Talk:Freedom's Watch

Quote by Tenet in Early 2007

"On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes that the Bush Administration "could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with Al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."["

How is this relevant to this organization? The quote is in the criticism section, yet its not critical of the organization. The quote was mode in April, yet this orgnization wasn't formed until August.

I don't see it as relevant, and the argument to include seems to be classic WP:OR. Efforts to "validate the words falls" under WP:SYN Dman727 16:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You are completely misinterpreting the rationale for the inclusion of this statement. The paragraph's premise is based on the fact that any implied link between Iraq and 9/11 is a false claim, and this final statement is necessary to provide the context, validation and citations required to be able to state this fact. Without this reference the whole paragraph becomes meaningless as the fact that forms the basis for the criticism would be unsourced. Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The statements made by George Tenet, which form the basis for the criticism in the paragraph, are very well referenced. WP:SYN is based on the new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, however, only one source is required here to provide the necessary information (that no Iraq-9/11 link has been found), and there is no synthesis of multiple sources to demonstrate this fact (for which a reference is required according to WP:CITE).

Humanist Wikitopian 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, its completely relevant.Giovanni33 16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I too agree that the Tenet quote is relevant. But I don't think this paragraph (as is) quite gets it right. The paragraph should provide (neutral and verifiable) information that FW has been criticized. (That's what the heading says.) Instead, it seems to imply that the group is wrong. The structure of this paragraph is approximately this: 1) the group's ads have been accused of implying something that's false, and here's an in-line citation of ABC News to support this; 2) synopses of two of the ads (i.e., demonstrating the false linkage); and 3) Tenet's quote that there was no proof of a link. The strength of this paragraph is in the ABC News quote, because it supports the claim that there has been criticism, rather than the Tenet quote, which is there to show the group is wrong. By ending with the Tenet quote, the paragraph seems to invite the reader to perform his or her own "synthesis." What if we try this logic: 1) the group's ads imply a link, use synopses of the ads to support this (don't use the words "false" or "falsely"); then 2) several investigations have shown that such a link did not exist, use the 9/11 Commission and Tenet's quote to support this; and then 3) the group has been criticized for this, use the ABC News citation to support this. And here's another citation I found today (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/08/24/fleischer_war/ ) that may add more support to the criticism itself, rather than the wrongness. Hult041956 21:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to incorporate your suggestions into the article. I think it reads more neutrally and, frankly, better now. Ursasapien (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Ursa. I confess I made the above suggestions (and felt they were good) but didn't know exactly how to get started. You've done a nice job, I believe. What about the following addition (which I'll vet here first)?:

Observers have criticized the group's ads for their "manipulative style" (ref to:)Conason, Joe, "Ari Fleischer's misleading message", Salon.com, 08-24-2007. Retrieved 09-18-2007. (end ref) and for linking the war with the 9/11 attacks "despite no reliable evidence Iraq played any role in those attacks." (ref to:)ABC News, op cit (end ref).

Does this help or hurt. Clearly this group (and this article) will continue to be controversial. I don't want to re-introduce the NPOV or SYN issues we've been working to solve. Hult041956 17:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

- I replaced the more tangentially related Tenet quote with a more directly related New York Times quote that compares the group's advertising with a lack of evidence for Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Is this a better fit? I also clipped out the names of people in the ads and their backstories, since it didn't seem particularly important to the criticism, and seemed to get in the way of a clearer statement of what the criticism was. 67.170.166.3 17:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... today, it's gone entirely. Here we go again? Hult041956 18:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why So Many Red-Links?

The article has a dozen or so wiki-links to nothing. Is someone going to invest the time to write articles on each of these subjects or should we remove the wiki-links and just bold the names or something? Ursasapien (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's even worse than you said. A couple of the blue links only accidently go to an existing article---about the wrong person. Check out high school kid, Matthew Brooks, and Olympic kayaker, Richard Fox, who are likely associated with neither the Republican Jewish Coalition nor Freedom's Watch. Looks like the author of this list just bracketed every name without even checking. And on the flip side, Florida election recount might well be an interesting link, but wasn't made. Hult041956 16:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Freedom's Watch 'About' reference

The link in the references section no longer points to their about page. It still says the same stuff but now it's located here:

http://www.freedomswatch.org/About/tabid/38/Default.aspx

Sorry, I couldn't work out how to change it myself. Richardbeavis 13:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, Richard. Since the obsolete url appears in an in-line footnote, you need to fix it there. (That is, within the paragraph the footnote appears in, rather than in the Reference section. I took care of it... go there and see how to do it. Hult041956 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Political Positions

Apparently Freedom's Watch is a conservative group, or so it seems. Out of curiosity, does anyone know Freedom's Watch's political positions on the issues such as abortion,crime,traditional marriage,stem cell research and etc? I think this will further enhance this article.

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they do not take (as an organization) positions on any issues outside of the "War on Terror." They are very pro-Bush administration, but I do not know that you can use the blanket description "conservative." Ursasapien (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I myself put "conservative" in his aricle is because Bush himself is a (neo) conservative. In fact most groups who support bush are (mostly) conservative groups, while those who oppose Bush and his policies are (mostly) Liberal groups. I put conservative there because I once visited Freedom's Watch's site and judging by what I saw, I do presume that Freedom's Watch is a conservative group as the group supports many to most of Presidnt Bush's policies, such as th Iraq war and etc.

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreover I got some proof here

http://www.freedomswatch.org/

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've got me there. When you look here, they say "Freedom’s Watch was formed to promote the common good and general welfare of the American people by supporting mainstream conservative public policies." They do not, as far as I can see, publically express a specific position on "abortion, crime, traditional marriage, stem cell research, . . ." but I imagine they would take typical conservative positions. They may seek to avoid the abortion question as it is devisive even among conservatives and is completely off their original mission of supporting the war. Ursasapien (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Jewish stuff?

Sorry, but I don't see how some of the links are relevant in the least. "Members are almost all Jewish" sounds pretty...shall we say, NPOV, in this context--as if it's being implied that there's something wrong with there being a bunch of people who practice Judaism. How are the members' religious preferences relevant at all to Freedom's Watch? I see nothing in their work that has anything to do with Judaism.

I'm removing two "external" links. One in particular links to another Wiki article (not external) that has precisely zero to do with this subject at all. --Beth C. 18:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Make that three links. I also removed the link to an anti-Fleischer blog post from Think Progress, which isn't appropriate in an encyclopedia. --Beth C. 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency article is an article about the group from a reliable source. If they think it's relevant to point out the Jewish connection, it's up to them. —Ashley Y 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But how is it relevant to the story of what Freedom's Watch is about? I'm sure there are plenty of groups who have something to say about Freedom's Watch, but it doesn't necessarily mean it has anything to do with their mission. They aren't an Israel advocacy group, after all. I'm just saying, who cares if a bunch of them are Jewish, just because the JTA does? Yes, the JTA is a reliable source, but I guess I just don't see how that means whatever they say should necessarily matter. (BTW, the links were actually separated, which made it kinda strange in the context; it wasn't formatted as you have it, which makes it make sense, although I still don't think it's relevant.)

I'm not going to go back remove it again now (edit wars suck), but I would like to understand the point in having it in there. It's not that it's inflammatory--I just don't really think it's noteworthy. --Beth C. 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree and note that User:Ashley Y has failed to address the concerns raised by User:Beth C. over 7 months ago. At best it seems a violation of WP:Weight and as appropriate as a link to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Doright (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency is a reliable source. It's also not known to be particularly anti-Semitic, so references to "Jewwatch.com" (in the edit history) and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are not appropriate. —Ashley Y 06:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ashley Y, you have failed to address the issue of WP:Weight or address the issues raised by User:Beth C. over 7 months ago. No one has questioned whether JTA is a reliable source and whether or not it is antisemtic is irrelevant (although I don't have any reason to believe that it is). Those non-sequiturs do not address the concerns raised. Please revert yourself until you address the issues. Doright (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no "undue weight" issue here. The JTA, a reliable source, published a news article specifically devoted to how Jewish this group is. We should reflect reliable sources fairly in the article, which we have in a rather short paragraph. There is no reason to remove it. —Ashley Y 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There certainly is an undue weight issue here. So they are Jewish? So what? I find it interesting that in an article regarding a political organization you want to flag the members as jews. Why? who cares. 09:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (resigning garbled sig) Dman727 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The article should reflect what reliable sources say about it. You personally may not consider it interesting or relevant, but a reliable news agency does, and that's what matters. There's no reason to remove this particular source and what it says, and it smacks of censorship. And we have no more than one short paragraph on the matter, so it cannot be considered undue weight. Please undo your revert. —Ashley Y 10:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Save it. Wiki is not a complete complilation of everything ever written. Wiki is a composition of relevant well sourced information given due weight about a particular topic. And no I don't consider it interesting or relevant and apparently, neither does anyone else on this talk page.Dman727 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you consider interesting or relevant. What matters is what reliable sources consider interesting or relevant. —Ashley Y 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion that it belongs matters about as much as mine. Thats why we build consensus for material to be added. Build a consensus and it'll stay, plus you'll have other voices supporting you. Read up on wiki consensus when you have a chance. Dman727 (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm addressing all the issues:

"Who cares? So what? I don't see how it's relevant. I don't think it matters."

That's your opinion. A reliable source considers it sufficiently relevant to devote a news article to the subject.

"This is as appropriate as a link to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This is better suited to Jewwatch.com"

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency is a reliable source, with no reputation for anti-Semitism. The paragraph fairly represents what the source says.

"It's undue weight"

It's one small paragraph, fairly representing a reliable source, which devoted a news article to the subject "pro-surge group almost all Jewish", including a dissenting voice.

"It implies there's something wrong with being Jewish"

That's your own interpretation. The paragraph fairly reflects the source in this matter.

"You have an agenda. I find it interesting you want to flag the members as Jews."

My agenda and interest in this is relevant truth, as it can be found in reliable sources.

—Ashley Y 10:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No articles are not here to cover every single piece of minutia ever written about a subject. If an article mentioned that during the interview they were dressed nicely and had lunch at Mortons, that wouldnt belong in the article either. One small paragraph about a competely irrevevant piece of trivia is one paragraph too many. And yes, focusing on such minutia does feed the interpretation of thinly veiled anti-semitism..We weren't born yesteday.Dman727 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. A reliable source considers it sufficiently relevant to devote a news article to the subject, and that's what matters. —Ashley Y 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats all we got is our opinions. Yours, mine and everyone else on wiki. But our opinions are tempered by wiki policy. WP:Weight is the policy that says such trivia doesnt belong. If wiki were relegated to reguritating every news article ever written, it would not longer be an encyclopedia, but a news archive. The other wiki policy is consensus. If you can manage to build a consensus that the religion of individual members of this organization should have an entire paragraph devoted to it, then it can certainly stay....but judging by the comments above, you'll proably have an uphill battle on that consensus. Dman727 (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:Weight. Due weight is weight as given by reliable sources. Undue weight is weight as given by the opinion of Wikipedia editors. Our opinions are indeed tempered by wiki policy. Wikipedia policy is to use reliable sources, rather than opinions, to determine article content. These are the facts of the matter:

• The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, a reliable source, considers the fact that Freedom's Watch is almost all Jewish to be sufficiently newsworthy to not only mention it, but to devote an entire serious news article to the subject.
• User:Dman727, a Wikipedia editor who "wasn't born yesterday", considers it trivia.

So which do we go with? The reliable source, or the opinion of a Wikipedia editor? WP:Verifiability has the answer... —Ashley Y 22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is the answer, guided by all of wiki policies. Build a consensus and I'll back ya up. So far, I only hear your voice calling for the tagging of jews in this organization. Once again, wiki articles are not bound to be a news archive, but a inciteful concise summary of pertinent information. I might go for a sentence, but an entire paragraph dedicated to outing the jews? We all know thats that called. Oh and nice try linking to Original research. Not even in the ball parkDman727 (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we do include all relevant reliable sources if possible, especially serious news stories. We also use reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors' opinions, to decide what is pertinent information. You may think this is "outing the Jews", but the Jewish Telegraphic Agency does not. Let's go with what the reliable sources say.

As for weight, what you deleted was one sentence noting its conception at an RJC meeting (verified by a different source), one sentence summarising the JTA article, and one sentence for a (somewhat dissenting) clarification by a FW board member. Oh, and you also blind-reverted various unrelated corrections and clean-up of the article. —Ashley Y 23:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a noticeboard on wiki to solicit additional opinions. It might be a good idea for you or I to check that out. I'll wait a bit and let you go first if you prefer. Obviously we aren't going to change each other minds so additional opinions may help. Also my apologies for reverting the cleanup stuff. I certainly have no objection to misc cleanup. Dman727 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Y, It seems that you have chosen to edit war rather than pursue further attempts at consensus. [1]

I find the arguments presented by Beth C. and Dman727 much more persuasive than that of Ashley Y who first thought it was okay that the mere presence of Jews in the organization was framed as a criticism and then when challenged on that issue then moved the Jewish stuff to the article lead in violation of WP:Weight. Personally, I found the JTA article interesting and agree that it is a reliable source. However, as has been pointed out several times before, we are editors for WP, an encyclopedia. Not everything reliable sources mention is of an encyclopedic nature. I suggest if you are motivated to include the Jewish stuff, you find additional reliable sources that discuss it in a way that makes it relevant to include in an encyclopedic article about Freedom's Watch and that you do so in a way that does not violate WP policies. I respectfully suggest that Ashley Y continue to seek WP:Consensus and not reinsert the Jewish Stuff as she has done repeatedly until consensus is achieved. Doright (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:Weight. Weight is determined by reliable sources, not by our own opinions. This is not something that a reliable source "mentions", this is something that a reliable source devoted an entire news article to. And yes, as I have pointed out several times before, we do include pretty much all relevant reliable sources that we can find.

If a reliable news agency considers it sufficiently newsworthy to devote an entire serious news article to the subject, then it is encyclopedic. —Ashley Y 22:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Y, with all due respect 100% of the editors that have addressed this matter with you do not agree with your argument or "understanding". According to your logic every WP:RS article having to do with Freedom's Watch ever published should be included in the lead, since your only justification for inclusion is that it is derived from a reliable source. When your reasoning produces such an absurd result, perhaps it is time to revisit it instead of repeating it ad nauseam. You have yet to persuade anyone with it. In the past you have only prevailed by edit waring. However I suspect that strategy may be wearing thin. Please stop edit waring and consider pursuing one or more of the suggestions for dispute resolution that have been suggested to you. Doright (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Every relevant reliable source should be included in the article, weighted according to the weight given by the source and its reliability. If you substitute your own opinion for that of a reliable source, either for facts or for weight, that is original research.

From WP:Weight:

"Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."

—Ashley Y 23:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is simply incorrect. Wiki is a not a comprehensive WP:RS archive. And OR? Not even close. [[WP:OR}} doesn't apply to content that doesn't exist in the article, although I have to admit that is a pretty imaginative use of the policy. Dman727 (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is all about reliable sources. From WP:Verifiability:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

The material crosses that threshold. As for weight, that is determined by the source, not by opinion. From WP:Weight:

"Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."

—Ashley Y 00:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, since you cite, "that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources," what evidence do you have that your inclusion of the "Jew stuff" in the article's lead reflects "the prevalence in reliable sources?" A quick check of the google news archive for all articles about Freedom's Watch produced numerous hits. However, very few of the articles contained the word Jewish and ZERO of those articles contained the word Jewish without it being preceded by the word Republican. So one is left to wonder why you are so prominently pushing the Jew thing? Doright (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am "prominently pushing the Jew thing", as you say, because a reliable source is "prominently pushing the Jew thing". No other reason. That is neutrality: that an article should fairly reflect the weight and content of reliable sources, whatever they happen to say. And a single article by a news agency devoted to the topic is considered sufficient prevalence in every other case, so it should be for this one too. The point is that it's the weight that reliable sources give it, not your own opinion, that determines due weight. —Ashley Y 01:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No I do not agree that a single fairly short article by the Jewish website can be properly can be properly characterized as that Jewish website "prominently pushing the Jew thing." Furthermore, that hardly meets the criterion of "prevalence in reliable sources". You cited the prevalence requirement. Now you choose to ignore it.

Furthermore, since you have declined to address the failure of your logic that I presented above, I will highlight it here: 'According to your logic every WP:RS article having to do with Freedom's Watch ever published should be included in the lead, since your only justification for inclusion is that it is derived from a reliable source. When your reasoning produces such an absurd result, perhaps it is time to revisit it instead of repeating it ad nauseam. You have yet to persuade anyone with it. Doright (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "Jewish website". It is a news agency, and thus a reliable source. "Prominently pushing the Jew thing" are your words, not mine, and I am doing no more in this regard than the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. And what you have highlighted is a straw man, as it is not my reasoning. My justification is not only "that it is derived from a reliable source", but that a reliable source, a news agency no less, devoted an entire article to the topic. Weight in the article should follow weight given by reliable sources. It was actually in a second paragraph, not the lead as such, but it ought to be somewhere in the body of the article in any case (though I agree that it doesn't belong in the "Criticisms" section). —Ashley Y 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, you said in your earlier post that there you had no other reason. Specifically, and I quote you here: "I am 'prominently pushing the Jew thing', as you say, because a reliable source is 'prominently pushing the Jew thing'. No other reason." Now you want to contradict yourself and say that they are my words. Well, I don’t have exclusive ownership over any words. When you used them they became your words. They are the words your statement, "NO OTHER REASON" point to. It is becoming clear that you have exhausted your argument and we are at the point of diminishing returns.

I am 'prominently pushing the Jew thing' only to the degree that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is 'prominently pushing the Jew thing', and no more. You originally used this phrase, I have only ever used your words in scare-quotes, since I'm not exactly sure what you meant by it. In any case, there is nothing in the paragraph that is not sourced to the JTA, and there is no weight given by the paragraph that is not given by the JTA's article devoted to the subject. —Ashley Y 06:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Now you claim YOU don't even know what YOU are saying. You said you had "No other reason." But now you say you don't know what that reason means. I'm sorry but you are repeatedly demonstrating the futility in trying to accommodate you in light of the consensus against your POV. I am not inclined to waste any more time on that effort. I have no doubt that you will respond to this by again restating your already discredited arguments that have been rejected by 100% of the other editors. There are a lot of people here. I'm sure one will agree with you sooner or later. Until then, enjoy. Doright (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't wish to discuss the issue on the talk page, that's up to you of course, but please don't revert if so. —Ashley Y 23:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, you failed to demonstrate that my refutation of your argument was a straw man. Merely tossing the term doesn't qualify. You can of course contradict yourself again, but now you say that your justification is that a reliable source, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, wrote an article on the topic. Since you have, as you say, "No other reason," it clearly follows from your logic that WP should include all topics that have ever been the subject of an "entire article" ever produced by every reliable source. That is not a strawman. It is a straightforward refutation that demonstrates the absurdity of your argument. That point in my view warrants no further discussion. Doright (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

'WP should include all topics that have ever been the subject of an entire article ever produced by every reliable source' is approximately correct, unlike your earlier straw man. More generally, content and weight should be determined only by reliable sources, not one's own opinion, as you are doing here. Read WP:Verifiability. —Ashley Y 06:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Y, your claim that a "single article by a news agency devoted to the topic is considered sufficient prevalence" belies either an extraordinary POV or the lack of a dictionary. Please consider looking up the word "prevalence" in a dictionary. It is absurd on the face of it to claim that a "single article" establishes prevalence. Doright (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The majority of statements in this article each rest on no more than a single citation. Why are you objecting to this one (besides your own opinion of weight)? —Ashley Y 02:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is true (and I don't know that it is), you are free to identify other aspects of the article that you believe are in violation of WP:Weight and correct those violations. Happy editing! Doright (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you'll find this throughout the encyclopedia. This is best practice, not WP:Weight violation. Why are you objecting to this one (besides your own opinion of weight)? —Ashley Y 06:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Issue raised at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Freedom's Watch "almost all Jewish" —Ashley Y 00:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:WEIGHT:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." (emphasis added)

A serious news article by a news agency devoted to a particular aspect of the subject is as prominent as any of the sources used in the article. What reason do you have, besides your own opinion of weight, to remove the paragraph? —Ashley Y 06:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I see there's a confusion between "consensus" and "majority". Per WP:Consensus:

"Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two."

If you're not interested in discussing the issue here on the talk page, please don't revert. If you find you have no response that actually addresses the issue, that's usually a sign to leave it.

I shall ask a third time: what reason do you have, besides your own opinion of weight, to remove the paragraph? —Ashley Y 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus that the material doesn't belong. We've discussed it repeatedly. There is only one voice calling for this material using a very flimsy reasoning. I'm quite willing to discuss more if we cover new ground, but so far the discussion is going in circles. Thats not discussion, thats tendentious. Dman727 (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but two vs. one is not a consensus. Please read WP:Consensus. If you're no longer interested in discussing the issue, please don't revert. I'll ask again: what reason do you have, besides your own opinion of weight, to remove the paragraph? —Ashley Y 02:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, you have been trying to get this material added for -8 months- and as of today, there is not yet one person who supports your assertions. There are very few things in WIKI that are ever this close to unanimous. I will ask YOU not to revert the material until you have achieved consensus that dictates that it belongs. Dman727 (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph was in there in some form for the majority of those eight months, so I suggest you revert it. What reason do you have, besides your own opinion of weight, to remove the paragraph? —Ashley Y 02:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See above. Dman727 (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See where above? —Ashley Y 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

... The reasons why this material does not belong as laid out up above. Of course you know this. If you wish this for this thinly veiled anti-semetic Jew outing to stay, you'll need to build a consensus for the material. See WIKI guidelines on how to build a consensus and dispute resolution. In the meantime, please refrain from reverting the inappropriate material. Dman727 (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing laid out above, just opinions of weight. But due weight is determined by reliable sources, not Wikipedia editor's opinions. Your opinion that this is "thinly veiled anti-semitic Jew outing" is irrelevant, what matters is the weight given by a reliable source, an article published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. What reason do you have, besides your own opinion of weight, to remove the paragraph? —Ashley Y 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See above. Build a consensus. Dman727 (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing above but opinions of weight, which you continue to (irrelevantly) offer. What reason do you have, besides your own opinion of weight, to remove the paragraph? —Ashley Y 03:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Y, please be advised that WP:AGF does not entail unlimited tolerance for bad behavior. I have no intent to respond to your every prevarication. However, your conduct and edit warring is becoming disruptive. Every reader of this section knows very well that your assertion regarding "two vs. one" is false. For example, this very talk section begins with Beth C telling you:

"I'm not going to go back remove it again now (edit wars suck), but I would like to understand the point in having it in there." [[2]]

Ashley Y, this is becoming disruptive and beyond the scope of what can be reasonably assumed to be good faith Doright (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Beth C is not discussing or editing here and hasn't for seven months, despite your attempt to recruit her. Per WP:Consensus:

"Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two."

Please discuss the article, not the editor. What reason do you have, besides your own opinion of weight, to remove the paragraph? If you have none, I shall of course restore it. —Ashley Y 03:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind you that two against one is not "consensus". In addition, simply claiming majority as a reason for revert, rather than discussing content, is frowned upon. WP:Consensus explains it all, but this part especially:

"Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two."

Obviously, vaguely pointing to previous discussion doesn't count. The section recently deleted is well-sourced and appropriately weighted per its sources. What reason do you have, besides your own opinion of weight, to remove it? —Ashley Y 11:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And certainly one is not a consensus either. Ashley, this is clearly disputed material. Build your consensus and the material will stay. Thats the way wiki works. As it right now, over the past 8 months, the number of voices demanding that the Jews be identified remain just one - yours. See WP:WEIGHT. Yes thats my opinion on why it should be excluded. You have your opinion, I have mine, others have theirs (see the discussion in this section). Thats -why- you need to get a consensus. Dman727 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Two editors cannot decide to override content policy. Per WP:Weight, weight of sources, not Wikipedia editor's opinions (yours or mine or anyone else's), determines weight. From WP:Weight:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." (emphasis added)

If you cannot give a reason besides your own opinion of weight, I shall of course restore the section, per policy. —Ashley Y 20:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Jew Tracking

The Jewish TA article has been out of date for months. Blakeman resigned in March.[[3]] Doright (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated accordingly, with this ref. And the JTA article is not "Jew Tracking". It's describing the Jewish and RJC connections of the group. —Ashley Y 10:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Other sources

Greetings. To deal with this question, I'm inclined to think that the matter of WP:UNDUE should be addressed by checking whether there are other reliable sources on this question. I consider JTA a reliable source, not at NYT/WSJ level, but certainly reasonable. I did not enter into this question (posted on WT:JEW) with any preconceived view. Instead, I've checked Nexis. Here's what I've found so far:

"The idea for Freedom's Watch was hatched in March at the winter meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Manalapan, Fla., where Vice President Dick Cheney was the keynote speaker, according to participants." Article mentions Adelson and Fleischer but not their Jewishness FYI. Source: The New York Times. September 30, 2007. "Big Coffers and a Rising Voice Lift a New Conservative Group" DON VAN NATTA Jr.

"The very well-endowed Republican Jewish Coalition, a group of mainly pro-Likud and neo-conservative donors, is also likely to play a strong role in next year's election. Several Republican Jewish Coalition leaders helped found Freedom's Watch, a group that is expected to spend as much as $200 million during the next year to promote Bush's "war on terror," as well as to promote more hawkish policies directed against Iran and other perceived threats to Israel's security." Article says more about Jewish community, doesn't otherwise mention FW. Source: IPS - Inter Press Service. December 12, 2007. "U.S.-POLL: JEWISH COMMUNITY TILTS RIGHTWARD ON PEACE PROCESS" Jim Lobe.

"In early 2007, at a meeting in Florida of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Adelson and many of his allies resolved to create Freedom's Watch. As a nonprofit 501(C)(4), the organization can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from wealthy individuals without any disclosure, if it can argue that it is promoting an issue, not a candidate." This article is about Adelson and his role as a Jewish funder is highlighted throughout. Source: The New Yorker. June 30, 2008. The Brass Ring; A multibillionaire's relentless quest for global influence. Connie Bruck.

(This seems less relevant but I'll include it. "Practically ubiquitous during the Bush visit was Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, an emerging behind-the-scenes force in conservative politics in the United States and in Israel. Adelson bankrolls a new newspaper that is making waves in Israel by regularly attacking the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. He is the money behind Freedom's Watch, which supports candidates who favor a muscular foreign policy -- and a major philanthropic donor in Israel." The Washington Post. May 19, 2008. "Two Audiences, Two Speeches" Michael Abramowitz. Clearly Adelson needs to be mentioned in the FW article, I believe, but I'm not sure his Jewishness should be given undue weight. Maybe it's more his pro-Israel stance?)

This article should be very useful, it's up-to-date. Doesn't mention the role of Jews per se. (The New York Times. April 12, 2008. "Great Expectations for a Conservative Group Seem All but Dashed" MICHAEL LUO.) Sample quote: "Behind the scenes, however, Freedom's Watch has been plagued by gridlock and infighting, leaving it struggling for direction, according to several Republican operatives familiar with the organization who were granted anonymity so they could be candid about the group's problems. Although the organization was founded by a coterie of prominent conservative donors last year, the roughly $30 million the group has spent so far has come almost entirely from the casino mogul Sheldon G. Adelson, the chairman and chief executive of the Sands Corporation, who was recently listed as the third-richest person in the country by Forbes magazine."

Ok. Having reviewed these sources, I'm inclined to think that (1) certainly the major backers of FW should be mentioned, w/NYT etc as preferred source over JTA, and possibly in the article lead; (2) the role of the Republican Jewish Coalition is reliably sources and newsworthy, though less important than individuals like Adelson, I think, and not for article lead; (3) nobody else does the kind of counting of Jews done by JTA, so this does not seem to deserve weight or need be mentioned. In addition, JTA even tries to counteract the "Jew tracking" aspect with this quote ""It's a coincidence that several of the board members are Jewish," he said, noting that half of the donors contributing to the group's first $15 million ad campaign are not Jewish." (JTA article). I think WP should exercise some editorial wisdom and not overplay the Jewishness of some of the donors/board members; WP should follow lead of how it's handled by NYT and other major media. Perhaps with the above info, the disputing editors can find an acceptable middle ground? Do you feel comfortable with my (1) and (2) suggestions above? Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 04:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

(1) I generally agree that NYT is to be preferred over JTA.

(2) Maybe. All the sources seem to mention how FW grew out of the RJC, and that seems to be more stressed than Adelson. Of course, it's important to note that the organisation disclaims any particular "Jewish direction".

(3) Philip Weiss picks up on the JTA's Jewishness angle in a piece in The American Conservative (ref in deleted section). OK, so as an opinion piece it's less important in itself, but it at least shows there's a certain degree of relevance. Also, the deleted section includes the Brooks quote "It's a coincidence" etc., as obviously that's necessary for balance.

Overall I think the JTA's Jewishness angle should be mentioned (they did, after all, devote an entire article to the subject), but no more than the one sentence plus Brooks' somewhat dissenting quote, while more material should be added from the NYT and elsewhere. —Ashley Y 05:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As a compromise, I have changed it to "Four out of five ... are Republican Jews" (as in the source) instead of "Four out of five ... are Jewish", and removed the "wife of the fifth member" (which is a rather minor point). —Ashley Y 05:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As currently written, the "Origins" section strikes me as inappropriate. It leaves the impression that Jews are the most important aspect of origins. No need to enumerate the number of Jews at all. They aren't called "Republican Jews" but rather "members of the" RJC. In addition, the origins section should discuss the political aspects of the origin -- which is really what the whole thing is about. If there's nothing on the politics of the origins, then the Jewish aspect seems strongly like undue weight. While I picked out the relevant quotes above, editors should of course read the full relevant articles on FW. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we know how many are "members of the RJC". We just have the JTA calling four of them "Republican Jews". —Ashley Y 18:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The JTA story

Hmmm. True, but here there's a difference between the editorial slant of the Jewish Telegraph Agency and Wikipedia. The Jewish press is always writing about Jews do this, Jews do that. I recall coverage of the Kyoto earthquake w/a Jewish paper focused exclusively on the effect on Jews. But what's appropriate for JTA doesn't necessarily match WP common sense & policy, in my view. Still, I do appreciate your thoroughness and calmness during this dispute. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see everybody's angle. I think that's what neutrality's all about. This is in part a Jewish issue, so we should include the Jewish press' take on it. —Ashley Y 18:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, I do appreciate and applaud your interest in neutrality. But our role isn't to recapitulate or reflect the bias of every media viewpoint (e.g., the Jewish press' take). We use the sources and then correct for any bias so as to create an encyclopedic entry w/the available notable facts. It's only if a given angle is notable (whether an angle by the media or other entity) do we need to show that angle. So, in this case, the peculiar reporting of the Jewish press about Jews is not itself notable (i.e., the NYT does cover the JTA's coverage of the FW). Whether or not your agree, do you see the distinction I'm trying to draw? Thanks. HG | Talk 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, our role is to reflect every "significant" POV from every reliable source. WP:NPOV is quite clear about this. What we shouldn't be doing is "correcting for bias". That would be an imposition of our own POV on the sources. Let reliable sources speak for themselves. What makes a view significant is its weight given by the sources, not our opinion of it. The correct approach here is to give the most weight to sources like the NYT, Washington Post, a little less to news agencies such as the JTA, and less to magazines, but regardless of what they have to say. The wrong approach is to say that we find what the JTA has to say to be "peculiar" or "biased" (or makes us uncomfortable, or whatever), and minimise or omit it for that reason.

What WP:NPOV calls "significance", or what you call "notability", must be decided by the sources and their reputation for reliability, and not by our own sense of bias and peculiarity. —Ashley Y 02:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley -- According to your thinking about this, then, is JTA itself a "significant POV"? HG | Talk 05:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The POV it brings here is significant, because as a news agency it is a reliable source, and because it devotes an entire article to that POV (rather than just mentioning something in passing). Indeed if there are other angles from other reliable sources, they should also be included. This seems to me the foundation of neutrality. —Ashley Y 05:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, I still don't understand your thinking. What POV do you think is being reported? Whose POV? What are the views of this POV? Thanks. HG | Talk 08:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Points of view are not only assertions, but weightings. Two people might agree on the same facts, but consider their importance differently: they would thus have different points of view. In the POV of the JTA article, it's notable that Freedom's Watch is almost all Jewish -- sufficiently notable to warrant an article on the subject. This might be the POV of the JTA's readership, or it might be the POV of the JTA, but all we can really say is that it's a POV expressed in this one article. You might ask, is the "Jewishness" of FW really a notable fact, from an unbiased, neutral point of view? But that question has no meaningful answer, as the job of NPOV is merely to represent the source material fairly. —Ashley Y 08:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Origins section

I agree that there should be more about Adelson and the other donors in the Origins section. I'll see what I can do, and of course others should jump in here too. However we should achieve balance through adding reliably sourced information, not deleting it. To be neutral, we must represent all reliably-sourced viewpoints. —Ashley Y 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts to compromise, but this still strikes me as out of place, and yes inappropriate. A section on origins is certainly appropriate, but to devote so much language to their religious views, while virtually ignoring the political details is way out of balance. Given that the organization is certainly a political animal, the origins should inform largely of the political aspects and the personal religious views of some of its members should be a quite minor portion. I'll leave it alone for now so others can view it and comment, but I thing we still have a WP:WEIGHT issue. Dman727 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the solution is to add more political details. —Ashley Y 19:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As a process idea, you might consider taking a break from the Jew-ID debate and work on the political aspects of the origins section. Once you see how much length and content works for the political, you'll have a more solid basis for thinking about the proportionality for the disputed Jew-ID text. Take care, HG | Talk 21:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, leaving aside the dispute over Jew-ID, you've significantly improved the Origins section w/political aspects. Kudos. HG | Talk 22:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. More could be added, of course. —Ashley Y 02:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

MotherJones

Having looked at a number of articles on this site, which is being used as a source for way too many of the "facts" in this article, I'm not sure motherjones.com fits the definition of a reliable source... Has anyone else taken the time to review this site for anything other than citation mining? Tomer^talk 06:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're so inclined, I think it would be interesting to see more sources & analysis of the advertising or other FW efforts. HG | Talk 10:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really so inclined... this subject falls so far outside my realm of interest that I have pretty much 0 useful input, other than to say that there's no way we can possibly have an NPOV article on the subject when it relies so heavily on polemical (read "tabloid") press against it as source documentation. Tomer^talk 19:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Templeton

Is this the same as John Templeton? Apparently he died today. —Ashley Y 02:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it's his son. I'll make the link. —Ashley Y 02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Freedom's 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824092114/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/22/328681.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/22/328681.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070902154847/http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103795.html to http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103795.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824092114/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/22/328681.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/22/328681.aspx

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) 16:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)