Talk:Clarion Project

This was removed in this edit . I have readded it because it is directly related and reported by a reputable news organization:

In September 2008, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate the Clarion Fund's DVD distribution claiming that it was an attempt to influence the 2008 US presidential election. As evidence of inappropriate political bias on the part of The Clarion Fund, AP cited Patriot News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania reporting "that a Clarion Fund Web site ran a pro-McCain article before it attracted notice and was taken down."^[1]

Please explain why it is inappropriate. I do not agree that it is "POV" nor do I feel it falls under the category of "soapboxing". The Wikipedia definition of soapbox seems completely inappropriate as this isn't impromptu speech, rather it is an actual AP report directly relevant to the topic at hand. --John Bahrain (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no explanation why the POV tag has been added. If no explanation is given, it will be removed as you are not allowed to just tag articles as POV if you don't like the content. Right now I believe all content is cited to reputable sources. --John Bahrain (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the POV tag because as usual here at Wikipedia, the anti / pro Palestinian folks (particularly the pro) are trying hard to pass POV as appropriate encyclopedic content.

I don't want to get into *my* views, because Wikipedia is not a forum for *my* views and opinions. My point is that this article should not be turned unto a submarine soapbox for anyone's personal views on Mid-East politics.

Now, that's a tall order considering the subject matter, but in my view, this article does not meet Wikipedia's NPOV standards.

Please do not try railroad tactics to remove the POV tag until this is resolved, and keep in mind WP:OWN (this is not *your* article or *my* article). Proxy User (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask again, can you please explain why you placed the POV tag on this article so that we all can work to address those specific concerns. If you don't have any specific concerns, then it is best to remove the POV tag. I am not asking about your personal views on the subject matter, but the concerns of yours that led to your placing a POV tag on this article. The POV tag is meant to stimulate discussion (such as this discussion) such that POV issues can be resolved. --John Bahrain (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

First, it is not up to *you* to pass judgment on the validity of my objections, and your attitude clearly shows WP:OWN.

Though the article looks better now than it has in the past, the first paragraph is clearly biased, over emphasizing that these people are Jewish with an implication that this somehow "shady" and wishes to "hide" this fact. I would be happy to relent on the POV tag if this paragraph were rewritten in a less biased way.

But again, it's not up to you validate or invalidate my concerns about the lack of NPOV in the article, which generally sheds a negative light on the organization rather than an unbiased neutral description of the organization. Israel haters are like Micro$oft haters, rarely able to see their own bias. My view is that Both pro and con Israel bias has no place in an objective Wikipedia article. Proxy User (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Proxy User, it doesn't seem that you have a specific complaint, so I have removed the POV tag. I agree that the page has been worse before and I have made edits (some of which disagreed with Mr. Bahrain's) to keep it focused. If you would like to explain what you think this article should be doing that it is not currently doing so, then I think we are both open to persuasion. Stargat (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I *have* made a spacific complaint. And I'll make another: You need to review WP:OWN. Please do not remove the POV tag untill the issue is resolved. Proxy User (talk)

Proxy User, I have looked through your recent edits, and I am not sure what your precise complaint is -- and I am not sure where WP:OWN applies except that you do not like Bahrain's edits. In some cases you have removed obvious non-encyclopedic opinion and that is very commendable. Less clear is the dispute over whether he is Canadian or Israeli-Canadian. I did some research, and found this Haaretz article which calls him "Canadian-Israeli." Barring guideline-based objections, I would support this designation. Lastly, I see that you are removing references to the CAIR filing with the FEC. This I do not understand; it is certainly a reasonable addition. The second half of the paragraph, referring to the McCain article allegedly posted to the website seems less critical to the situation, and is just one apparent fact from the case among many, and seems designed to support CAIR's position. I would recommend leaving the first half, noting CAIR's filing, but removing the second. Thoughts? Stargat (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is preposterous that there is a POV tag on this article. I did not see the previous version of it & so cannot comment on that, but there is NOTHING in the current version that warrants such a tag. And I write this as a blogger who has written over 20 posts on this controversy & an article in The Guardian newspaper & is something of an expert on it (though I have not contributed in any way to the writing of this article). There is no reason why Clarion should be described in a "neutral" way when they are not a "neutral" organization. Though they disclaim such intent, many mainstream media sources & political analysts (Larry Sabato of the Univ. of VA. on CNN is the latest) have noted that Clarion has a clear intent to intervene in a partisan fashion into the presidential campaign. This should be noted. The problem w. those who've slapped the POV tag on is that they themselves are partisans who view Clarion's work favorably.Richard Silverstein (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your emotional response parallels the tenor of this article, which is part of the problem. The problem is, unlike your work in The Guardian and elsewhere, this article is not supposed to be opinion or editorial, it is an encyclopedic article. Unfortunately, like many articles at Wikipedia, the anti-Israel crowd has decided to "soapbox", thus resulting in propaganda. Proxy User (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Proxy User, perhaps you didn't see that I had explained my removal of your tag below. I see no specific complaints about the content of this page from you, unless you added the unsigned comment immediately following my Sept. 25th comment. If so, the article no longer uses the words "racist" or "fascist" and the disclaimer in the film is already on the page about the film itself. So far as I have seen, you have cited WP:OWN as the only policy you think is being violated on this page. This is somewhat ironic, considering that at least 3 editors have weighed in to disagree with your placement of a disputed tag on this page. Because I do not want this revert skirmish to turn into an all-out revert war, I will not remove the tag just now. Please explain your issue with this article in greater detail, and please point out which parts of the text violate specific parts of which guidelines, otherwise I'll remove the tag again in a few days. --Stargat (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And let me also add, that I disagree with Mr. Silverstein when he writes: "There is no reason why Clarion should be described in a 'neutral' way when they are not a 'neutral' organization." That attitude clearly does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines, but that doesn't mean that this article is necessarily biased. I have myself edited primarily toward making the article more neutral toward Clarion Fund, so I hope you can see I am not part of any "anti-Israel" group, if there is one here at all. --Stargat (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Below is a verbatim quote that details more of the connections between the Clarion Fund and Aish HaTorah:

There are a number of connections between the Clarion Fund and a well-known organization called Aish HaTorah, an international charity founded in Israel in the 1970s.

Ronn Torossian, spokesman for Aish HaTorah, said that his group would in "no way be involved with Clarion Fund or Obsession because Aish HaTorah is a charity and must remain apolitical."

Ross, the Clarion spokesman, was listed as an Aish HaTorah international fundraiser on a federal election donation form in June 2007.

Elke Bronstein is the name written on the mail permit for the bulk mailing of Obsession DVDs in mid September from Freeport, N.Y. Reached on her cell phone, Bronstein said she worked for Clarion, but would not provide more information.

The receptionist at Aish HaTorah in New York said Bronstein worked for Aish Discovery, which produces high-tech programs and films for Aish HaTorah. Torossian said Bronstein could easily have separate jobs.

Source: http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article827910.ece --John Bahrain (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention that some papers refused to carry the film and that producer of 24 and others decided to pull out of the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.110.108 (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm undoubtedly the blogger who's written the most about this controversy & done the most research about it. For anyone seeking to further examine the issue or needing documentation for this or related articles, I invite you to review my blog posts .Richard Silverstein (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not see self-promotion on article talk pages, irrespective of the source's merits or content, -- especially on controversial topics. It could create the appearance of a conflict of interest which would further weaken the perceived neutrality of this already problematic article. Wikipedia has some useful guidelines that help attempting neutrality, and suggesting a potentially controversial or polemic source has problems (see source soliciting). Let the facts speak for themselves. To the extent this article addresses Raphael Shore it cannot use self-published sources, and that also makes a good guide for controversial topics.

Please consider removing it. Thanks. -- davidz (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard,

You have a conflict of interest. You filed an IRS complaint against the Clarion Fund. Irrespective of the merits of the complaint, you have a conflict. Please remove the above at your earliest convenience. -- davidz (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While I understand that that Richard has a COI (which he discloses himself above) and that his blog is not a WP:RS, I do not believe that precludes him from making non-distributive edits to the talk page such as his singular post above. I think the above appears to fall under the [] and guidelines that allow for this. Although, I do allow that I possibly have misunderstood something and I am open to being corrected. --John Bahrain (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard disclosed his blog but not his conflict of interest. I think Richard edits in good faith. I have kept him informed at User talk:Richards1052#Talk:Raphael Shore.

I'd appreciate his participation by suggesting specific improvements. But with his conflict of interest on this controversial topic, promoting his blog seems contrary to the source soliciting guideline and WP:COIC. -- davidz (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying that I have a conflict of interest because I filed an IRS complaint against Clarion is ridiculous. The IRS complaint asks the gov't to review the groups tax-exempt status & claims that they MAY have engaed in activity that may contravene regulations governing non profit organizations. The complaint does not make that judgment. It merely ask for a government review & for the gov't to do that. I did this as a result of my own research into the group and not because of any personal vendetta. I am perfectly able to describe this group in a balanced fashion in the article despite having filed this complaint. Richard Silverstein (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[richards1052]

The editor Proxy User continues to add a POV warning to this article without explaining what specific Wikipedia policies are being violated. However, this editor has never offered a single policy-based explanation for this tag and after a brief discussion on this page that went nowhere, has kept re-adding the tag without explaining why. I've left a note on Proxy User's page and hope this does not recur, but be on the lookout. --Stargat (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." (WP:REDFLAG)

wp:Verify also states: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page."

Statement deliberately omitted and not linked.

wp:Verify: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

A signed editorial without named sources fails to substantiate such a strong claim.

I removed it. -- davidz (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It really depends on the claim made. Another ISP News story also says that the Clarion Fund is neoconservative:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43983

I think it is fair to say that a number of reports have said that the Clarion Fund is neoconservative in outlook. You can't say that the Clarion Fund is neoconservative if they don't say so themselves, but we can report what others do say about the Clarion Fund (and the claim that the Clarion Fund is neoconservative is made my quite a few groups.) --John Bahrain (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Shatz seems to have read that Inter Press Service article. (The repetition of the news makes researching and sourcing Wikipedia articles all the more difficult. Anybody traced down the 26 or 28 million number?) I read Jim Lobe at Asia Times Online for many years. Inter Press shows bias like everyone, but they do their homework. That article and others provide useful background. Ignore the headline and subhead. (Inter Press has headline writers?) From the Inter Press article: "Like hard-line neo-conservatives, EMET opposes any land concessions ..." and "EMET's board of advisers includes a list of familiar neo-conservative figures ..." I haven't researched their involvement, but the Endowment for Middle East Truth withdrew. -- davidz (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Shatz comes to an opinion based on associations, which is insufficient.

The Clarion Fund has some connections with Aish HaTorah. This article mentions those connections, but needs new sources to replace the dead links. That's all we can say. Let the facts speak for themselves. -- davidz (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. This was the sentence I had added:

• Adam Shatz of the London Review of Books has described the Clarion Fund as "a front for neoconservative and Israeli pressure groups". (Footnote: Schatz, Adam. "Short Cuts". London Review of Books. Retrieved 2008-10-23.)

But I don't have time for this nonsense discussion. —Babelfisch (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of sources removed from the article or as yet unused, as a convenience for editors.

Please check this list and the article's References before adding a citation. And please use the appropriate {{cite xxx}} template such as {{cite news}} (see WP:CITET). (see the code for suggested formatting)

• Atta, Othman (2008-09-21). "Film is simply right-wing hate". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Journal Communications. Retrieved 2008-10-29. -- opinion "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." from WP:RS

I strongly recommend reading this article. It makes it clear how out of step Obsession, the Clarion Fund, and Aish HaTorah are with the mainstream Jewish community here in North America.

Sarah Posner. Aish HaTorah’s New ‘Obsession’. The Jewish Week. October 28, 2008.

--John Bahrain (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Maintaining a NPOV is a challenge with this article because (IMHO) both supporters and detractors of the Clarion Project, and it is difficult to obtain accurate and neutral information from unbiased sources.

It seems to me posting more than one reference for a factual statement, when all of the sources indicate bias, is getting a non-neutral POV 'in therough the back door', especially when the titles of all of the references are extremely critical to and hostile of the article's subject.

I fully realize that in the absence of neutral sources, sources that maintain a particular political or philosophical view may be the only option. However, in that case the references should not be doubled or tripled, especially when seemingly all of them are biased. In this instance, I firmly believe that 'less is more'.

With respect to removing the dead link, while there is no hard-and-fast rule that dead links cannot be used as references, in this particular situation there should be many sources of reference with live links.

I hope this helps to explain the reasons I took the actions that I did.

(SurfRI (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources need not be free of bias. Two references for content is not excessive. References serve not only verifiability but also noteworthiness. The concurrence on content from multiple reliable sources is significant. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

After I changed the section title, I looked at the history and saw that the section was recently renamed with a reference to WP:CRIT. This is an essay and not a guideline, and if you scroll down to the table, you'll see that it associates "Reception" with works of art and "Criticism" with politics and religion. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV, which is addressed by reflecting both positive and negative assessments in the article. Calling a section containing only criticism "Reception" serves no purpose that I can discern except disorienting readers who are conditioned to look for a Criticism section in articles of this kind by the prevailing practice. Eperoton (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I have seen this article confused with the article about the 1911 Jewish back-to-the-soil movement in rural Utah, which also commonly called the "Clarion Project". I propose adding a hatnote here that points to the relevant article, [Clarion, Utah]. Hersbruck (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

From the Criticism section: "The U.S. based Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American–Islamic Relations, stated that the Clarion Project is among 37 American organizations who promote Islamophobia in America society."

Seeing as CAIR has itself been the subject of negative statements by Clarion, does it make sense to cite their criticism without mention of this? That is, I don't think they can be seen as a neutral party.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.101.148 (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This article says it is an anti-Muslim hate group in the lead, and then goes on to say that there are Muslims on its advisory board later on.

Now, I've just come on here to find out who the Clarion Project were, and when I see contradictions like this, it is obvious that this article either isn't telling the full story or it is heavily slanted. It would be more informative if it said that it was one denomination of Islam attacking another. I'm slapping an NPOV label on it for this reason, as there is an obvious bias here.-2A00:23C8:7502:F01:B549:7C41:3822:F3B1 (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I see no evidence about different denominations - you'd need reliable sources for that. You've got a complaint with no specifics so I'm removing the NOPV tag.Doug Weller talk 10:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)