Talk:Council for the National Interest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archiving[edit]

Hearing no objections I'm going to archive all this old 2006 material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video quotes/updating[edit]

  • There are lots of quotes from Findlay around, don't need quotes from a difficult to download (I'm trying now) video. I'll replace them when I get a chance.
  • Plus it really should be quotes from different leaders of the group.
  • Plus article needs a general update.
  • Plus many CNI links not working; emailed them to see if it is a temporary glitch. Maybe they just are too old. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note on current edits[edit]

I'm in middle of updating this. Found a bunch of good WP:RS. See Edit Summaries to see what doing and why. Will return tomorrow and do some more/hopefully finish. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bird assertion needs WP:BLP clarification and updated research[edit]

This diff is an interesting case of when an assertion by an individual has later discussion/back and forth by others without mentioning that person. I'm really not sure of relevant policy under WP:BLP and probably won't have time, energy, to check til tomorrow, but throwing that out in case anyone has a link to a policy page that clarifies the point. Also, in the 8 odd years since the last reference, there may have been more information revealed about this, including regarding Bird's comments. So research also my clarify what to do. Will look at soon. CarolMooreDC 17:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV Editing[edit]

Do you really think it was wise or appropriate, or within Wikipedia policy to make the following edit at the Council for the National Interest?: "The predominantly Jewish subscribers to the pressure group Honest Reporting Canada..." I hope you will be prudent enough to revise this terrible POV wording, regardless of whether it was used in the source itself. It is not directly pertinent to the controversy at hand. Plot Spoiler (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an article on the NRA and a gun control group set up an advocacy organization to trash supporters of the NRA and a WP:RS wrote about WHO ran or subscribed to the organization (and wrote complaint letters for it) would Wikipedia have us white wash that fact? If Jewish supporters of Israel are organizing to trash someone (MacDonald) who criticizes Israel, and a WP:RS comments on it, why white wash that fact? (It probably could be expanded to three sentences to be a bit less clumbsy; I tend to try to use fewer words.) I can't imagine what policy you are talking about here. If CNI represents the American national interest, why coverup the activities of Canadians looking out for Israel's national interest by criticizing CNI?
Here's the relevant section of the article. How would you write it without censoring the facts?
HonestReporting is an American non-profit organization founded in 2000 by British students of Aish HaTorah, an international network of Jewish educational centres. The students were shaken by what they perceived to be media misrepresentations of Israel following the start of the second intifada. HR has since separated from Aish and now has affiliates in Canada (HRC), Brazil, Russia, Italy, and the United States, and 100,000 subscribers worldwide. All chapters espouse the HR mission to ensure "fair and accurate" coverage of Israel in the media. But while the organization expects journalists to be free of bias, it doesn't always apply the same rules to itself....
He [Dov Smith of HRC] admits HRC's subscribers are predominantly Jewish, though people of other faiths also subscribe. Smith won't divulge HRC's budget, but Veffer says it "isn't huge." The organization operates almost entirely online. It maintains archives on its website, which include essays and articles on the media's supposed support for the Palestinian side of the conflict, written mainly by Jewish sources; and tips on writing effective, professional letters to the media.....
HRC has made a particular target of CBC Washington correspondent and former Middle East bureau chief Neil Macdonald...' (long description of what happened) CarolMooreDC 14:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Carol, but Wikipedia prefers NPOV language. Since Wikipedia's entry on HRC describes it as a NGO, this article should state this. The opinions and allegations from a single article from a Journalism student isn't enough to support treating these as facts, and in any event, are not relevant (since this student's article doesn't mention CNI). As for the HRC's supposed "targeting" of Neil MacDonald, it has criticized him for a grand total of two reports, one of which the CBC even acknowledged that there was no basis for the accusations of MacDonald's interviewee. This author may view this as "particular targeting" but it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for it to be stated as an absolute fact. If you want to make these accusations while citing this journalism article as your source, feel free too - but citing them as proven facts isn't in the cards. (Also, this journalism article doesn't mention CNI at all (using unrelated articles/opinions to try and discredit an organization borders on original research).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
So are you saying that you want the whole thing removed? That's fine with me since it's fairly trivial. I'm assuming you don't want the Princeton undergraduate opinion piece put back instead of the journalism student's ref? FYI, the ref does indeed mention CNI, twice in fact. CarolMooreDC 00:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you are correct: The article does mention CNI. Even so, the author's accusation/opinion about HRC (i.e. that it is "targeting" poor Neil MacDonald) should not be treated as a fact (if you want to cite it, you should clarify that these are the words of this author). Likewise, even if the majority of HRC subscribers are Jewish, it still has nothing to do with this article. To put this in context, when citing an organization/person in Wikipedia as a source for criticism, you can easily attach all sorts of opinions and facts to it in order to (implicitly or explicitly) cast doubt on its motives or accuracy, but this isn't workable in Wikipedia. As is, I've changed the description of HRC to match its description given in the HRC Wikipedia article, which I believe to be fair.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Council for the National Interest. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Council for the National Interest. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Council for the National Interest. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Council for the National Interest. 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) 16:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Council for the National Interest. 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) 00:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Council for the National Interest. 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) 15:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank "occupied" vs. "disputed"[edit]

See [1]. On this little article you can try to get away with this silliness, but go try it at the West Bank article, which has a section called "consequences of occupation".

The lead states: "The International Court of Justice advisory ruling (2004) concluded that events that came after the 1967 occupation of the West Bank by Israel, including the Jerusalem Law, Israel's peace treaty with Jordan and the Oslo Accords, did not change the status of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) as occupied territory with Israel as the occupying power." with two citations. The rest of the article contains dozens more.

"Disputed" is mentioned in the West Bank article, but only to present Israel's viewpoint. Which is POV, of course. It is fine to include POV in an article, attributed to the speaker, and in the proper context and with due weight. But it is not appropriate to use "disputed" in the article's voice in one sentence without context. The West Bank is clearly occupied, legally and practically. Yes, hasbarists say "Judea and Samaria" is "disputed", but you don't get to include that in an article unattributed. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the last version before 173.54.143.149's edits. There was a lot of other stuff in that first edit that I didn't see before. Please gain consensus for any further controversial edits. Or you can try Wikipedia:Third opinion. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 01:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An "occupation" assumes an unprovoked aggression taking control from a previous recognized sovereign authority. Israel's 1967 liberation of its indigenous, ancestral territories was neither. The were attacked by Jordan, from the East, and threatened with imminent annihilation then successfully repatriated the territories from Jordan, itself a belligerent illegal occupier (never internationally recognized) of the land since 1948. There was never a sovereign state of "Palestine" and Jordan later relinquished claim to the territories. As such, "disputed" is the term that is not in dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.143.149 (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, find some sources. Then propose changes on this page. Unilateral, controversial, unsourced edits will continue to be reverted. See the third opinion option above if you would like to use dispute resolution. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request for a third opinion is filed. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request :
The lands are held by military power, not popular mandate - the definition of a military occupation. François Robere (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Council_for_the_National_Interest&oldid=1206806871"