Talk:Campus Watch

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cleanup Suggestions

I added the cleanup tag to this article since it is currently just a list of quotes. It needs to be brought together into a coherent whole that describes its origins (founders and goals), the charges that Campus Watch made and the result criticism and response. It would also be interesting to know what state of activity there is with this group. --70.48.240.217 00:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that this page has too much material on the criticism of Campus Watch. For example, the references list is one-sided, and in my opinion some of those cited are anti-semitic. Adding a bunch of references like these, without including references from the other side of the argument seems to me to violate the NPOV policy of Wikipedia.

Funny you said that. Its not only one sided propaganda, its also mostly incorrect or was. The previous version introduced campus watch as having been created by the Middle East Forum. I flipped to the CW website where on the front an article explains that davka! is not true so I put a "not" in the opening sentence to make it more accurate. I can't remove the page, because that would be vandalism, but I can correct lies. Bigleaguer 23:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Review of Books discussion

Daniel Pipes (Campus Watch founder) and Michael Massing discussing Campus Watch in the New York Review of Books:

--70.48.71.226 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who writes this stuff?

'In fact, its posts of scholars are considered by Campus Watch to be rigorous and accurate, and consist mainly of reporting and publicizing than any sort of editorializing.'

I.e. Campus Watch considers its own posts to be rigorous and accurate.

Does one have to gloss what views Campus Watch entertains about its own views?Nishidani 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Well, Joel, you consider your works worthy of someone's graduate research time. Bigleaguer 00:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger of Zion, I think there is room in the "Big Tent" to not write a negative article (even if you don't personally like CW). If you insist on writing a critical article, then its only fair that the other side be given a chance to reply to the critiques. Bigleaguer 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bigleaguer, your edits have many faults and are inappropriate for Wikipedia. I urge you to become familiar with Wikipedia's guidelies and policies and/or request comments on your editing before making any further controversial/disputed edits or reverts to this article. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even the most casual reading of CW's web site makes it clear that it is extremely ideological and polemic ... editorializing is virtually all it does, and all of its reports are couched in language that leaves no doubt of CW's position. What's most remarkable about CW and about its "defenders" is that they consider having it pointed out that CW is extremely slanted toward the defense of Israel in all matters is a criticism. It's their raison d'etre, it's what people like Daniel Pipes have spent their lives at ... how odd that they aren't proud of it or aren't willing to be up front about it. Of course, there's that "mission statement" that makes a pretense of being aimed at mere "improvement" of Middle Eastern studies, but no honest person can claim that to be CW's actual agenda. -- 70.109.46.5 (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

editing out talk

Several edits were deleted without any discussion whatsoever. This is vandalism and will not be tolerated Bigleaguer 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit my talk page and call my edits vandallism. Read WP:AGF. No discussion necessary; it is obivous why your edits are inappropriate.—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should I call if not vandalism? Absolutely you need to justify large scale deletions because if you do not, it is enough to get you banned. Bigleaguer 03:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger of Zion: Rashid Khalidi IS a former spokesman for the PLO. Joel Beinin does have a PERSONAL history with Daniel Pipes. This was included and deleted. If these two are allowed to basically flame Campus Watch through inclusion of their quotes in the article, then they should be identified as such. I left the quotes in there. I simply identified Beinin and Khalidi as more than disinterested neutral observers which they are not. They have political views opposed to Campus Watch as do Walt and Mearsheimer, but I do nt think you can put their quotes in there and not even say who the people are who are making the quotes. Then to report me on top of everything else! Hoohah. Please discuss edits as your opinions are not automatically the or a NPOV. Bigleaguer 14:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If readers want to know more about Rashid Khalidi's background, they can click on the Rashid Khalidi article to read more. Khalidi is a Director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia; this is stated because it shows he has extensive knowledge in Middle East studies. Adding Khalidi was a former spokesman for the PLO adds nothing to the article.
  2. Adding: Critics of Beinin, in turn, contended that his criticism was excessively personal, and lacked any evidence to support his contention of a link to the Likud Party or political support of the Iraq war, is complete POV, origional research, and unnecessary.
  3. You do not need to: identif[y] Beinin and Khalidi as more than disinterested neutral observers. Just like you do not need to do the same thing to the supporters section. Obviously if they are making critical remarks about Campus Watch, then it is assumed they are not completely neutral on the subject.
Your edits, which try to downplay critical comments of Campus Watch by apparently trying to invalidate the statements as being "not neutral" with POV OR statements, are completely unnecessary. I urge you to stop this edit war. If you need further input on this subject from other editors, please feel free to use RfC or WP:3O. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 17:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think a highly personal attack, which Beinin's is, coupled with a belief in conspiracy against him and protestation of victimhood, is worthy of either Beinin or this article. It is inflammatory, inaccurate, tangential (so someone does not like CW? So what?) and the article does not need it anyway. If you can identify CW and Pipes as controversial, etc. then fairness dictates the same standard should be held for Beinin and Khalidi. Therefore the stuff on Beinin is either qualified or it goes into cyber shredder.Bigleaguer 21:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If Pipes is pro-Israel, then Khalidi is pro-Palestinian. If there are two voices pro, there cannot be three con. I left your spurious and mean spirited objections to CW in the article but I cannot allow you to defame anyone personally through the Beinin quote. What is good for one is good for the other. If you don't like it, get a mediator.Bigleaguer 21:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A request for mediation is requested. Of course, Dodger and Christopher have not engaged in any discussion, just their edit war, although I have tried to discuss, but that is the purpose of the request. You can turn the request down, but then I will send it to arbitration. Grounds: placing material that is attacking in a personal nature on website under rubric of a quote from Beinin. Refusing to consider a NPOV. Bigleaguer 23:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:M, as you are misunderstood to what mediation is. Binin's "personal attack" belongs on the article; to understand why it belongs on the article, you need to re-read WP:NPOV, particularly the following text:

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 07:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. BigLeaguer: You are wrong, sir.

We HAVE attempted discussion. Check your talk page. I have left numerous warnings and messages about your editing, yet you have refused to reply to any of it, and Christopher has too. Your edits were being reverted before we had anything to do with it, so I don't think either myself or Christopher is to blame for any of this mess. Check the notice board for your name... Don't act like we haven't attempted communication... Your talk page is there for a reason. DodgerOfZion

Your comments are things, like, "no discussion is necessary, its so obvious" "this is your last warning" etc. You have not attempted the least bit of dialogue about the article. Once again, the Beinin quote which I rewrote deleted, etc., and caused you to report me, is a direct personal attack. Don't even pretend otherwise. The attack on me, by you for deleting a personal attack,on Pipes, is uncalled for. Bigleaguer 18:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting words in my mouth is not helping you. To be blunt, if you consider me reverting an edit on an internet encyclopedia to be a personal attack upon YOU...well, I shan't go further. Read what WebHamster wrote below. DodgerOfZion

RFC

Seek additional opinions to end edit war. Other editors revert, change without discussion, threaten to ban without discussion, continue to ignore my discussion; do not acknowledge that quote by Beinin against Pipes is a personal attack in guise of a quote; same quote has numerous non factual allegations that are unsupported )eg. that Campus Watch writers support the Iraq war); refuse to identify quoted sources against Pipes' site (which is a pro Israel site) as a former PLO spokesman and authors of a book against the Israel lobby; use of non neutral word "target" to describe CW articles instead of neutral word such as "report".Bigleaguer 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's sourced, relevant and informational then "attacks" as you call them are perfectly in order. Whether what they say is true is immaterial, what matters is if they are verifiable and encyclopaedic. What isn't acceptable are attempts to deflect anything negative about an article's subject. Deleting material such as this is more guilty of POV transgressions than including it. ---- WebHamster 18:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I notice the RFC up there. I ask all those commenting to take note of BL's edits, as well as the edit histories of those articles. DodgerOfZion

Comment. The article would benefit from more than a thumbs up or thumbs down on the quote. Encyclopedia articles should provide knowledge, knowledge that is balanced, noteworthy, verifiable and, as needed, with citations from reliable sources. Just because certain utterances are reported by sources, doesn't mean they are worth putting in an article. I'd like to see info from more mainstream, less slanted media. In addition, information should be provided through encyclopedic (re-)descriptions, not merely through quotations. For instance, I would expect the opening to inform us about Campus Watch, its activities and organization, not merely through an extended quote. Glancing at the footnotes, it seems to me that there is a notable enough controversy over Campus Watch. Regarding the criticisms and support sections: in general, it would be better to have a combined section, which takes note of the (mildly) notable controversy and then going thru the key disputes points in a balanced way. Not every attack on it is worth covering. In the Beinin quote, for instance, shouldn't the point about dossiers (if true) be covered by the description of the organization? Likewise, wouldn't points about their positions (e.g. on Sharon or Bush) or neo-conservatism go in the top? Beinin's point about Pipes "taking revenge" for failing strikes me as petty, speculative and adding little to human knowledge. I would drop that sentence. On the other hand, his point about stifling debate would seem to be at the heart of the critique. But we don't need multiple quotes to make the same point -- choose Khalidi or Beinin -- and explain how critics believe that Campus Watch functions to silence discourse. I would also think that Khalidi's point about anti-Semitism charges would be worth mentioning (w/rebuttal, if sourced). Incidentally, aren't there specific cases where the mainstream press covered a Campus Watch critique of a scholar? If so, an illustrative case would be warranted. Please let me know if these comments are useful. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HG tremendously helpful. 65.244.131.148 22:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for that. I agree that the article should be a lot more encyclopedic. Also, the Beinin and Khalidi quotes both come from 2002 and are somewhat outdated; it would be better to find some more recent criticism. Any volunteers to do a rewrite? (I'm too busy, sorry.) CWC 14:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also have to be very careful as this is about a living person, it needs reliable, second or third party sources. I feel that the criticism is over the top and is not neutral. --Neon white 00:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the "neutral" of NPOV means ... the articles on Hitler and Nazism aren't "neutral" in your bogus sense. The criticism is what it is, and judgments that the statements of critics is "over the top" are not neutral. -- 70.109.46.5 (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the criticism section is not neutral. WP:NPOV states to present information in a neutral manner—not excluding negative information. There is nothing wrong with directly quoting sources that have vocal criticism of Campus Watch in a neutral manner.—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 04:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article overall should be balanced and neutral. Though after doing research i believe that there is a large amount of criticism of this site and the article should reflect that whilst not giving it undue weight.--Neon white 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to have it both ways: included sourced criticism (the organization does have a major problem with bigotry and a yen for totalitarianism,) but also include statements from its spokesmen, which are perfectly acceptable under WP:SPS. --Marvin Diode 15:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comment by Pipes is fine and complies with WP:SELFPUB guidelines, so there is no justification for removing it. --Neon white 22:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The comments by Pipes do not comply with WP:SELFPUB because the comments are "not relevant to [campus watch's] notability" and are "unduly self-serving." —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 00:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are certainly not 'unduly self-serving' in any way. Consider that the article is about a self-published website everything on the page is relevant to notability. This smells like POV vandalism to me. You seem to have continually blocked attempts to make the article balanced. --Neon white 01:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Critiquing professors is more revolutionary than it may sound, for academics have long been spared public criticism" is unduly self-serving because Pipes states his group's actions are "revolutionary"--Wikipedia is not a place to reference self-published sources glorifying themselves or a group they lead. Also, your claim that "the article is about a self-published website everything on the page is relevant to notability" is completely false. If you claim was true, it would not state, "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: it is relevant to their notability..." in WP:SELFPUB#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves official Wikipedia policy. I think anyone can see this quote from Pipes is not relevant to notability of this article. Further, I encourage you to read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and please do not accuse me of vandalism, as I have not vandalized this article, nor have I "continually blocked attempts to make the article balanced" within Wikipedia policy. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 03:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is completely unbalanced. The quotes under the Criticism section are fine, in my opinion, because they are just that: Criticism. However, the article is rediculously one-sided at the moment. There is nothing at all about what the proponents of Campus Watch have to say. Please see WP:NEU, which states that 'all' significant views must be represented. Positive and negative views should be there. In addition to that, there should be more general information about Campus Watch itself. At the moment, the article is mostly just criticisms. In a nutshell, I basically agree with HG's earlier comment. -Rycr (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing cited material because of a personal view when there clearly is no consensus to do so is vandalism, i suggest you take a good look at the rules on neutrality and yes you were very much involved in create the uneccessarily inflated criticism section that completely unbalances the article and stonewalled and reverted any attempt by users such as Bigleaguer to introduce a more balanced view to the article. Assuming good faith is all very well but when an editor is trying to introduce their own personal POV to an article it becomes a more pressing matter. As pointed out the article must represent all views. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles The text in question is a quote it is not cited as fact. I cannot see any basis for describing this as unduly self-serving --Neon white (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of WP:NPOV; I need not to review it. The text is completely self-serving, as I explained above, but even if it wasn't, it is "not relevant to [campus watch's] notability", which WP:SELFPUB states as a requirement to use a self-published source. Also, unduly self-serving does not only apply to quotes cited as facts, it applies to opinion or anything else that is self-serving.Christopher Mann McKaytalk 05:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it applies to things that are unduly self serving, meaning to an excess, this is clearly not and is where you're misunderstanding of the policy lays. It is relevant to the balance and neutrality of the article as has been pointed out many times. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. To improve the article and maintain neutrality, which is very much a core policy of wikipedia we must igonre minor verifiability rules, there's no real doubt among editors that the quote is by the person claimed and accurate. Relying upon the letter of policy as a defence when breaking the spirit of policy is considered bad etiquette. You are disrupting wikipedia by reverting the article to a non neutral state, very much against WP:POINT. I believe the source of the quote is an article in the Jerusalem Post which means they were the publisher, therefore it is not self-published. Please do not remove it again. --Neon white (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not improving the article to add Pipes' commentary praising Campus Watch and refuting anything negative about Campus Watch; it is a WP:SELFPUB violation. Even if it is not unduly self serving (as this is disputed), it is "not relevant to [campus watch's] notability." It is not necessary to use self-published sources to make this article comply with WP:NPOV. Re: Jerusalem Post article, Pipes wrote it, as he is a journalist, and that is obviously self-published source. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 07:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are using a policy to make a point that goes against it's principle. You are trying to remove because of a policy designed to stop the inclusion of questionable material from self-published books, personal websites, and blogs yet you have never once questioned this quote or suggested that it might not be accurate. Therefore i believe you gaming the system. The article is an editorial published by the Jerusalem Post, they are the publisher not himself therefore it is not self-published. full stop end of discussion. Your excuse for removing it is invalid. Do not remove it again. --Neon white (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rycr's comment. This article it totally unbalanced. Criticism is totally necessary in such an article of course, but some views that are being deleted should obviously be allowed in. The type of editing that up-ends balance in this way should be dealt with swiftly. It looks to me like consensus here would say Pipe's and similar comments are allowable and improve the article. They are not self-serving in the sense that they are not about self-promotion of an organization. They are comments that help the reader understand the subject. If I were to remove those comments it would simply be to unbalance the article, to emphasize criticism, and to stifle reason, viewpoints, and rationale. GigiButterfly (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neon White, your statements are inaccurate in several accounts. I am not using a "policy to make a point," I am not following WP:SELFPUB because I disagree with Campus Watch’s actions, but rather because I believe it to be an important policy and have previously enforced it. WP:NPOV does not state for an article to be neutral that there has to be self published sources, which glorify the organization, the glorify organization’s purpose, and refute any criticism of the organization. This article is lacking in neutrality, but that should be fixed through third party reliable sources and not by using self published sources in an article about itself.
You claim "the article is an editorial published by the Jerusalem Post, they are the publisher not himself therefore it is not self-published," but this statement is entirely false. It is not an editorial, it is an opt-ed opinion article written by Pipes. A newspaper article is just like a novel, it doesn’t matter who the publisher is, it matters who the author is.
Your vandalism warning placement on my talk page and your demands that I "do not remove it again" will not intimidate me to stop following Wikipedia policy.
—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial and op-eds are largely the same (the only difference is that op-eds are written by writers that aren't an employee of the newspaper, though Pipes is referred to as a columnist for the Post on his wikipedia page) and follow the same rules on wikipedia. They are not self published if you actually read WP:SELFPUB instead of waving it around like a badge that entitles you to breach any other wikipedia policy you choose you would probably notice, as i pointed out, that self publishing refers to self-published books, personal websites, and blogs, this is none of those, it is a published article in reliable newspaper that has a reputation for fact checking and therefore follows all verifiability policy. Anything in a newspaper is published by the newspaper not an individual journalist. See any libel case. This has been the case for hundreds of years, you cant change that to suit your agenda here so unless Pipes owns the Post it is not self published. There is nothing on WP:V that says editorials published by a reliable source are not acceptable as sources. Your warning about deleting sourced content was completely justified. You have disrupted this article and delete sourced content without a consensus and against the consensus. Do not accuse others of incivility or not assuming good faith when your incivility and bad editing practices were apparent long before i arrived at the rfc. --Neon white (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you are clearly not questioning the origin of the quote that means you are misusing a policy that was designed to stop questionable material from being used to try and remove something you do not like. --Neon white (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Editorials and op-eds are not the same. Pipes wrote the op-ed by himself; therefore, it is a self-published source. You claim "anything in a newspaper is published by the newspaper not an individual journalist"; however, this is completely irreverent, as books are published by a publishing company, but are still included in WP:SELFPUB, so obviously WP:SELFPUB addresses authors even if their work is published by another party. I accused you of not assuming good faith and for be incivility because you were acting incivil and not assuming good faith and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. You have wrongly referred to my edits as vandalism, and if you still don't understand doing that is in violation of Wikipedia policy, then you are largely misunderstanding Wikipedia policy. I suggest you become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before making any further edits to this article, as your actions have shown your inability to understand and/or follow Wiki policies. Thank you.—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 01:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editorials and op-eds are exactly the same aside from the nature of the journalist. please read up on this. Writing an article is not the same as publishing an article. He did not publish the article himself. This ludicrous idea that he is somehow responsible for the publishing The Jerusalem Post is a very silly and illogical assertion. Under you're bizarre idea all published articles would be self-published and wikipedia would not exist. WP:SELPUB has nothing whatsoever to do with articles published by a newspaper. I have no referred to your edits as vandalism. You can assume good faith until evidence to the contrary arrives. I am well aware and understand completely of wikipedia policies and do not misrepresent them. Especially WP:POINT - Relying upon the letter of policy as a defence when breaking the spirit of policy and WP:IAR. We edit articles to make them better not to push a personal POV and certainly not to make a point if a quote makes an article more balanced and therefore better quality it is precisely the policy of wikipedia to allow it. --Neon white (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher M MCK, I think you are shooting yourself in the foot here. My personal take on Campus Watch is that it is a nasty McCarthyite organization, and I would like to insure that relevant criticism is included in the article. But I think that you are broadly misreading Wikipedia policy in your arguments. WP:SPS does not mean what you say it does. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how newspaper/magazine articles may not be considered self-published, because they were published by another party; although, I can't see how that is different than a book (which are considered self-published sources) being published by a third party. However, an opt-ed opinion article is not a reliable source anyways, so the only source that would be able to be used is the FrontPage magazine article. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 18:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's the newspaper that has to be reliable and have a reputation for fact checking etc. not the articles themselves. Of course it's an opinion but as long as it is presented as such. I think the balance of the article could easily be solved by the removal of the lengthy quotes from the criticism section --Neon white 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may be correct, as you were correct about newspapers/magazines not being self-published sources and I was misunderstood; I am seeking the opinion of outside editors via WP:RSN to make sure. I think the balance of the article should be solved by adding additional information in support of Campus Watch; I think removing parts of the Criticism section is a bad idea and is against WP:NPOV policy. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 17:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems arising is that the amount of criticism of this website, as far as i can see, outweighs, the positive which seems difficult to find. I'm just not sure how to balance the article, should it reflect that the site is infamous, considering the majority of reliable articles are about it's controversial nature and negative reaction to it or does it have to be be neutral according to policy? --Neon white 04:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I supported including the quotes from Pipes. Let the subject have his say in response to the criticism. --Marvin Diode 16:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added back (and reworded) the source with Pipes responding to criticism a few days ago. I didn't add back in 'After reviewing the organization's first five years, Pipes stated...' b/c it isn't responding to criticism--it is basically Pipes talking about how "revolutionary" and important his organization is. Wikipedia is not a PR tool for Campus Watch, there is absolutely no need to glorify Campus Watch through quoting the founder of the organization.—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can paraphrase the quote and attribute it to him. I think it contains some useful info as to the purpose of the org. which is needed. --Neon white 05:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened the quote (diff). Do you think this is an acceptable compromise? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 18:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I neutralized the quote a little more. DodgerOfZion
I think it looks pretty good now. --Marvin Diode 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced some of the non-specific to CW criticism[1]. In part because I have more criticism to add, but I don't want to belabour it. This should all be done concisely and with NPOV in mind. I don't have access to much positive views yet so please feel free to add or rebut wherever necessary. GigiButterfly 05:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there are any postive views to add, unless they are from other pro-isreal neocons or Pipes himself. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 23:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any way to see this edit [2] in a positive light. You highlighted the negative quotes whilst keeping the positive ones in paras. I believe a reasonable editor would expect positive views to appear at some point even if none have been found yet. It would be the wishful thinking of a critic to suppose no more positive views will appear. Please be cautioned; this article is subject to NPOV policy. Balance, fairness, and comprehensiveness are desirable. GigiButterfly (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non profit organization

Does anyone know if Campus Watch is a non profit organization? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used the NPO infobox, since Campus Watch is a project of the NPO Middle East Fourm.—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 18:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need non-obsolete criticism

We currently mention three criticisms of CW, but two date back to 2002 and seem embarrassingly outdated, not to mention fully of silly/malicious errors. Can anyone find any more recent criticisms that meet Wikipedia's standards? Please? CWC 07:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe the information is no longer correct? --Neon white (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because both focus too much on the dossiers that CW (wisely) dropped in Fall 2002. CWC 09:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for the 'dropping' of the dossiers? if so it can probably be included to balance the article. --neonwhite user page talk 19:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Pro-Israel and neoconservative

Although the edit war on this point seems to be based on personal POVs, it would be a good idea to source these. I would think that Pro-Israel would be common sense though. How is this article? [3] It links the Middle East Forum to neo-cons but not specifically campus watch. Below is a relevant passage. The article may also be of use as a secondary source for other parts of the article. --Neon white (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the most influential pro-Israel think tank in Washington, is linked to both the Iraq war hawks and the attack on Middle East studies. Richard Perle is a member of WINEP's Board of Advisors as was Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, a leading advocate for a war on Iraq, before he joined the Bush administration. Daniel Pipes is a WINEP adjunct scholar. Last year WINEP published a lengthy screed by Martin Kramer, former director of the Dayan Center for Middle East Studies at Tel Aviv University, trashing the entire field of Middle East studies: Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle East Studies in America. Campus Watch appears to be inspired by this book. Kramer edits the Middle East Forum's journal, Middle East Quarterly and is a WINEP visiting fellow. Although he is not directly involved in Campus Watch, he has issued a statement supporting its aims.
Also published on campus watch [4] --Neon white (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a polemic, but a useful and interesting one. (I'd like to see what Turkish historians think of the revised view of the late Ottoman empire!) Here's a direct link, and here's an extract we could use as a criticism:
The attacks prompted a storm of protest: over one hundred professors from around the country sent messages denouncing Campus Watch for its crude attempt to silence debate about the Middle East and the airing of critical views by insinuating that the scholars under attack were apologists for terrorism or were somehow unpatriotic.
Perhaps we could present it like this:
Zachary Lockman has criticized Campus Watch for a "crude attempt to silence debate about the Middle East and the airing of critical views by insinuating that the scholars under attack were apologists for terrorism or were somehow unpatriotic."
This is not necessarily the best criticism of CW in this article for our purposes; it's just the first one that caught my eye. Does anyone have alternative suggestions?
BTW, Prof Lockman's home page is here. Cheers, CWC 09:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough in the criticism section, anymore and the article will be unbalanced. This discussion is about the sourcing of the group being neo-conservative. --neonwhite user page talk 18:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sources so far for 'Pro-Israel', 'neoconservative' and 'think tank'

[5] [6] [7] Neo-con Man Short Cuts by Sara Roy [1]

I think these are enough to make the statement verifiable. --neonwhite user page talk 16:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, all of those are polemics from activists who regularly attack Pipes, CW, MEF etc etc. None of them are acceptable in this article as sources. BTW, Sara Roy's article contains a blatant untruth. Cheers, CWC 07:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ William R. Polk (November 18, 2003). "The Neoconservative Agenda" (pdf). Retrieved March 3, 2007. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Note on IP edits

I requested semi-protection a few days ago, but the response was that the problem was not yet bad enough. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I requested it not long ago and got the same response. It's fair but annoying seen as this seems to be either a single person using different ips and a single perpose group. --neonwhite user page talk 06:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is time to make another request. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think it will be seen as enough, the last attempts were a month apart but you can try. Annoying as the seem to be quite obviously either the same person using multiple IPs or person with a COI as they trace to different ISPs. --neonwhite user page talk 23:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massive revision 2008-03-09

I've just done a substantial revision of the article.

  • I removed lots of repetitive repetition ... lots and lots of it
  • I moved the outdated criticisms (made before CW discontinued their dossiers) into the History section, to put them into context
  • I reworked all the refs into a consistent style, in many cases using better URLs
  • I dropped a lot of POV
  • I dropped a lot of really bad sourcing. Polemical magazines such as Z-Mag are completely unacceptable as general sources in this article (but are OK for sentences like "Writing in Z-Mag, Joe Doe said that ..."). The same applies to activists who are long-term foes of Pipes and CW, etc, etc.
  • The External links section now links to CW, instead of a left-wing anyone-can-smear-righties website
  • I added a criticism by Miriam Cooke, which is propably not the best available. If we can find a better criticism, we should add it, perhaps removing the Cooke paragraph. A blog post by Pipes from April 2006 might be useful, but something more recent would probably be better.

I think the article is now more readable, and I hope it's more balanced. As always, corrections are welcome. Cheers, CWC 11:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss major changes on the talk page first. Whilst many of the your edits may ultimately be useful some seemed to be based on a personal point of view rather than the verified sources and removed well sourced info against the consensus. --neonwhite user page talk 14:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I did discuss the substantive changes here first. Just search for "CWC" on this page.
When writing my comment just above I was in a hurry to cook dinner, so I didn't fully explain my changes. Sorry.
I don't believe I removed any properly-sourced information from the text. I did find and remove some badly-sourced text, per WP:RS and WP:NPOV.
So far, no-one has found a proper RS calling CW neo-conservative. This is because CW is not neoconservative. Like AEI, Pipes and his associates come from a long-standing conservative tradition and so are not "neo"-cons; being allied with Horowitz, Kristol, Podhoretz and their followers does not make them part of the same movement. I could have (should have?) added some properly nuanced text explaining this, but I didn't feel up to it so I just dodged the issue. We could say "CW is regularly accused of being neo-conservative" with lots of sources, but then we'd need to add something about whether it really is neo-conservative. Anyone braver than I is free to have a go at this, and I wish you luck.
I think the statements I added are relevant and accurate, but I generally sourced them to the first RS I found. We should check for better sources.
The key substantive change was highlighting the Dossiers stuff-up, and putting the criticism made before CW discontinued the Dossiers into that context. Without my change only a really careful reader would understand why Prof Beinin etc were denouncing CW for something they stopped doing long ago. I think my version protects these critics.
Given the amount of non-controversial work I put into that change, it will be much easier to tinker with the new version than to duplicate my work. Please do not revert my entire edit again; please do improve parts of it. Cheers, CWC 06:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus to remove the content you have removed. You have removed all instances of 'neo-conservative, this is well sourced and been agreed, see above. We have several notable sources, William R. Polk is very notable in this field, calling them a neo conservative group. Our individual views on this does not change that and there are no sources refuting it. So there is no valid reason why it should be included in the article. It doesnt really matter when the criticims were made, it's not for us to decide that. --neonwhite user page talk 01:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether Campus Watch is "neoconservative" and "pro-Israeli" has been adequately answered and sourced. These terms are documented and should not be removed. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well, "pro-Israel" is obviously correct, as is "conservative", but I strongly disagree about "neoconservative". No Reliable Source has tagged CW as neocon, for the simple reason that it is not neo-conservative, as I explained above. Mr Polk may be notable, but he does not rise to the high level of a Reliable Source. It would be quite OK to say something along the lines of "W. R. Polk has described CW as neo-con", but labelling CW as neocon in the infobox is just not acceptable. (It should be possible to find a RS saying CW is allied to neocons, or supported by neocons, but I bet you'll never find a proper RS saying they are neocons, because they're not. BTW, I really hope people know which Horowitz, Kristol and Podhoretz I was referencing above.)

Lots of people regard "neoconservative" as a devastating label to apply to people, and far too many of them have been far too careless in throwing this alleged slur around. Wikipedia should not lower itself to their level. Cheers, CWC 07:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neoconservative has an encyclopedic meaning that is what is used here. Your opinion is not important here, we have many verifiable sources including published articles in The Nation and London Review of Books both of these are extremely reliable publications. The Nation having a distinct history of nearly 150 years having published some of the most notable writers of the 19th and 20th centuries. William Polk is a major published author and a known expert on foreign policy for the last 50 years. see William R. Polk, he is therefore verifiable according to policy. (Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.). I remind you that wikipedia is not a soapbox. --neonwhite user page talk 04:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are fine. The basic point here ought to obvious: one hallmark of neo-conservativism is the demonization of Islam, which is also the central preoccupation of Daniel Pipes and Campus Watch. Traditional conservatives have little interest in this topic. Please don't edit war over this. If you want to pursue it further, start a request for comment. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't for us to determine what the hallmarks of neo-conservativism are. All that matters is the sources. --neonwhite user page talk 04:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Just over two years since I did that "massive revision", I've made another largish edit. Here's a list of notable changes, numbered for ease of reference:

  1. Changed location details to Philadelphia, rather than Center City: too much detail for lede
  2. Fix dead URL for "Five Years of Campus Watch"
  3. Dropped present-tense sentence from start of "Dossiers" section: that section is about events in Sep-Oct 2002, not since then. Plus, we make the same point elsewhere.
  4. Dropped mention of, and quote from, Juan Cole: he is not a Reliable Source for the purposes of this article. If we keep that quote, NPOV will require giving CW's response, and I don't see his criticism as being significant enough to deserve that much coverage here.
  5. Dropped ref to amconmag.com: not a WP:RS here.
  6. Dropped para about a (badly flawed) essay by non-WikiNotable Steven Salaita.
  7. Added Pipes' response to Beinin.
  8. Added detail to Pipes' response to Meirsheimer and Walt, linking to Pipes' website instead of FrontPage.
  9. Dropped speculation about CW being "profit making" (anti-semitic tropes, much?); Norton's book cannot support claims that broad (and is largely discredited anyhow).
  10. Linked "McCarthyism" to http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/702 in the fourth of the five bullet points in the "Response" section, per quoted page.

I also did some copyediting. More importantly (and laboriously), I formatted several references. (Only 1 badly-formatted ref is left: I'm not sure whether the Mearsheimer&Walt 2007 ref in the lede is their book.)

I know my work can be improved, but I'm sure the article is now a lot less POV than it was before. Comments welcome. Cheers, CWC 02:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, CWC. I still have some objections to your changes. I am concerned that, over the course of the several years in which you have been active in editing and monitoring this article, the article has falsely conveyed the nature of Campus Watch's data collection program, by suggesting that this program was only active during the period of the dossiers. This is, of course, inaccurate, and seems to me to be the most important element of the entry. You seem to have cut another reference to it in your recent overhaul. I hope we can agree to restore this blanked text at the opening of the dossiers section.
Juan Cole is a subject of the controversy. I think the quote belongs. I'll go seek out a CW response to that text and incorporate it, if this is something we could agree on?
I added the Norton quote; it seems pretty clear that there is a financial conflict of interest there. Can you explain what you mean, that the book is "discredited"? Also, regarding "anti-semitic trope" and "kosapedia", please tone down the rhetoric a bit. This is not the language of fruitful dialogue!
I'm going to pop some more stuff in there, as a means of dialogue, as I'll not be active on Wikipedia much. Please don't take it as an edit war, just a show of what I'm thinking, and of course I'll expect you to work it over where you find it deficient. Please respond to each item in individual edits so that we can see where we are agreeing. Cheers! DBaba (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CWC, I am disturbed to see your insistence that the Norton quote is anti-Semitic. This is obviously beyond the pale, were it to be so. But as someone who is exceedingly sensitive to bigotry (particularly in its two-faced Wiki-subtle manifestations), I just don't see where you're coming from, unless there's something else in this book which I have not read. To advertise their books on their website blackening other books, is this not a conflict of interests? Or is she falsely claiming that there were any ads at all? I'm missing something, because I'm seeing a non sequitur from that quote to "anti-Jews". I'm a bit wary that maybe your intense passion about the "falsehoods" in the book is coloring your reading of the sentence; and I'm not so worried about your interpretation of the validity of the book beyond the scope of Wikipedia's RS policy (although were it to contain legitimately anti-Semitic remarks, I would sure hope you would say so, to me, directly!). I am indebted to you for working with me on this, DBaba (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, CWC. I still have some objections to your changes. I am concerned that, over the course of the several years in which you have been active in editing and monitoring this article, the article has falsely conveyed the nature of Campus Watch's data collection program, by suggesting that this program was only active during the period of the dossiers. This is, of course, inaccurate, and seems to me to be the most important element of the entry. You seem to have cut another reference to it in your recent overhaul. I hope we can agree to restore this blanked text at the opening of the dossiers section.
Juan Cole is a subject of the controversy. I think the quote belongs. I'll go seek out a CW response to that text and incorporate it, if this is something we could agree on?
I added the Norton quote; it seems pretty clear that there is a financial conflict of interest there. Can you explain what you mean, that the book is "discredited"? Also, regarding "anti-semitic trope" and "kosapedia", please tone down the rhetoric a bit. This is not the language of fruitful dialogue!
I'm going to pop some more stuff in there, as a means of dialogue, as I'll not be active on Wikipedia much. Please don't take it as an edit war, just a show of what I'm thinking, and of course I'll expect you to work it over where you find it deficient. Please respond to each item in individual edits so that we can see where we are agreeing. Cheers! DBaba (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CWC, I am disturbed to see your insistence that the Norton quote is anti-Semitic. This is obviously beyond the pale, were it to be so. But as someone who is exceedingly sensitive to bigotry (particularly in its two-faced Wiki-subtle manifestations), I just don't see where you're coming from, unless there's something else in this book which I have not read. To advertise their books on their website blackening other books, is this not a conflict of interests? Or is she falsely claiming that there were any ads at all? I'm missing something, because I'm seeing a non sequitur from that quote to "anti-Jews". I'm a bit wary that maybe your intense passion about the "falsehoods" in the book is coloring your reading of the sentence; and I'm not so worried about your interpretation of the validity of the book beyond the scope of Wikipedia's RS policy (although were it to contain legitimately anti-Semitic remarks, I would sure hope you would say so, to me, directly!). I am indebted to you for working with me on this, DBaba (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DBaba, for your messages here. I've been intending to reply since I read the first one ... and when I started to reply to your latest message I made the mistake of visiting TV Tropes to see if they had a article about the "greedy Jew" trope (they do: quite a good one, actually) and spent most of the weekend browsing that site ... it is incredibly addictive.
  1. My guess is that covering what CW and Juan Cole have said about each other would take a lot of space in the article without adding much useful information. But that's only a guess. I'd be interested to see CW's response to Dr Cole.
  2. The suggestion that that actions of "[t]he Campus Watch people" — all pro-Israel, mostly Jewish — had "an element of profit-making" is an old anti-semitic trope. I for one am disgusted to find it here. More relevant to Wikipedia is that Norton provides no evidence for her assertion, so it's a negative claim about living people backed only by the claim of one person writing outside her area of expertise who is deeply hostile to the subjects of her claim. WP:BLP forbids that sort of thing.
  3. I read quite a few blog posts about Norton's book when it was published, and concluded that it was very silly. (That was a long time ago, so I can't remember much detail, sorry.) Hence my calling her book "largely discredited". Looking at page 93 of her book at Amazon, I see several falsehoods, so I'm not inclined to give the book much credit now.
  4. I apologize for that Kosapedia crack.
I hope this helps explain my positions. I don't have time now to address all the issues DBaba has raised ... maybe in a few weeks, if I can keep myself from spending more time at That Website. Cheers, CWC 15:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical of the claims that the Campus Watch staff is "mostly Jewish" and "all pro-Israel", and I'm not sure I really care or that that should matter (defining either of those descriptors is iffy). So you're saying that Campus Watch is Jews, and therefore to criticize two of its employees for using it to promote their own books is out of bounds, because that's the same thing as saying that "the" Jews are greedy? I'm having trouble with the premise, and also the math, I guess. I really don't see where this conversation has anything to do with ("the") Jews, in its substance or in its implications; Israeli nationalism isn't exclusively a Jewish phenomenon, and certainly most Jews have better things to do than become embroiled in it.
To suggest that the criticism is anti-Semitic seems like an awkward rightist attempt to appropriate the politically-correct high ground. As I review the page you've suggested, I see the subsequent page references the criticism of Professor Daniel Blumberg; so, is this Jewish American an anti-Semite too, or is Norton just being extra sneaky in her anti-Semitism by celebrating the words of a Jewish-American critic of CW? I now feel that to criticize Norton on this basis isn't just unjustified, it's a transgression of Wikipedia's Living Persons policy (see the very first sentence).
As an aside, I can't help but interject, though I'm sure we'd agree, that one can criticize Israel and be "pro-Israel"; to be pro-Israel is to insist that Israel pass from a lesser to a greater perfection; and this principle holds in the context of any democratic society. As to your point about Norton's criticism being hers alone, I don't readily find any ref that backs her assertion, so I'm content to leave it out on that basis, although I still take issue with your vague claims of "falsehoods", which I think is just your opinion and therefore inappropriate. Thanks for shootin the breeze with me man. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that that actions of "[t]he Campus Watch people" — all pro-Israel, mostly Jewish — had "an element of profit-making" is an old anti-semitic trope. I for one am disgusted to find it here. -- This is radically irrational and fallacious ... specifically a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent. By this bizarre and confused logic, it would be considered racist to merely mention that Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman, because "black men gonna steal our white women" is an old racist trope. -- 70.109.46.5 (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight to criticism

Haven't looked at this article in years. But it seems odd and inappropriate that the criticism section is larger than the ordinary descriptive content. I suggest that it be cut back: first, by paraphrasing key points rather than giving block quotes, and second, by cutting down to only the most important criticisms, as needed. Thanks! HG | Talk 16:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Campus Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Campus_Watch"