph that read “An Israeli Army officer and four Palestinians were killed in exchanges of fire early Tuesday around the Ain Beit Ilma refugee camp in the West Bank town of Nablus, Israeli and Palestinian security sources said.” The author devoted the rest of the article to details of the “exchange” and only mentioned that one of the Palestinian dead was a 15-year-old boy in the final paragraph.

Without these belated mentions, the percentage of Palestinian deaths covered drops to 65% (four times lower than Israeli deaths) and that of Palestinian children’s deaths drops to 28% (14.4 times lower than the corresponding Israeli number).

Since readership diminishes the further down an article one goes, such patterns reduce readers’ awareness of Palestinian deaths. In addition, The New York Times wire service provides its news stories to newspapers throughout the nation. When space limitations require that a story be cut, journalistic practice is to cut from the bottom. As a result, it can be expected that newspapers around the country omitted Palestinian deaths at an even greater rate than The New York Times. Chart showing 10 Palestinian deaths were reported solely in the final paragraph of an article.

7. Init claimes that "Palestinian violence is often the immediate cause of Israeli counter-actions," another inaccuracy. At least 140 Palestinians were killed in the current uprising before a single Jewish citizen Israeli in Israel was killed; over 80 Palestinian children were killed before a single Israeli child was killed. Israeli forces killed first and most.

8. Init commits numerous other inaccuracies that there is not space to go into here; in particular, he claims that If Americans Knew's history section is inaccurate, and he parrots many of Israel's founding myths. These myths are corrected on the [/ If Americans Knew History Section] and in its [/ Recommended Books].

1. The article states that If Americans Knew is a "pro-Palestinian" organization. The organization is actually a media watchdog organization that focuses on Israel-Palestine and whose mission is to provide information largely unreported by the mainstream US media. Its founder repeated emphasizes that the goal is to uphold universal principles of human rights and journalistic accuracy, not to engage in the "football-team approach" to conflict, in which someone takes a particular "side."

2. The article claims that "They have been heavily criticized for not citing the actual causes of deaths in the conflict. Some of their documents have been accused of being misleading." In fact, the only groups to have made this criticism are pro-Israel ones. Others have found the organization's studies valuable.

For example, Project Censored, a highly regarded journalism organized published a [/ chapter] by If Americans Knew in its book CENSORED 2005: The Top 25 Censored Stories.

Similarly, a media monitoring organization based at Stanford, Grade the News, did a similar, which can be viewed at http://www.gradethenews.org/pages/middleeast.htm, which substantiated If Americans Knew findings.

Another highly respected media monitoring organization, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has also posted If Americans Knew information, terming it a "valuable organization."

3. The Wikipedia article states that "the list of Palestinian casualties includes Palestinians killed by Palestinians, as well as suicide bombers, none of which is specified." This is entirely false. If Americans Knew statistics on deaths and casualties only include those killed by the other side, and this is made clear on the website. Disturbingly, Wikipedia continues to parrot pro-Israel misinformation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

1. If Americans Knew has increasingly focused on producing videos on Israel-Palestine, yet this is not mentioned in the article. As of now it has created [/ four videos]: one is a trailer of their upcoming documentary, one contains information on prisoners, one is on Gaza, and one is on AP erasing footage of an Israeli soldier shooting a Palestinian boy. This needs to be in the article.

2. Alternate Focus, a nonprofit organization which is "dedicated to offering the American public media that provides balance to existing coverage of Middle East and related issues," has produced a video about If Americans Knew: [/ Off the Charts], producers: Paul Chek and John Odam (2006). A description can be viewed at http://www.alternatefocus.org/index.php?c=shows

All this should be in the article.

-- MidEastSpecialist

I hope this will be fixed. I have tried to correct this article several times, yet it keeps reverting to the incorrect form I've described above.

How can this be fixed as soon as possible? I would like to try to edit it once again, but don't want to continue wasting time on this if someone is going to continually succeed in taking out accurate information and substituting inaccurate information.

- MidEastSpeciallist

The article by MiddleEastNow.com is anonymous and also contains inaccurate material, similar to that described above. For that reason it should be removed.

I will now attempt to make the adjustments I have explained above. I hope inappropriate edits of this material will not continue.

- MedEastSpecialist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A person seems intent on promoting Israeli-centric editing rather than accuracy-driving editing. He made a major revision in the IAK page without any accompanying justification. This is inappropriate. For more information on his potential bias see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leifern

I don't think there's anything on my User page that would make any reasonable person conclude that I'm a "Israel advocate," and my edits were simply a reversion of brochureware for the organization. I suppose my "potential bias" also includes Architecture, military history, geography, and Norway? This article needs a lot of work to be useful and unbiased, but we need at least a good starting point. --Leifern 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We went through much the same issue with CAMERA, but from the other side. CAMERA is a media monitoring organization with a pro-Israel slant; "If Americans Knew" is a media monitoring organization with an anti-Israel slant.

The CAMERA article ended up with:

CAMERA is a non-profit, tax-exempt media watchdog group based in Boston chiefly monitoring media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and focusing primarily on correcting coverage that it considers inaccurate or unfairly skewed against Israel.

The current lead on "If Americans Knew" reads:

If Americans Knew is a non-profit media watchdog organization that focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, United States foreign policy regarding the Middle East, and media coverage of these issues. Its mission is to provide information largely unreported in the US media. The group is highly critical of U.S. support, especially U.S. financial support, for Israel.

Those are relatively close in tone. Attempts to put the word "pro-Israel" in the introduction to the CAMERA article were vehemently opposed. The language shown above has been stable for some time, with both sites not entirely happy. That's probably what we should aim for here. --John Nagle 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who appear to have a pro-Israel agenda -- eg Jayjig, Leinert and others -- continue to insert inaccurate, unsubstantiated material into the entry about If Americans Knew. Since they revert the article in teams, they do not trigger the blocking that this should receive. Moreover, they do not even deign to offer substantiating material -- or even any explanation -- for reverting the article. They simply do it, resulting in an inaccurate, defamatory entry.

I showed above, in detail, the problem with their entry and with the external links they keep inserting. These explanations can be found under the following sections above: "unreliable and inaccurate external websites" "Inaccurate Information" "Incomplete Article - leaves out a major portion of If Americans Knew focus" "Fix Article" "Remove unreliable and inaccurate external link"

Another useful comment is under the heading: "Lead paragraph issues"

Since Wikipedia's success as a source of reliable information requires accurate entries under all subjects -- even those that are controversial, and therefore vulnerable to subtle vandalism -- I am asking that others work to make sure that the entry about If Americans Knew is accurate and that it not include external contain inaccurate material.

I will fix the mistakes in the entry. I hope others will ensure that it is not replaced by fraudulent statements and inaccurate and malicious external links.

- MidEastSpecialist

I've been trying to match the style to that of the CAMERA article. These "media monitoring" organizations are difficult to write about in a neutral way, because they claim to be neutral but are generally recognized as having a decided spin. What we seem to be ending up with are articles which admit the spin, but aren't too blatant about it. That's probably about where Wikipedia should be. The Fox News article has many of the same problems, so take a look over there and see how it was dealt with. --John Nagle 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first of all to make this article better you need to eliminate the last part about wikipedia. that section is completly unrelated to the article and does not meet WP:MOS. also just go through the MOS so as this article can be improved. things like wikilinks and citations are almost completly missing. you seem to be afraid of people imposing a political agenda on wikipedia but it seems that you may be doing right here as well. i would sugest looking at WP:NPOV. keep on truckin'.--Tainter 04:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I read through the CAMERA article and I don't believe it's fit for inclusion. The first problem with it is that it's predominately about other media outlets, not about If Americans Knew. Secondly, its statements against If Americans Knew are entirely unsourced and the context of the quotations (which are only quotations of phrases) are unknown. As such, it's terribly uninformative. It's pretty much an extremely general, unsupported criticism paragraph. .V. (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "criticisms" section is far too long. This article is not about CAMERA and it's enough to note that it makes criticism, without detailing it. Anyone who is all that interested can follow up the link. What we had before my edit was just POV pushing, a section that was longer than the one on what IAK does! Grace Note 10:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is highly controversial, therefore criticism is relevant. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That there is criticism should be noted, Humus, but it's a frank breach of WP:NPOV to write more about the criticism than you do about the organisation criticised. Grace Note 05:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding External Links, Wikipedia states that among those to be avoided are: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."

CAMERA, the article from FrontPage Magazine, and the site by the anonymous individual contain factually inaccurate material and should not be used. Therefore, per Wikipedia's quest to provide facatually correct information, I am removing these. Please do not place these on the page until you have shown that the false statements point out above are somehow not false. Until then, please stop subverting Wikipedia in order to try to smear an organization that provides essential facts that people have a right to know, simply because these include negative aspects of Israel and expose its numerous human rights violations and core racism -- and also demonstrates the disturbing pro-Israel bias in the US media. It might be a good idea for anyone who edits this entry and the entry on If Americans Knew to read its research to better understand this issue.

- MidEastSpecialist

It may be your opinion - to put it kindly - that CAMERA contains factually inaccurate information, but that doesn't make it so. CAMERA has a particular purpose and makes no bones about it, but that is apparent to anyone who consults the sight. As far as factual accuracy is concerned, it is hard to beat. And your absurd charge about "core racism" pretty much shows your own bias. --Leifern 14:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I showed above the false statements that it makes. Since you cannot prove that these are accurate, this disqualifies it as an external link.

Fixed some external links. The link to FAIR was a link to Google's cache, and the cache item had expired, so I removed that and put in a "citation needed" tag.--John Nagle 22:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The item is still good. I replaced it. - MidEastSpecialist

Google cache links are not good sources; they will disappear in days to weeks. I found a permanent link for the article and used that instead. --John Nagle 00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Once again, I've added accurate material and taken out errors; for example If Americans Knew contains a great deal of information about Jewish-only settlements -- not roads. While only Jewish residents of the West Bank can use these roads -- not the Christian and Muslim Palestinians whose land was confiscated for these roads, they are accessible to a small number of non-Jewish drivers from elsewhere. In other words, they are largely, but not completely, "Jewish-only." License tags are color-coded. The settlements, however, also on confiscated Christian and Muslim land, are completely "Jewish-only," as all Christians and Muslims are prohibited (for "eternity -- Israel's terminology)from living in them. Even Christian and Muslim citizens of Israel are prohibited from living in these Jewish-only colonies, while Jewish Americans without any link to Israel whatsoever are often provided subsidized homes in them.

2. Added footnotes to Reaction section. It is important to note that the negative views come only from organizations that are seen as pro-Israel specialty organizations, while the positive views come from reputable general-focus media monitoring organizations without a connection to either "side". It is therefore not surprising that those who have a pro-Israel agenda continue to remove them.

3. Finally, to reiterate, external links with incorrect statements are not to be included, according to Wikipedia guidelines. Also, one of the websites that was inappropriately posted is by an anonymous individual who has animus towards If Americans Knew. This individual is a fan of Jon Stewart (as are many of us!) who was extremely angry about an article by IAK critical of one of Stewart's programs (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/jonstewart.html). She then created a website, rife with incorrect accusations, to "get back" at If Americans Knew. Disgruntled, anonymous webmasters, whose websites contain proven false statements, seem a highly inappropriate Wikipedia external link and violate Wikipedia policies regarding these.

I hope others, who are trying to make Wikipedia a useful and accurate resource, will continue to work to prevent the insertion of false statements and inappropriate links.

- MidEastSpecialist

Added a direct quote of CAMERA's statement on If America Knew, in hopes of stopping the revert war. This is getting silly. --John Nagle 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for the claim that license plates are color-coded? This will have a bearing on a dispute at the article Racism. --MaplePorter 23:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,of course! Anyone who has been to the West Bank has seen these. For a written source see

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/buttu.html and http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=94&aid=131&pg=3 and http://imeu.net/news/printer003659.shtml and http://imeu.net/news/article003070.shtml

To John Nagle: I can understand that it seems silly, but I do not feel that unsubstantiated and false statements should be inserted in entries. If people insist that the entry contain these accusations then the entry should also contain the facts that show it is false. You cannot have one without the other. Either have the accusation and the rebuttal, or have neither.

Similarly, I have shown that the websites being inserted by Israel apologists contain malicious and false material. According to Wikipedia guidelines, external links should be chosen with great care. They must not contain false information. Ergo, these external links should not be given as references. Including them is like referring someone who is trying to learn about astronomy to an astrological site.

(I went into quite a bit of detail about this in multiple entries above. It seems wasteful to repeat it here.)

Thanks, - MidEastSpecialist

You have shown nothing, except your own bias and prejudice. Please spare us the sanctimonious rhetoric. --Leifern 14:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leifern please desist from ad hominem attacks. I took the time to provide substantial factual basis for my changes (because I respect the Wikipedia goal] . You don't do this. I suggest that is because there is no factual basis for your own.

1. CAMERA states that If Americans Knew found that full article analysis favored Palestinians. This is false. It showed that for all ages the NYTimes emphasized Israeli deaths at a rate over three times greater than Palestinian deaths.

2. CAMERA and the other sites you are fond of state that If Americans Knew includes suicide bombers in its statitistics on Palestinian deaths. This is false. This is easily seen when anyone simply goes to the If Americans Knew site for themselves. The site is quite transparent and shows its sources clearly.

3. TheMiddleEastNow.com is an anonymous site -- that alone should disqualify it. Moreover, it repeats the false statements above. That also should disqualify it.

4. You and the sites you continue to insert make a big deal of "Jewish-only roads" In fact, If Americans Knew does not say they are "Jewish-only roads" (even though that is what they are for residents of the West Bank -- a little like the old segregated south, except far worse). What If Americans Knew does emphasize is that there are Jewish-only settlements and communities. (To most people the concept of confiscating people's land to exclude certain groups based on religion, ethnicity, or race from living in them is repugnant. Yet, this is what Israel is doing. I'm curious, do you find this acceptable?)

- -MidEastSpecialist

Leifert makes unsupported accusations, ad hominem attacks, and re-inserts statements proven to be false. Perhaps I have misunderstood the Wikipedia description of vandalism (particularly "sneaky vandalism") but Leifert's actions, particularly the third, certainly appear to qualify for that designation.

He tries to label the entry I and a variety of others have added to of being "vanity" but does not support this accusation. Where is the inaccuracy in our edits? Why is Leifert attacking with unsupported pejorative adjectives instead of using facts to challenge us? I suggest it is because the facts don't support his edits.

I worry that Leifert's apparent affinity for Israel is getting in the way of honest editing and civility.

I request that others study the If Americans Knew website, view the Alternate Focus video on If Americans Knew http://alternate-focus.blip.tv/file/85804/ , and read the discussion on this page, and help mediate this situation.

I don't enjoy Leifert's mud-slinging and feel that others need to step in so that an accurate entry is produced with accurate external links.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs)

"MidEastSpecialist" doesn't sign his/her entries, accuses me of all kinds of things, and apparently characterizes everything he/she believes as facts. This article is a vanity piece because it takes everything this organization at face value. --Leifern 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the Request for Comment, I will give some advice:

• Stop reverting each other and start talking.
• Giving undue weight to criticism is not acceptable.
• Tagging every word with {{fact}} is borderline disruptive. If you have problems with a section, consider using {{POV-section}} and explain why in the talk page.
• Opinion articles are not valid references generally speaking, unless expressed on a way such as "the organisation has received criticism from...". In any case, refer to point three here.

I will watch the article. Hopefully no one will force me to use the admin buttons to stop disruptive edit wars. Regards, Asterion^talk 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That won't necessarily help. Some of the people involved are admins. --John Nagle 20:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of others may help a little. Most web sites dealing with these subjects make an attempt at an even-handed presentation on at least the initial page. IAK does not. Nobody who sees it will be in the least doubt about their political view, and people can be expected to be able to judge the site for themselves from their own viewpoints, without the need for help from secondary sources. It is quite sufficient in this case to give an objective presentation of what is to be found on the site. It would be folly for the article to attempt to judge the site, and it would be sufficient to refer to the opposing views of accuracy. This is an argument which cannot be settled on WP, and very straightforward reporting is enough for us here. DGG 00:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what could be more even-handed than an opening page with simple statistics for both populations side by side. Is it simply that this provides information that most people have no idea about, and that you find uncomfortable?

I'm finding it disconcerting that few people seem to address the content of my edits and to share the goal of producing an accurate entry without false statements. I'm beginning to feel that the Wikipedia process simply doesn't work when there's a group with an agenda working to falsify facts, and when others are largely uninformed on the issues involved. This is a disappointment for me, but a learning experience.

I will now remove inaccuracies and inaccurate websites and will add informative ones. The entry is supposed to tell what If Americans Knew is. The program created by the organization Alternate Focus does just that. It should be an External Link. It is all right to post external links critical of the organization; it is not all right to post external links that make false allegations -- this does NOT tell what the organization is. If you don't like things that If Americans does, object to those -- not to things it does not do or say! Debate on facts, not through misinformation.

I realize that my action will once again by overturned by zealots, and that I will be admonished by those who perhaps do not yet care very much about the life-and-death situation in Israel-Palestine. I hope that whoever now blocks me from further edits, will at least inform him/herself about the tragic and extremely dangerous situation in this region. - MidEastSpecialist — Preceding unsigned comment added by MidEastSpecialist (talk • contribs)

There's far too much wholesale reverting going on. Independent of the content issue, typos and bad links are being re-inserted by reverts and cut and paste work. We have periods in the middle of sentences, links to Google's cache, badly formatted Wikilinks, and similar junk being re-introduced by reverts. This has to stop. I'd like to go back to "20:15, 12 January 2007 Nagle" and go on from there. Is this acceptable? I'll wait a day for comments. Thanks. --John Nagle 22:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to begin a more rational process. However, the version you would like to start from has numerous errors. I'd rather work from the one posted now (01:29, 14 January 2007 MidEastSpecialist), which is accurate and has very few (if any) typos. I've removed the link to a cache and instead just put a more traditional citation in its place, if that works. For the most part, I think the entry is in good shape, but I would be glad to fix, or have others fix, any real errors, typos, bad links, etc. --User:MiddleEastSpecialist

I have rewriten the article, removing what I considered biased language put in Wikipedia's institutional voice. I also got rid of the external links, except for the official one. The links are now under references. Anything that is not quoted or made a reference to in the article does not belong here. Wikipedia is not an undiscrimate collection of links. I will appreciate if the reverts stop and you all discuss any changes beforehand here. Regards, Asterion^talk 11:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The description of the organization activities from a neutral perspective need to be added. In the current article, criticism amounts to almost half of the text. I have tried to rewrite the criticism to make it clear it is coming from CAMERA, not Wikipedia. Asterion^talk 11:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say that Asterion's edit (and the subsequent edits after that) do fix a lot of problems with this article. I think the editors involved did a fantastic job. .V. (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Asterion. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your impression is incorrect. Please see below. user:MidEastSpecialist20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you persist in trying to turn this from a Wikipedia article into a gushing promotional and propaganda piece, you will find yourself squarely in conflict with Wikipedia policy and other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the truth is that Asterion's edit largely perpetuates the problem. Please look at my previous postings and read the information on the If Americans Knew website to learn more about the issues involved. Following are comments I posted on my talk page yesterday. Asterion stated that he had completed a "distant rewrite" -- following is my response:

1. Your "distant" rewrite contains 13 lines under Criticism and 2 lines under Reactions. How do you justify this?

2. It also contains external links that contain inaccurate statements. How do you justify including these?

3. It leaves out the program about If Americans Knew by Alternate Focus, an independent organization based in San Diego. Why is this omitted?

4. It appears that you only place negative views about If Americans Knew in the entry (even when they are inaccurate), and omit the far more numerous positive ones -- from considerably more reputable sources. How do you justify this slant?

5. Your opening states that "If Americans Knew claims to provide full and accurate information." Actually, the website states: "Fortunately, the American media cover many events in Israel with great detail and thoroughness. Therefore, we are not repeating that coverage here. Instead, we are attempting to fill in the many important news items – most of them about incidents in the Palestinian territories – that are not available in the U.S. media." This statement is posted prominently on the If Americans Knew website; why did you leave it out?

6. This entry is supposed to about If Americans Knew. Instead it is largely about CAMERA and other Zionist organizations and their false allegations about If Americans Knew and Israel-Palestine in general. How do you justify this odd approach?

I look foward to your response. I hope these were honest errors. Regards, User:MidEastSpecialist20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but as I said above, "The description of the organization activities from a neutral perspective need to be added. In the current article, criticism amounts to almost half of the text.". Feel free to contribute. I simply tried my best. Regarding why I left the Alternate Focus link out, the reason is because this is not made reference to in the article text. It is not technically possible for me to watch the video given my slow internet access. Nonetheless, you could indeed add references and comments from the video to the article and then add it to the references. Regards, Asterion^talk 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. However, you didn't cover all of my points (which I will now number, to make referring to them easier).

It would be helpful if you could also respond to #2 and #5.

Also, I'm curious -- why did you choose to work from versions I had shown had serious problems instead of from others, for example one of the ones I had put up? No one has refuted any of my facts. Regards, User:MidEastSpecialist22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. 2: Wikipedia does not do "Truth" but "Verifiability". As long as a mention is verifiable and not put on Wikipedia's "institutional voice" (i.e. reader gets an idea of who is saying what), this is fine; Re. 5 and other question, I did work from the most recent version I found when I started my edits. Regards, Asterion^talk 23:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just put up a better version for you to work on. I have to run to an appoiintment now but will add more later.User:MidEastSpecialist23:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did some minor cleanup. Added "Activities" and "Mission Statement" section headers, but the content hasn't changed. Wikipedia's house style discourages long first sections; it messes up the box formatting. --John Nagle 07:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to imagine that anyone would think the sentence Actually, however, it is the Israeli settlements -- illegal colonies in the West Bank -- that If Americans Knew describes as "Jewish only." in any way meets Wikipedia content policy requirements. Please review WP:NOR, WP:N, and WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an organization of questionable notability and a clear POV, but some editors keep trying to present it as a neutral source of information on the Arab-Israeli conflict. We either have to see a serious effort into making this an NPOV article, or else it should be deleted as a promotional piece. And please, no more objections and personal attacks based on an anti-Israeli tirade. --Leifern 12:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree; the current version is marginal, but a couple of editors appear to be trying to turn it into an advertisement or promotional piece for the organization. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is without substantiation. Unfortunately, Leifern and Jayjg continually revert edits that have removed inaccurate statements and added accurate information. The fact is that If Americans Knew is widely used and cited; the only groups that speak negatively of it are the Israel-Right-or-Wrong groups and individuals who frequently falsify or bury information about Israel. Leifern and Jayjg have never once shown that the material removed was accurate and they have never once shown that the material added was inaccurate -- because they can't. Hence, they revert to unsubstantiated attacks, such as above.

The behavior of Leifern and Jayjg is part of a common pattern -- for example, see the / paper by Harvard University Professor John Walt and University of Chicago Professor Stephen Mearsheimer, which had to be published in the London Review of Books, because it was blocked from publication in the US. Its section on media, particularly in the / full version published on the Harvard website, is particularly valuable in understanding what is going on with Wikipedia.

Similarly, If Americans knew contains an /article showing that the Washington Post "reviewer" (Jeffrey Goldberg) of Jimmy Carter's recent book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, is an American who emigrated to Israel, took Israeli citizenship, enlisted in the Israeli military, and served as an Israeli prison guard at one of its notoriously cruel prison camps, Ketziot. Amazon then, which normally posts two short, industry descriptions of the book on its Product Description page, instead posted as one of the two this extremely long attack by Goldberg, again without telling readers of his substantial bias on this issue. It is extremely odd for a bookseller to attempt to convince readers NOT to buy a book. Quite likely their action is also due either to internal or external pressure on behalf of Israel.

Just as people with a pro-Israel agenda so often control the mainstream media, they are attempting to control wikipedia as well -- Leifern and Jayjg are just two examples. Unless more people start to investigate this situation, such disastrous obfuscation will continue.

Jayjg and Leifern must not be allowed to remove verified information and substitute unverified material and websites with unverified statements.

I will now revert the version to the previous one, in which the statements are verified and the external links contain verified material.User:MidEastSpecialist18:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]