Talk:Charles Jacobs (political activist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


Contents

[edit] Not the Boston Bruins VP

Even though they're both in Boston, this is not the Charles Jacobs who runs the Boston Bruins.

[edit] Public figure

Now that it's established that Jacobs is a public figure, the public figure rules apply. Negative information is appropriate. --John Nagle 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, what are the "public figure rules" and where can I find them? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. are a good place to start. The Supreme Court used the language "thrust himself into the vortex of this public issue" to describe someone making themself a public figure. If you go on a talk show or write an op-ed piece, you'd be considered to have done that. --John Nagle 06:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I meant in terms of Wikipedia. We don't have "public figure rules" that I'm aware of (though I stand to be corrected, so if we do, please direct me to them). We have, I believe, only WP:BLP, which is policy, and of course WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, also policy. Those are the rules we have to write by. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
He's not particularly public; it's questionable whether he's even notable. In any event, WP:BLP applies to all articles. Please take it very seriously. Jayjg (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
He's written an op-ed piece (not an article, by the way) in the New York Times. He's signed up with a speaker's bureau. He's been on talk shows. That's a public figure in the US.
But is he a public figure according to WP:BLP, which states In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from. Have you found a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources that talk about Jacobs? If so, what are they? Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
So far all you seem to have as far as criticism goes is an article in a campus newspaper written by a college junior. I will simply quote from WP:BLP: Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject. Again, please take this policy seriously. Do you have any criticism from a real newspaper and a real journalist? Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I added the citation to the article in The Nation with the context for the Columbia University controversy [to the article on the David Project, where it is more appropriately placed. See this (Charles Jacobs) talk page below (Talk:Charles Jacobs (political activist)#Disputes in which Jacobs is involved), where JN is pursuing "controversy" further added on July 27, 2006, for more perspective on the dispute here. (updated).] --NYScholar 04:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC); [updated]--NYScholar 17:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is his degree in?

Several of his own bio pieces mention that he has a doctorate from Harvard, but in what? --John Nagle 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See the information about Jacobs' being a management consultant that I added today. I haven't yet found the subject of his doctorate from Harvard; I've found inconsistency in dates cited for it--1988 and 1989. Perhaps someone will be able to verify the discipline/subject of his doctoral degree (Ph.D.). --NYScholar 04:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just corrected the information about his degree. He does not have a Ph.D.; it's a Ed.D., and he received it in 1988, not 1989 (as previously stated).--NYScholar 01:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does he do?

His main activity is as the head of the anti-Slavery group. It is in this capacity that he has appeared on all those shows, and has been published in all those news-sources, and for which he won the award. Please stop distorting his biography by inserting secondary activities in the lead, and forcing his main activities elsewhere. Also, please stop destroying references. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He is probably better known to the general public (if at all), however, as the founder of the media watchdog group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA). Until this week, there was no entry for him, and the entry was introduced this week most likely as a response to reading the recent revisions of the account of CAMERA, not the American Anti-Slavery Group. Due to the prominence of the Middle East in news reports, I thought it a good idea to clean up that article and am happy to see that someone has begun a stub on its founder, Charles Jacobs; until this week, I myself had not heard of him. While to someone very familiar with Charles Jacobs, CAMERA may seem like a "secondary activity," to those not so familiar with him, based on recent news coverage, it seems far more prominent and thus "primary." It's a matter of perspective, and what one wants to emphasize and how critical or non-critical one may want to be in writing the article. Maintaining NPOV is crucial. --NYScholar 04:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If you look him up in the New York Times archives [1], the most recent articles (2005) cite him as head of the David Project, which he founded in 2002. Further back (1994-2001), he's cited several times regarding his anti-slavery work, and he started that organization in 1994. He founded CAMERA back in 1982. So that's an indication of his activity over time. --John Nagle 05:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misplaced material now re-located

[I relocated the comment below today--NYScholar 00:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] Charles Jacobs' jobs

Actually, he's only a co-director of "The Sudan Campaign". See this letterhead.[2] That's run out of Fredricksburg, VA, by others, while Jacobs' main organizations are all Boston-based. --John Nagle 06:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That was one of the factual changes that I introduced into this article without seeing your comment just moved here today. After I made that change (several times), SV reverted it back to the erroneous reference (several times).--NYScholar 00:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SourceWatch

SourceWatch is just a wiki. We don't link to blogs and wikis, particularly when they seem to contain defamatory material about Living Persons. Please see WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who this "we" refers to above, but other Wikipedia articles do indeed make references to Sourcewatch, which indeed is the subject of a Wikipedia article and thus capable of being linked and verified. NYScholar 04:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it may not be used as a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

Nagle, I don't know what's going on here, but you can't use Wikipedia as your personal soapbox and that's what this looks like. My apologies if there's something else to it. You added as a "criticism" section a link to an article by a Columbia junior! That was it. No text, just the link. This isn't good editing by any standard. I hope this anti-Israel campaign stops soon because it's causing a lot of trouble and leading to some pretty bad articles, and that's particularly unacceptable when it comes to a living person. Please edit in accordance with BLP, which is policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See problems listed later as well.--NYScholar 20:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "and apparently only"

John, why do you keep claiming that it is "apparently the only" Boston Freedom Award? It's not clear to me why you would insert this POV, except to denigrate the award in some way. Furthermore, you still haven't found a source which states that is it actually "the only" one ever awarded; instead you are using original research to make that claim, based on your interpretation of a website of unknown provenace. The purpose of creating biographies of living persons is to describe notable people in a neutral way, not to find a means of denigrating marginally notable individuals. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What puzzles me about Charles Jacobs is that he's highly visible, in terms of what he writes and says, but very little has been written in the press about him. The "biography" material we have is his own PR material from the speaker's bureau he uses. Usually, someone visible enough to get op-ed articles into the New York Times and get on World News Tonight has been written about more in the press. Even basic info, like what he has a degree in, seems to be lacking. Compare, say Ann Coulter or Charles Krauthammer, who are also high-visibility types who appear on TV and in the press.
There is info about him available, but some of it is iffy. See [3] Then try to verify some of those references. "The New York Times, January 21, 1998", doesn't come up in a NYT archive search for Charles Jacobs, for example. So I didn't put that in. I've been trying to find a more authoritative source that can collaborate some of that info. Help here would be appreciated.
On the other hand, the "Boston Freedom Award" does seem to have been a one-shot thing for Boston's Y2K celebration. Because of that, there's no track record to compare it with; it's not clear that this is a notable honor.
I do this sort of thing to one-sided articles all the time. See, for example, Miniclip, Tooling University, and Magnetix. The articles usually improve as a result. --John Nagle 04:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
John, your edits to this page were not an improvement. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in article

NYS, you're introducing stylistic errors e.g. changing PhD to Doctorate [sic], and it's odd to put his PhD before his teenage activities. There are a number of other, similar changes. Could you say how you feel these improve the text? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, please don't change the way the dates are written. This is about an American. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
As someone who has a doctorate, I can tell you that the proper initials are "Ph.D.", or, less frequently, "Ph.d.") which both stand for "Doctor of Philosophy. (not "PhD"). The word "Doctorate" (doctorate) is a direct quotation from the account previously plagiarized from (the source I tried to restore). When using so much material from a source, you need to use quotation marks and/or clearly paraphrase and indicate that you are deriving your paraphrases from the specific source. I did not change the capital letter "Doctorate" because the quotation uses it as such; it's "Doctorate [sic]" (as is). A Ph.D. is a "doctoral" degree achieved after one completes a "doctoral" dissertation (in the U.S.). Please see the cited source, and please stop changing the citations, which were in proper MLA format the last time that I edited them. Other editors keep reverting them back to incorrect format. Bibliographical format is not correct for footnotes and endnotes. Bibliographical format is for lists of "References." The dates are proper MLA note and bibliog. format--which reverses the days of the week and the months; it has to do with necessary punctuation so that the numbers don't run together and readability. It has not got to do with American v. European date formats. Check the MLA format in the MLA Style Manual or Handbook (Style Sheets based on them).--NYScholar 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I know what a PhD is, thank you, and if you have one, you'll know that "doctorate" isn't written with a capital. Citations don't have to be in "proper" MLA format. We have no list of references so it's fine to use what you're calling bibliographical format for the footnotes. Please see our MoS and WP:CITE, rather than insisting on MLA style, which is one style among many, and we have no preference for it here. Also, some of your writing is problematic e.g. "His work has been published in such newspapers as The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and The Wall Street Journal and in such magazines as The New Yorker." If you have to introduce "such as," it would be "newspapers such as," not "such newspapers as," but there's no need to say either here, but at the very least it certainly shouldn't be said again for magazines. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
"On awarding Jacobs, the late Mrs. King appealed to ..."? She wasn't dead when she said it. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again, it's "Ph.D.," not "PhD," and the word "doctorate" is synonymous with the degree letters. We do not know the discipline in which "Dr. Jacobs" received his doctorate. We don't even know for sure that it is a "Ph.D." That still needs verification. Also, it is customary to refer to Mrs. King now as "the late Mrs. King" as a courtesy. You are wrong in assuming that to say so refers to the past time period. The reference is being used in the present. The capital letter for "Doctorate" was in the source; see the citation; the person who first took this information from that source was not quoting; I was. Look at the whole quoted passage in the history. It is easy to write: "[d]octorate" or "doctorate" or "Doctorate [sic]"; but the information is from the source, not me. Plagiarism has occurred in earlier versions of this article. You have to examine the sources closely to see how and where.--NYScholar 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You weren't quoting when you wrote the word "Doctorate." I don't care whether you say doctorate or PhD; I was objecting to the capitalization. Also: "After being graduated from Rutgers University ..." What does "being graduated" mean? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The passage has been quoted over and over again in the article; it says "Doctorate [sic]," and I was quoting it in full. Read the history. If you don't know what "being graduated" from a university means, you don't know proper English usage. Universities graduate students; they are "graduated from" or "graduated by" universities; "was graduated from" is the proper English usage. If you don't know that, that doesn't mean it is incorrect. It just means that you do not know that.

You've made it impossible for me to reply due to editing changes. I've changed the heading. This comment section should not be made about me; I'm removing the personal attacks: focus on the subject, not the person making the changes is Wikipedia policy. If I can get back to editing without the conflicts, I'll re-quote the passage in talk so you can see that I was quoting the passage in full. What you are objecting to "Doctorate [sic]" is in the source. The source has been plagiarized from and I provided the passage (see history).--NYScholar 05:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the original quoted passage that previous editors plagiarized from:

==Education== + ==Early life and education== - "Jacobs graduated from Rutgers University and received his Doctorate [sic] from Harvard in 1989. As a teenager, Jacobs was active in the civil rights movement, and attended Dr. Martin Luther King's March on Washington, in 1963. In 1993, Jacobs learned about the continuing existence of traditional slavery in North Africa and, with a group of African human rights activists, formed the American Anti-Slavery Group, which monitors and combats modern-day human bondage around the globe." [The source is in the Notes: Powell. (I've added bold print for the quotation marks; those quotation marks were in one of my previous edits to which I was referring when talking about the word "Doctorate [sic]" above.].

There's no need to change what was there to "being graduated from." It was fine as it was. You're introducing changes for the sake of it and I don't see them as improvements. As for Doctorate, it's now back to doctorate, so I don't see the point of going on about it, but in future, if a source makes a mistake, you don't have to repeat it, unless it's in quotation marks, which this wasn't. How have I "made it impossible for [you] to reply due to editing changes"? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If you make a false accusation, be big enough to admit it. Stop focusing on me. Read the passage and examine the full history. You are wasting our time by not doing so.--NYScholar 06:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
What's the false accusation? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You accused me of lying when I said that I was quoting the word "Doctorate [sic]" from the passage. See the full quotation. Someone else kept taking out the full quoted passage and reintroducing the plagiarism from it. Using words from a source require using quotation marks followed by citations or paraphrase followed by citations or part paraphrase/part quotation followed by citations. I don't think that you understand that the other editors' changes have added words like "magazine" after The New Yorker, when plagiarizing from the source. The linked article makes it clear (what everyone would know anyway) that The New Yorker is a magazine. After the other editor kept reverting "magazine," I came up w/ the "such as" solution; I prefer just quoting from the article as I did when I quoted the full passage, or leaving out the word "magazine" since The New Yorker is linked anyway. Please re-read the history on your own; I don't have time to interpret it for you anymore.--NYScholar 06:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I accused you of lying?? :-D This discussion has become surreal. NYS, we have to write articles properly. I don't care whether the source wrote "Doctorate." It's wrong. So we don't repeat it unless we're quoting, and there is obviously no need to quote in this case. Ditto for all your other points. We read the sources, learn about the subject, then write about the subject, sticking closely to what the sources say in terms of meaning, but ensuring at the same time that the article is well written, which this one currently isn't, and without being slaves to the sources to the point of writing "Doctorate" just because the source does (unless it's in some way significant, but it isn't in this case). SlimVirgin (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I accused you of lying?? :-D This discussion has become surreal. NYS, we have to write articles properly. I don't care whether the source wrote "Doctorate." It's wrong.
This is ridiculous: This is what you wrote at 5:26:
"You weren't quoting when you wrote the word "Doctorate." I don't care whether you say doctorate or PhD; I was objecting to the capitalization."--NYScholar
If there is an error in a passage that one is directly quoting, one uses "[sic]" after it if the source has a mistake. I provided the passage to show where other people were plagiarizing from it earlier. The whole list of TV shows and newspapers comes from the source almost verbatim. So I showed the exact quotation for purposes of comparision and later editors' use.--NYScholar 06:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So we don't repeat it unless we're quoting, and there is obviously no need to quote in this case. Ditto for all your other points. We read the sources, learn about the subject, then write about the subject, sticking closely to what the sources say in terms of meaning, but ensuring at the same time that the article is well written, which this one currently isn't, and without being slaves to the sources to the point of writing "Doctorate" just because the source does (unless it's in some way significant, but it isn't in this case). SlimVirgin (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't find anything relevant to improving the article made in the above comment.--NYScholar 06:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current version of the article

I found the reference to "Boston 2000" in the Millennium citation; I missed it earlier due to tiredness from editing. Sorry. That's fine now. I did reorganize the order of sentences in the opening paragraph to read more logically (which I had done earlier but someone kept reverting to the illogical order). I don't, however, think it's necessary to list Jacobs' speaking engagements and publications history from his public relations bios that he and his reps provide to speakers' bureaus. Anyone can read that information themselves in the articles linked via the citations (though I've left that material in the article). Otherwise, I really don't see any problems with the current version of the article; it just may need expanding and continuing vigilance regarding maintaining NPOV.--NYScholar 06:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the source passage for some of the information about where Jacobs' "work" has been published, after it cites one of his articles published in The New York Times:

"His work has been featured in publications including the Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, and The Boston Globe. He has also appeared on ABC's World News Tonight, NPR's Talk of the Nation, and CBS This Morning." (See note 1)

Note the word "including": it was part of my justification earlier for using the phrase "such . . . as." The list of publications is a selective one (and possibly quite dated).--NYScholar 17:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization records

Here are the Massachusetts corporarate records for Jacobs' organizations.

  • CAMERA - He founded it, but he's no longer an officer or director. The online annual reports only go back three years, so we can't tell easily when he let go of control.
  • American Anti-Slavery Group - He's now just the treasurer and clerk, but he was president as of the 2003 annual report.
  • The David Project - he's currently president and a director.

It looks like he does his organizations sequentially, phasing out of one when he starts another. That's consistent with the info from the New York Times archives. --John Nagle 06:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I altered some verb tenses accordingly, and made lower case the words "president" and "director" as is proper usage.--NYScholar 06:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Also fixed the wrong link provided for the corporate records for The David Project; JN accidentally gave the same link to AASG for it. --NYScholar 08:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section

[added heading in talk by --NYScholar 17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)]

I added a history section, with all the verified events we have so far in chronological order. This is starting to look like a bio. We could use a date for his graduation from Rutgers. --John Nagle 16:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you JN--I will look for your recent changes. I have been unable to find a date for his graduation from Rutgers. (I've found a conflict in some sources for the date of his Ph.D. from Harvard as well (1988 and 1989; this article currently says 1989.) The "bio" could still use a date and place of birth, naming of the specific discipline/program in which Jacobs received his doctorate (or Ph.D. in ?), dates of tenure for his position as various officers of various organizations that he has founded and co-founded, accompanied by authoritative sources to verify such details. So far, I have been unable to find those facts about him. The references to "president" and "chairman of the board"--phrase I found used in one of his official site bios--are still rather left up in the air. Some of the information posted in blogs may be based on old bios posted on the organizations' website, unverifiable, and not suitable for Wikipedia; it would be good to have bonafide newspaper and journal articles or university official publications to cite for such support. (Sorry if a missing or faulty ref code earlier was possibly due to an error in my editing. I was alerted to comments on this talk page very "late in the day" ran into a lot of "editing conflicts" here in the talk page, and was frequently unable to get my explanatory comments to post without their being automatically changed back. Working on this article proved very time-consuming and tiring.) --NYScholar 16:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I added bullets and some slight revisions to JN's "History" sec., aiming for conciseness, readability, and parallelism.
I restored "was graduated" because that is standard English usage, even if many people do not know that. It's a question of transitive v. intransitive verb form. Students do not "graduate," schools "graduate" them; they are "graduated" and become "graduates" of the schools, e.g. The usage problem reminds me of problems in "like" (preposition) and "as" (conjunction). Many people misuse them too, including television commentators and advertising copywriters; they are endemic to public speech.--NYScholar 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
After reviewing the whole article, I merged the information about the award into the chronology of the "History" section. (See other editors' comments in above section re: the award.) In the future, if Jacobs receives more awards, one can add an "Awards" section, with a bulleted list; then there would be a contents list generated. Contents list not currently warranted, it seems to me.--NYScholar 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. --John Nagle 03:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I was able to expand the article a bit more (integrating material from the sources already used) and to make some typographical corrections throughout (correcting a repetition of the link for AASG in the note re: The David Project (last note) [just added mention of this above in talk in JN's section about organizations too]. I changed the heading from "History" to "Chronology"; if people prefer "History," they are certainly welcome to change it back. Most articles have the first section called "Biography," but this article is already identified as a "biographical" article of a living person, and we don't have either his birthdate or place of birth for Jacobs, so "Biography" doesn't seem more appropriate than "History" or "Chronology" are now. (The section is more a chronology of Jacobs' "career" as a political (human rights) activist than a biography of his full life thus far.) There may be some concern that there is too much dependence on the source listed as (1) throughout. It would be better to have more sources of information about Jacobs' life and work that are not press releases from his organizations or based on such information originating from his own and related PR depts. --NYScholar 06:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The source listed as (1) is an article in the "Jewish Journal", a local Boston-area free newspaper:
"In 1993, Jacobs learned about the continuing existence of traditional slavery in North Africa and, with a group of African human rights activists, formed the American Anti-Slavery Group, which monitors and combats modern-day human bondage around the globe."
Compare it with Jacobs' self-written bio as a speaker with Benador Associates:
"In 1993, Jacobs learned about the continuing existence of traditional slavery in North Africa and, with a group of African human rights activists, formed the American Anti-Slavery Group, which monitors and combats modern-day human bondage around the globe."
Seven paragraphs in the Jewish Journal article are copied directly from the self-written bio. This is about par for the course for small local newspapers - press release in, story out. (Of course, if somebody tried that on Wikipedia, we'd slap a copyvio tag on it.) We probably should cite directly to the Benador Associates bio. --John Nagle 17:12, 27 July 2006 UTC)
I agree. Edited the citation accordingly. --NYScholar 18:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that have located and verified place of birth as Newark, New Jersey, added that information and renamed section called "History" and then "Chronology" to "Biography."-- NYScholar 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Public Radio" Program link

The provenance and origin of this "public radio" program are questionable. I've amended the link, adding an annotation and moved it to the article on AASG, where it is more appropriately placed. It is not available from "National Public Radio" by the way, but from a commercial catalog entry hosted by its producer and production company. It is not clear if, when, and on what "public radio" stations, this particular program was broadcast (if it was). That needs verification. All "public radio" is not "National Public Radio." Read the "about" page at the production company, which indicates that these programs are produced to be broadcast and sold in a variety of media (including on CD). It is not produced "by National Public Radio" but rather "for public radio" (desired goal). The agencies and foundations supporting these productions are also listed on the site. Needs more investigation and also some kind of neutral source for verification of the nature of the program. (A more neutral source, i.e.). Beware "original research." This article should not be viewed as an "free advertisement" for its subject, Charles Jacobs [or as advertisements for positions against him (added later)]. --NYScholar 18:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It was this article, supposedly copied from "The Jewish Advocate" with its note at the bottom, "Dr. Charles Jacobs, President of the David Project, was recently profiled by NPR's "Humankind" for his campaign against modern day slavery." which led me to that cite. But search on the Jewish Advocate site doesn't bring up that article. Search on the NPR site doesn't bring up that appearance either, but it does find Charles Jacobs' appearance on NPR's Talk of the Nation, which aired in 2001. Jacobs also was heard briefly on NPR in 2005 as part of the discussion on the "Columbia Unbecoming" movie flap. --John Nagle 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to incorporate the information that you provided initially in "External links" into a note in the "Biography" section; see explanation added in your "History" section above here in talk for further explanation. Thanks for your work on this article. I had located the same interview yesterday as well, via a simple Google search, but I hadn't yet found a reason to incorporate it. Your addition to "External links" led to my further incorporation of it in Notes and the reconstruction of some of the notes/citations (see above comments as well). I have not heard the programs in the series Human Kind broadcast on any of the many public National Public Radio stations that I have listened to over the last few decades (in New England, New York, Oregon, Colorado); but I do occasionally hear another series, Kindred Spirits, which they produce on an NPR-affiliate in New York, which airs it. Also, some time in the last few days, I did add the citation to that film produced by Jacobs and his colleagues, Columbia Unbecoming (see Notes in the article). --NYScholar 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes in which Jacobs is involved

[WARNING: See tag above; especially Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.]--NYScholar 20:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [NOTE: This policy applies to talk pages for articles as well as for the articles.]--NYScholar 20:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Jacobs' David Project is behind a controversial movie about some Columbia University faculty being too pro-Palestinian, or anti-Israel. That's worth researching. Search for"Columbia Unbecoming". --John Nagle 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Already was added to notes in the article on The David Project, where it is more appropropriately mentioned than in this talk page. Please consult the notes already given there.--NYScholar 20:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The David Project and Jacobs are also involved in a complicated defamation lawsuit involving their efforts to stop the building of a big mosque in Boston. Searching for "Charles Jacobs" lawsuit will bring up many articles. There's a (deleted blog) with a helpful timeline.

Anyone can find blog entries on Charles Jacobs via Google )[particularly Google's meta blog search), but it is against Wikipedia policy to list them in its articles and listing them here is a back-handed way of putting them in the record of the article. No one else has listed those blogs entries due to Wikipedia policy. Please do not continue to list such questionable non-Wikipedia authorized sources. It subjects Wikipedia to libel charges. Also consider NPOV and avoid such "original research" (your own and the bloggers). These are not bonafide authoritative unbiased neutral verifiable sources. [See links in tagged notice at top of this talk page and follow related links for more information.]--NYScholar 20:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent articles from various sides include: [deleted by --NYScholar 20:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC). [See explanation below and Wikipedia's policy on blogs, self-published websites, and so on.] . . . . Well, at least we're finding more press references. --John Nagle 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

JN: Please see former warnings addressed to you and others that were posted by other editors about violating policies in Wikipedia about Living Persons biographies. One must be careful not to make Wikipedia subject to personal libel suits. See the links provided earlier. It is against Wikipedia policy to post such articles originating from biased and otherwise questionable sources (see tag at top of this talk page provided by another editor earlier). I am removing those so-called "references" to newspapers, self-published websites, blogs; they are not sanctioned as citations by Wikipedia and your listing them here and your motives for doing so appear questionable. ([Unfortunatealy [imo], they still appear in "history" of editing here.) An administrator may want to remove them from history as well due to potential libel actions. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to "take sides" or to appear to take sides by posting negative information from questionable sources, even if you post "various points of view." Their posting can be viewed as a means of posting otherwise questionable sources. I delete them as potential personal attacks (which any editor can delete according to Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks). See bold printed WARNING added to top of this section. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:04, 27 July 2006(UTC)
I added brief Wikipedia-approved verifiable citations to the article on David Project, where it is more appropriate to mention. --NYScholar 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I restored somehow lost previous citation in the Biography section of this article. No idea where or how it got lost because the history editing summaries do not show explanations relating to it. Administrators' changes of tag may have contributed to loss of some information being edited at same time. Notice the updated tag added by administrator apparently.--NYScholar 21:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, it's like this: unsourced or poorly sourced material (critical or uncritical) about living individuals should be ruthlessly excised. However, where there is substantial public debate over well-publicised controversy it is reaosnable to discuss the form in which that may be mentioned, having due regard to policy of course. So: it is evident that John wants to cover this material and NYScholar does not. The next step should be for John to explain why it is relevant in this article and what reliable sources exist. John, I'm sorry but unless it is impeccably sourced it should not go in. You know why that is. I have no doubt whatsoever that the sources exist for much of what you want to say, this may involve a trip to the library. NYScholar, it is not inadmissible to link sources which may or may not fail WP:RS for discussion of content and expansion on whether reliabel sources may exist. Relentlessly removing such links from Talk may be disruptive; even if they are not admissible as sources, they may in the short term at least form a basis for discussion, which is hard to do without the material to hand. And Beware of the tigers, guys :-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Quoting directly from the tag (and see other editors' and administrators' much-earlier cautions and warnings to JN) [not me]:

"Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to articles or talk pages. If you find any, please remove it immediately. . . ." (Italics added.)

Until each one of those sources that JN linked above (which I deleted earlier following the above-quoted policy--and after consulting the notes linked in the tag) is properly evaluated and vetted and deemed reliable and verifiable and in keeping with Wikipedia policy for citations used in articles on living persons, they cannot stay in talk. By now I've sifted through citations, after rejecting any references to not-authoritative, non-verifiable blog entries and one-sided "news" accounts posted on partisan self-published websites (no matter what the biases), and found a couple of items that I've incorporated into the article on the David Project and the American Anti-Slavery Group, where they belong (not in this article on a living person). [One is from The Boston Globe (which I found on my own) and another is the official policy statement on a lawsuit against an organization posted on its own official website.] The bonafide and verifiable mass media articles pertain to the organization being sued perhaps more directly than they do to its founder (the person per se) [though that may be debatable]. I presented the information in the article on the organization. since then I noticed the website of the David Project's reference to the suit as a "lawsuit that has been initiated against it and against one of its employees today by the Islamic Society of Boston." Authoritative and well-sourced articles about the controversy still would be more appropriately placed (due to the "living person" tag) not in this biographical article about the living person or in this talk page. They seem more safely placed (if vetted and found proper sources) in discussion of the organization being sued (which is cross-linked with this article on Charles Jacobs). Everyone who has been posting on this page prior to the last comment is probably well aware of such controversies (if they know anything about the subject of this article Charles Jacobs); any Google search will turn them up. Wikipedia articles are not substitutes for listing unevaluated sources that one finds in Google searches (esp. blog entries and ideological self-published websites). (Many actually would question if the organizations founded and co-founded by Charles Jacobs themselves fall into that category, I would still point out!) If one wants to know more about the subject of this article and wants to do "original research" about it on one's own after reading the Wikipedia article, one can easily do so. But incorporating that "original research" into the article on Wikipedia without evaluating and vetting the sources before citing them in the article or the talk page for the article violates the tagged notice and Wikipedia:Citing sources policies. See defamation, which incorporates slander and libel definitions. --NYScholar 23:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [I corrected some things that I find to be misstatements in my above comment; but I didn't realize that I was making corrections to an older post; I'm leaving the changes for informational purposes; sorry if any confusion ensues re: timing of the posts, threading etc. I'm time-dating this one too, however.--NYScholar 00:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)]

Re:

"So: it is evident that John wants to cover this material and NYScholar does not." (JzG)

I can speak for myself. My removal of the references is not an objection to covering the facts about the controversy relating to that "material." In fact, before JN even mentioned it on this talk page, I had already cited it in a note (where it belongs) in the article on the David Project, which Jacobs founded and still heads. JN may not have realized that. As the DP is linked in this article on Jacobs, anyone can find the "material" referred to there.
The problem is with JN's method of placing all those links to all those un-evaluated references as a group on this talk page in what could be perceived as a highly inflammatory manner (given previous warnings to him by previous editors--not me, btw).
It is my guess that either he has not done the work of evaluating the references that he listed with an eye to the tag's caution before posting them all in this talk page; or, if he has done such an evaluation, he doesn't care about their nature and has posted them anyway. Earlier another editor questioned his motives and possible hidden political agenda in posting negative information about Jacobs. He probably knows that he's is posting "material" that other editors have already objected to his posting and that others would consider intentionally inflammatory. And those other editors did not initially include me. See the history of all the articles on Wikipedia relating to Charles Jacobs via "See also" section of his organizations etc. The patterns of problems with this entry on Jacobs will emerge. --NYScholar 23:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The history of this talk page still has the references: I've deleted the one from a blog from the following list, and earlier today, I had already incorporated references to The Boston Globe item and the official website item in the article on the David Project. As I see it, this matter is really a non-issue at this point.
  • Boston Globe article [JN's link resolves to a registration page, requiring registration before reading the article. I've added the proper link already to the DP article anyway.]
  • David Project

The sources from the blog (timeline) and the ideological non-neutral "sides" expressed on other organizations' self-published and politically-ideological websites are not sources that Wikipedia allows articles to use. They are considered the opposite, the kinds of sources that Wikipedia itself defines as "poorly sourced." --NYScholar 00:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW: I had come across that blog entry w/ the timeline a day or so before JN mentioned it here in talk, and I rejected the possibility of using it in a Wikipedia article (whether on the living person or the organization). I'll review it again later, but I won't re-post its link here. Anyone else can read it on his or her own (if doing original research) too. NB: According to that blog's entry about the May 2005 lawsuit, it is not Charles Jacobs who is directly named in that suit but rather, as The David Project's own statement says an "employee" of The David Project, identified by the blogger as "director of education (Anna Kolodner)." That is one more reason why it seems inappropriate to post those links about the suit in this article about Jacobs. I've added updates to the article on The David Project instead. --NYScholar 00:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how blogs are acceptable sources when they make Jacobs look good, but not when themy make him look bad. Anyway, the Weekly Standard says he's a party to the suit. [4]. --John Nagle 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The blogs are not acceptable sources; that's why they are not cited in the article. I only brought it up because you listed the above blog entry (see History) as a source and, in response to the other editor's reply above, I looked at that blog again and found that it contradicts your misleading claims that Jacobs is a principal target of the suit (which is not the case). There is plenty of information about the case posted all over the place (including on the site of The David Project, which is listed among the external links in the article. Anyone can examine the records and do their own original research after that to learn more about the case. I still caution again against using these sources that Wikipedia says not to use at this time--any of those blogs. You keep trying to ignore that policy, which relates to WP:BLP. The policy may change; but so far it's based partly on the fact that most blogs do not have editorial boards or journalistic peer-review standards, etc. They are individuals' opinions and frequently very biased (one way or another; I'm not taking sides; I'm rejecting them all.) Read Wikipedia's stated policies re: them in Wikipedia:Citing sources etc. The point is obvious. I suggest that you drop this argument. See a bunch of others' comments already made above and the tag and the items noted in the tag (4 notes). Your reasoning is perverse (wrong-headed). --NYScholar 05:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

One can find the legal documents naming the parties involved in the suit at The David Project link with them. As its biases would lead one to expect, William Kristol's Weekly Standard neo-conservative blog [linked on his site] is not an acceptable source according to Wikipedia standards for citation. In this case, the claim that you say that you are citing from it is incorrect; it is not substantiated by the posted court documents (pdf files & verifiable official documents), which do not name Mr. Jacobs directly and the discussion of the court case is already included in the article on the David Project now anyway. Speaking for myself, I have no interest in either side of this controversy. As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time trying to edit this and related articles, trying to be vigilant with regard to highly-volatile recent contexts, I am interested in verifiable presentation of sources whose accuracy has been vetted and which avoids bias so as to maintain as NPOV as possible in the construction of the article. One does not want to mislead Wikipedia readers all over the world. The case pertains to the David Project article directly; not to this article directly. See the other article. These articles are clearly enough cross-linked and this discussion is really now moot. --NYScholar 06:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I checked out the article that JN seems to be citing; it is not from The Weekly Standard (Editor: William Kristol) or The Weekly Standard's blog (opinions posted by William Kristol; that article is posted online in The Daily Standard and there is no corroboration given for the claim in the article that Jacobs is "named" in the suit; parenthetical offhand comments in it make the tone of the article appear to be clearly biased. The Daily Standard is part of the website for The Weekly Standard. I do not find the articles posted in it of the editorial "standards" of more objective MSM like The Boston Globe (which is cited in the notes of the David Project now). The Weekly Standard and The Daily Standard are vehicles for "editorial" commentary and opinions of William Kristol and consistent with his point of view. Any citation to claims made in articles posted in such popular media outlets, need to be fact-checked via more than one other reliable source; again see Wikipedia:Citing sources#What sources to cite, which links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --NYScholar 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
(further update): I just checked: The Daily Standard article (misidentified above as The Weekly Standard by JN) is already posted in the website of the David Project itself among the various news reports that it provides; see its link to the sec. on the Mosque controversy that I had already added to the note in the David Project article. Anyone can read the various news accounts there. It is important to consult The Jewish Advocate (also linked by the David Project ("Jewish Group Charged with Defamation by Islamic Society" (Nov. 2005)), which gives the correct information about the party named (the ed. dir. of the David Project, not Jacobs) (mentioned also in the timeline that JN first cited above and that I consulted); The Daily Standard still appears to be in error.
If one wants more information, check out all the sources at the link provided in the David Project article (and/or do one's own further original research--but don't add unreliable sources in talk or in the articles. In that various perspectives are thus accessible via the site's own sec. on the Mosque lawsuit controversy, the current Wikipedia article on the David Project is currently not one-sided. Again, in my own view, that information does not belong in the biographical article about Charles Jacobs. [updated] It belongs in the article about the organization (where it currently is).--NYScholar 18:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Although the article from The Jewish Advocate linked above (and at the David Project website sec. on the Mosque lawsuit) features a photo of Charles Jacobs, he is not the party named in the suit; he is perhaps pictured bec. he heads the David Project, which is also a party: Here's the relevant passage (information corroborated by the court documents also posted on the David Project website:

"To a complaint filed in May against the Boston Herald and Fox 25 News, ISB added Anna Kolodner, the David Project’s director of education. It also named author and lecturer Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project, Steven Cohen and Dennis Hale of the group Citizens for Peace and Tolerance and William Sapers as defendants in the defamation lawsuit. . . ." --NYScholar 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Scroll back up to Talk:Charles Jacobs (political activist)#Public figure; other editors have already made most of the same points to JN, which he continually resists. Seems to be JN's problem, not theirs, or mine. All the Wikipedia policies that they and I (subsequently) have cited still pertain. --NYScholar 06:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Subjective judgments are being made on what constitues poorly sourced, and how negative is negative, and in any case the material itself is not being deleted, but the references. There is no need to delete references unless they are irredeemably bad. A reference to an unreliable source which indicates a line of inquiry is reasonable enough. So: let JN make his case in neutral terms. Debate the thing on the Talk page, on its merits, and if (as is not at all unlikely) it turns out to be baseless, then at least a proper discusison has been had without disrupting Wikipedia by edit-warring. It is possible to discuss a defamatory opinion without asserting it, as usual attribution applies. So: "foo says that Jacobs dines on roast babies" may be debated on Talk, provided we have a good indicaiton that foo does indeed say this and that foo has some merit as a source. we can then identify the fact that only foo says this, that he has said the same about ten other people, and that he was sued for it and has been forced to pay millions in compensation. So it does not go in the article. For sure we do nto repeat allegations made in a single blog. Allegations repeated in a hundred blogs should be debated: "a hundred blogs say Jacobs murdered his mother"; then we can investigate their sources andd show there are none and again reject it. What we can't do is assert as fact things for which we do not have (preferably multiple) high quality sources. WP:BLP exists to prevent hatchet jobs and as an interdict against edit wars over potentially libellous content, it is not there to prevent debate on matters which have reasonable currency, in order to weigh up wheether they should be included or not. Debate must, of course, be conducted in strictly neutral terms, and Talk is less sensitive than mainspace. As always novel syntheses of multiple sources are absolutely forbidden, as is giving undue weight or prominence to any side of a debate. Just zis Guy you know? 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The references in question are here, down at the end: [5] You can see what I put on this talk page. A link to a news story, links to both sides of the lawsuit, and a blog with a timeline for background. That's raw material for reading up on the subject. Incidentally, it's still not clear if Jacobs is personally a party to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was expanded to add some defendants, and then there was a motion to remove some of the defendants, so he may have been in at one time but not others. I'm still looking for more info on that.
It's amusing seeing the complaints, especially considering the business that Jacobs is in. He's a highly visible pro-Israel activist, appearing on talk shows and writing op-ed pieces. He runs the David Project, which operates training programs to generate more pro-Israel activists. ("Don’t miss this unique opportunity to participate in one of our nationally-recognized four-day intensive Israel-advocacy and leadership seminars. The David Project provides participating students with the highest level of scholarship, strategies and skills which define effective Israel activism on campus.") This person is effectively a political figure. --John Nagle 20:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[editing conflicts]

JzG: Your use of passive voice is misleading. I have (correctly) questioned the citation, linking, and reference to ONE blog, which JN cited, which is the ONLY source of incorrect naming of the subject of this article, Charles Jacobs, as a party in a lawsuit. He is not a party in the lawsuit. Please read more carefully. I have made no "subjective" judgments of the references wholly and without evaluation linked earlier by JN, which I removed (temporarily I said, while I was checking them out), and which are still accessible in the history section of this talk page. I then restored 2 of the reliable sources. The other sources, like the blog in doubt, are of questionable reliability due to their biases and self-publishing nature. I don't think you read the whole debate. If anything, I have worked very hard (no one else has done that) to add mention and citations about two controversies (one a film, the other this lawsuit that JN mentions) to the section on the David Project, where they are relevant. They are not relevant here. And they are cross-linked to this article, and clearly able to be accessed via Wikipedia. This is, as I said earlier, a moot debate at this point. The issues have been debated.
JN added the additional references with questionable motives, motives that other editors (not I) questioned early on. Please don't use the passive voice if you are referring to one or several editor's remarks. Just refer to the editor's remarks more directly. It is too hard to follow what you say otherwise.
I don't think your reply is at all germane to improving this article or to the issues about WP:BLP that earlier editors, the tagged notice, and I (later) have raised and/or debated. It seems that JN just drops in to add fuel to fires and does not really contribute very much to the article in the way of reliable sources that can be used in this or other Wikipedia articles. If you haven't read all the articles cited in this article on Charles Jacobs or in the other articles linked to it (e.g., the David Project), I don't think that you can appreciate the nature of this discussion and your remarks are just clouding the issues (already debated, and, I think, resolved). I followed Wikipedia policy completely; JN did not and resists the policies when others (and I later) have pointed them out to him. I have not made the policies; I just read them and try to abide by them. The policy currently says to delete questionable unreliable source references from both talk sections about articles and articles. I cannot devote any more time to trying to improve this article. Apparently, the people who post on this talk page generally do not appreciate the genuine efforts that I and others have made to improve this article and to make it as neutral as possible, and that is regrettable and a true disincentive to anyone's doing more work on Wikipedia on any articles.
Re: JN's persistent false claims such as: "Incidentally, it's still not clear if Jacobs is personally a party to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was expanded to add some defendants, and then there was a motion to remove some of the defendants, so he may have been in at one time but not others. I'm still looking for more info on that." (JN)
I have already discredited the error of JN's claims above. Charles Jacobs is not "personally a party to the lawsuit." Only the organization and its education director are among the over a dozen parties to the suit. Read the court documents (posted on the David Project's website, along with all of the news articles listed by JN earlier; the blog timeline is from an ideologically-biased source and it is self-published and non-verifiable if it cites erroneous news accounts, like the one in The Daily Standard (whose "standards" are highly controversial and recognized as having "neo-conservative" bias). One should not use biased blogs and news accounts by ideologically-biased newspapers and news and ideological spokespeople's blogs as if they were "factual accounts." Clearly, they are not.--NYScholar 20:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC) [Had editing conflicts as people were posting at same time and came back to correct some typographical errors. --NYScholar 21:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)]
Relating to the "material" that I deleted previously and that JN has insistently restored via a note to the earlier version of this talk page (despite the tag at the top and all objections above and below) [a sneaky move, given the replies to him]:
  • Znet hosts an article by David Green, entitled "Zionism vs. Intellectual Freedoms on American College Campuses," posted on Znet on 15 May 2005; Green links to some of the same sources that JN lists in his note to the earlier version of this talk page, evaluating some of them in the context of his own negative point of view on Jacobs and referring specifically to the "customary slanders" in the blog by the highly-controversial Daniel Pipes, the creator of the blog containing that "timeline" which JN has insisted on referring people to on this talk page, over all objections to its inclusion. To repeat: one does not need JN to list sources from Google searches that anyone can find via their own "original research." But Wikipedia articles are not to include "original research" ([For the Wikipedia policy page, see Wikipedia:No original research), and that includes passing along the "original research" of biased commentators like Pipes from his blog as if it were a peer-reviewed, reliable source, which it is not.
  • On the basis of alleged "customary slanders" made in Pipes's blog, Pipes himself has been sued for libel (see defamation), according to Green and others (as based on Pipes's own article published in The New York Sun and re-posted by Pipes himself on his own blog).
  • Pipes's blog is thus not a reliable source to cite in a Wikipedia article on Charles Jacobs (or on this talk page).
  • Pipes's so-called "timeline" derives from other sources, each of which needs to be authenticated and verified individually but which are not verified or even always adequately identified or contextualized by Pipes or anyone else. Reliable sources are already listed in the main body of this article on Charles Jacobs.
  • If one wants more information and wants to do what Wikipedia terms original research, one is certainly free to do it, but one can only post material that is verifiable and contained in WP:Reliable sources, especially if it is at all "negative," in biographies of living persons (WP:BLP).
  • All of this argument would seem to pertain as well to inclusion of the article by Green in Znet, and I am not linking to it or drawing upon it for the main body of this article.
  • Due to JN's insistence on referring us once again to Pipes's "timeline," I use Green's article by way of example of the extremely-problematic nature of unreliable sources. From one person's pov a source may seem reliable and unbiased (because one agrees with its biases), while from another person's pov, the same source seems wholly unreliable and biased (because one disagrees with its biases). [That is the function of "subjectivity."] The biases--whether they are or are not "progressive" (like Green, I would conclude from the biographical blurb at the end of his article), "liberal," "conservative," "neo-conservative," "socialist" (e.g., publications by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) are explicitly prohibited as sources for citations in Wikipedia, which calls such parties "extremist"); yet some of the writers who publish in Znet also publish or are featured on the website of the World Socialist Website [WSWS]), "communist," etc.; "pro-Jewish"; "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Semitic"; "pro-Israel"; "anti-Israel"; "pro-Palestinian" (like Green); "anti-Palestinian"; "pro-Arab"; "anti-Arab"; etc.--all such biases lead to lack of neutrality and are not consistent with WP:NPOV and especially not consistent with WP:BLP. If one has a bias or biases (which almost all people do), one has to try hard to keep one's bias or biases from entering into one's presentation of a biography on a living person or in articles on other subjects. Awareness of one's own bias or biases enables one not to give in to distortions in one's writing about subjects in which one is "interested." Few editors are "totally uninterested observers" of subjects that they write about in Wikipedia. Nevertheless, or perhaps even more, they need to be vigilant of the problems that their own biases may present in their writing and counteract them by being as "neutral" as anyone can possibly be. That's Wikipedia:Editing policy relating to WP:NPOV, as I understand it. Before posting information from authors, one needs to research their positions if the publications in which they publish are not already clearly in keeping with WP:Reliable sources. That is time-consuming, and it is clear that a lot of Wikipedia editors do not do that. As Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed publication (in the sense of WP:Reliable sources), in many ways Wikipedia's editors and Wikipedia themselves are not necessarily reliable sources. That is why WP:NPOV is very important. --NYScholar 23:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Re: JzG's passage, as quoted directly below:

"For sure we do [not] repeat allegations made in a single blog. Allegations repeated in a hundred blogs should be debated: 'a hundred blogs say Jacobs murdered his mother'; then we can investigate their sources andd show there are none and again reject it. What we can't do is assert as fact things for which we do not have (preferably multiple) high quality sources. [This is indeed what JN did when he posted and re-posted the links to Pipes's blog and the incorrect article in The Daily Standard!.] WP:BLP exists to prevent hatchet jobs and as an interdict against edit wars over potentially libellous [sic] content, it is not there to prevent debate on matters which have reasonable currency, in order to weigh up wheether [sic] they should be included or not." [See the bold print added, revealing the inconsistency of this argument.]

Contrary to part of JzG's possibility that if hundreds of blogs present something as if it were fact, it may be true and that may make citing them more reliable, first of all, that does not make those sources any less biased and "neutral" in relation to a "negative" point about a living person; and, secondly, that is often not the case. Experience with blogs suggests that, often, in actuality, the opposite is the case: blogs frequently distribute and redistribute unverified rumor; that many of them pass along the same fraudulent and false claims is not evidence of WP:Verifiability. It is evidence of how pervasively rumors can be spread throughout the blogosphere and cyberspace via the internet. Blogs are often no more reliable than a game of "telephone." And I say this as one who has a blog (a private one), who contributes to some blogs, and who knows that "all blogs are not equal," just as all other kinds of sources are not "equal" in reliability and verifiability. As JzG also suggests, or, I think, should be suggesting, W editors must verify such potential sources' claims according to WP:Reliable sources before they link to and/or quote them or list them in both articles and talk pages of articles, so as to avoid anyone's using them to spread what could be incorrect, false, fraudulent, or, worse, libelous and even dangerous information. WP:BLP does explicitly say not to post (both in talk and in the bodies of articles) possibly incorrect "negative" and potentially libelous material from unreliable sources; taken in conjunction with WP:Reliable sources, it says the opposite of what JzG claims. I believe that JzG's position is entirely incorrect. (Revised, expanded, and updated)-- NYScholar 04:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest cleanups

I've cleaned up the article again; I've had to remove various original research, unsourced smears, references which don't meet WP:BLP, etc. Please note that this is an encyclopedia article, and a biography; therefore, it is written as an article not in point form, and it states what it knows, not what it doesn't know. Also, any negative information must be impeccably sourced. Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. It reads much better now. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
ditto. Thank you, Jayjg.--NYScholar 21:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC) [Updated further, after I fixed some of my own errors and took out an unnecessary reference.]-- NYScholar 21:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for both saying so. I'd like to repeat, this is a biography of a living person, so if we include anything negative, it must come only from very reliable sources. Jimbo is very, very concerned that we all follow WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I added an "s" to this section. After JN introduced some new controversial material in a non-neutral manner, working with the same sources that he cites in 2 notes, I have merged them, identified the quotations, and thus tried to restore the article to a more neutral presentation of facts, with adequately identified citations formatted consistently with previous citations in notes. I recommend that one avoid misleading use of the passive voice that fails to identify the agents of actions (like who is speaking in a quotation) and that one give contexts of quotations (not quote "out of context" in misleading ways). --NYScholar 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

From Stewart: "The program has sparked an outcry. . . ." Her focus on Jacobs describes how he is part of that "outcry": an "outcry" is a kind of "protest." Anyone can read the articles and see that (if they are willing to); otherwise, people just seem unwilling to accept that what Jacobs says in his own words is what he thinks. That's why the quotations are there. So people can read his point of view in his words (not a paraphrase of them).--NYScholar 03:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And the source is entirely quoted accurately. Those are HIS words that the reporters are quoting in the articles. See the block quotations and the internal quotation marks in the sources. What exactly is your problem here? Whatever it is, you are not accurately stating it. See JN's version and how misleading that was. --NYScholar 03:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

Grammar: transitive and intransitive verb forms: e.g., "to graduate" and "to be graduated" In terms of proper English grammar usage: Schools "graduate" students; students are "graduated from" schools.

"to graduate" is" "To be granted an academic degree or diploma": Usage:

"Either graduated or was graduated is possible in sentences such as She graduated (or was graduated) from college. Graduated is now more common. Although was graduated is considered an affectation by some [e.g., SV], it is an equally acceptable alternative in such examples, according to 77 percent of the Usage Panel. From is necessary in either case. She graduated college is termed unacceptable by 93 percent of the Panel."

—The American Heritage of the English Language. --NYScholar 10:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The continual changes of my phrase "was graduated from Rutgers University" are unnecessary. It is correct usage and there is no reason to change it. A majority of the Usage Panel of the dictionary considers it "an equally acceptable alternative." Please use a dictionary. Thanks.--NYScholar 10:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tried to stop Mosaic?

The article now claims "In 2004-2005, according to The Boston Globe, along with other members of his local community, Dr. Jacobs attempted (unsuccessfully) to prevent the public access cable TV station in Newton, Massachusetts from continuing to broadcast Mosaic: World News from the Middle East." However, none of the sources I can see actually says Jacobs tried to stop the program from airing; instead it just says he criticized the show. Can someone here provide some source which actually says he tried to stop it from airing? Jayjg (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The sources are in the notes. It appears to me after reading the articles that he indeed wanted the Newton, MA station to stop airing the program. (I altered the wording to indicate that; the earlier wording was carried over from JN, who had added that section.) That is the protest in which he and the other residents of the city were involved in. See the transition introducing the quotations. See how misleading JN's rendition was, claiming that Jacobs was engaging in "censorship." Current version is more neutral. Jacobs wanted the program off local television, as I understand his remarks. That was the purpose of his being so critical of it. He didn't want it to spread what he viewed as "lies." (If you are quoting a passage, please use quotation marks, not italics. Thanks. --NYScholar 03:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I only see him commenting on the programs themselves, I don't see where the articles actually state he protested them. Can you quote the specific statements in the articles which show that he attempted to prevent them from being broadcast? Or was there an existing issue, and the paper merely went to him for an opinion on the subject? Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Protest" is broad enough to be a synonym for "criticize." It's strong criticism. The quotations from Jacobs can be called voicing a "protest" against something.--NYScholar 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Calling something "hate speech" is a form of vocal protest against it, as in the sentence "I protest that." And this is an example of his political activism, and he is a political activist [See the title of the article], and his organizations do "protest" what they perceive as negative presentations of Israel or, in this case, too "positive" presentations of "Arab" points of view. That's what he is "protesting" about the program. I think you need to re-read his quotations with a more open mind. --NYScholar 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The article claims he tried to stop them from appearing, but has no sources which back this claim. Criticizing a program is not trying to stop it from appearing, or even a "protest", and criticizing a program is not particularly noteworth. This is a biography of a living person; rather than inventively interpreting what articles say, we need to quote sources accurately. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am doing nothing of the sort. Jacobs' words speak for himself. The word "stop" isn't even in the passage anymore. Please re-read more carefully.--NYScholar 03:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Before anyone starts excising hard-wrought information in this article, keep in mind that it has a "stub" tag on it and an invitation to "expand" it, which we have been trying to do. Last week, every time one tried to expand it, someone here kept reverting it back to a skeleton. This article is still in the process of development and expansion, not contraction. --NYScholar 03:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up again, removing all the original research and writing it in encyclopedic form. This was one set of statements about one television program; it shouldn't constitute half the article. Jayjg (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Bye. Total waste of my time.--NYScholar 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jacobs tried to keep the show off the air. If you want yet another cite, see [6]: "Several residents appeared at last week's board meeting (of NewTV, the Newton public access channel) to speak for and against the idea of airing "Mosaic," which could be on the air in the next week or so and would probably air five times a week. ... Charles Jacobs, a resident of West Newton Hill, was the first to speak out against the show at last week's meeting, joining many others, including two Newton-based rabbis and former alderman candidate David Shein in opposition." We now have three citations. What do you want, the minutes of the meeting? --John Nagle 06:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Came back after working on some other articles; offer the compromise editing version just posted in the article incorporating both povs of both Jayjg and JN, I think.--NYScholar 06:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no POV, having never heard of this fellow before a couple of days ago, and, frankly, still knowing almost nothing about him. I'm just concerned about policy, including WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:BLP. Jacobs lives in Newton! This was a local meeting regarding Newton's public access cable channel! Speaking at a local meeting is not "lobbying", which is far more involved and prolonged activity. Indeed, including a lengthy section in this article about a statement Jacobs made at a local meeting of a local public access cable channel, while not including any statements he's made regarding the anti-slavery work he did for a decade, is, frankly, ridiculous, a sure sign of POV-pushing. Specifically, it is a violation of the Undue weight section of the NPOV policy, which states An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject., and quite likely a violation of the malicious editing section of WP:BLP. In light of Jimbo Wales's statements regarding the seriousness of these kinds of actions, I'm increasingly concerned about the edits being made to this page, particularly those of John Nagle, which appear to be editing it solely for the purpose of smearing Jacobs in some way. Jayjg (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
"I have no POV, having never heard of this fellow before a couple of days ago, and, frankly, still knowing almost nothing about him. I'm just concerned about policy, including WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:BLP." (Jayjg)
So am I. I have no investment in the subject per se; my investment is in the neutrality of the article. The more I try to make the article conform to bonafide, verifiable, sourced fact, by providing supporting information in quotations (due to your and others' constant deletions and objections), the more you militate against that. Since you really don't know the subject and apparently don't actually read the articles very closely, you are making mistakes in judging what they seem to be saying. "lobbying" local government officials at a town meeting is a form of lobbying. Look the word up. You are nit-picking to the point of absurdity here. You change things so that they do not reflect reality. The sources are there; I suggest that you read them and stop quibbling about semantics without actually using a dictionary to back up your claims. You don't define the meanings of words; a lot of people use words and dictionaries define the changing usage of words as people use them. Dictionaries are what you need to consult, not your "best guesses."--NYScholar 07:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Your claim "I have no POV" is ridiculous; everyone has a "POV," and it is important to know what one's is. I was referring not to a POV on the subject, but a POV on how to construct the article. I agree that JN appears to be attempting to make the subject of this article, Charles Jacobs look bad and to smear him at times or, at the very least, to undercut what Jacobs' beliefs and values are. Of course, I don't know why JN is doing that. I keep trying to straighten out the problems that he introduces whenever he adds anything to the article and to this talk page. [I had the least problem with his constructing a "history" (which I called first a "chronology" and then "biography" (in keeping w/ other W formats).] But things went downhill again here (in the article) after that. I'm having the same conflicts (for it appears opposite reasons--SlimVirgin tries to make Charles Jacobs look better than his critics do. So it's been a terrible struggle in every single article where he figures (which is why I've listed them in "See also" and given cross-refs.). It is the nature of the way Jacobs structures his organizations that they have so much overlapping connections, aims, goals, and, for some readers and editors, debatable integrity. That is one of the difficulties. The integrity of the subject has been called into question by his critics, and one encounters that sort of thing in reading the sources. I am not taking a side with him or his critics; I am just trying to set forth the reality of his biography in this biographical article of a living person. I am not breaking any Wikipedia guidelines or policies; I am staying within them. But the other editors, it seems to me, are entering into the article as if it were some kind of battle for positioning in the Arab-Israeli conflict and trying to one-up one another and gain some kind of winning advantage. That is a very poor way of going about writing what is supposed to be a NPOV on this (any) subject in Wikipedia, and it does not reflect well at all on the nature of Wikipedia as a source.--NYScholar 08:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. While you may well have quite accurately characterized John Nagle's interest in the recent series of articles he has created, my interest here is policy; policies, I might add, that you and John Nagle seem to be woefully unfamiliar with (see above, where you claim we can quote from SourceWatch). Nagle, and to an extent you, keep adding personal opinions, "best guesses", and POV to the article when the sources simply don't warrant it. I've read the articles closely, but, unlike the two of you, I think the sources mean exactly what they say, no more. Going to a local public meeting and speaking on an issue of local interest is not "lobbying" in any reasonable sense of the word - if you think he was "lobbying" or, in John's words, making "censorship efforts", then cite a source which actually says that. Moreover, I'm quite interested in having articles be written in a professional and encyclopedic way, not a series of bullet points, many of them stating things that we don't know, rather than things that we do know. I have no POV on Jacobs, but I'm being quite strict about having statements in the article conform to policy, and for some reason you don't seem to like that. Well, get over it; this is a biography of a living person, and it will conform to all of Wikipedia's policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:BLP. If you find those policies too restrictive, then I suggest you edit elsewhere. Jayjg (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
"unlike the two of you, I think the sources mean exactly what they say, no more" (Jayjg): You have rendered me almost speechless, though not quite. No one is able to say "exactly what" a piece of writing "say[s]" "no more" (or "no less"--the other half of the cliché); everyone "interprets" what he or she reads according to his own perceptions, habits of reading, abilities, points of view, perspectives, and so on. You may not know about a subject, but you still "interpret" what you read, just as other people "interpret" what they read. You are no more an authoritative interpreter of these sources than anyone else (and perhaps less authoritative, since you haven't read many of them). That's not the point.
In all my citations above, I have cited the very same Wikipedia policies (most of them) that you cite above. It's not the policies that are too "restrictive"; it's your (and SlimVirgin's) way of hitting people over the head with them that is too "restrictive." (And she, it appears to me, has an axe to grind re: the subject Jacobs, though I don't know why or what it is precisely.)
If you don't use a dictionary when you claim to know the meanings of words. your arguments about what they mean or could mean are not convincing. People are trying to paraphrase a source if they are not quoting the source, and that involves trying to interpret what the source is stating ("saying" as you put it). One is doing the best one can.--NYScholar 09:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of respect for other people's hard work

Your total lack of appreciation for the work that other people are trying to do (this article did not exist last week) is extremely upsetting.

Speaking of "professional" etc.; as far as I know, I am the only "professional editor" who is actually working on this article. That is what I do as a profession in addition to teaching writing at the college/university level and writing books and articles. So I find your attitude extremely derogatory and insulting ("Nonsense"), especially, since you have not done the research (and I'm not talking about "original research" in Wikipedia's terms) but rather just plain reading of secondary sources attempting to evaluate them. (It is easy for you to criticize other people's hard work; it may not be perfect, but it is more than many have contributed, which is, in most cases, nothing.)

I cited the Wikipedia article on SourceWatch, which is a bonafide thing to do. The article has information that one needs to know if one runs into the Source Watch article about Jacobs (cited by someone else originally in this article). I did not list or cite the article per se; I wasn't quite sure what to do with it after someone else had cited it; some other editor added it in first constructing this article. I took it out eventually. But I left the Wikipedia internal link to its own article on SourceWatch in as a reference for those who want it there, because it qualifies use of that as a resource. There is nothing defamatory about the link. So please get your facts straight. Thanks.--NYScholar 09:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after I removed the link to the defamatory SourceWatch on Jacobs as an unreliable source, [7] you immediately re-added it to the article, with the edit comment "last editor is removing information that provides alternative views of subject." [8] You're also the person who added the link to smear piece in the unreliable source "iViews" [9] written by Ismail Royer, the member of the militant group Lashkar-E-Taiba who, in 2004, pled guilty to weapons and other charges and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. So please get your facts straight. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Neutral" point of view also involves not suppressing criticism of a subject; when other people brought information to my attention or added it, occasionally I left it in for a while. What you distort is that, after realizing the problems with some of that information, I removed it. As far as "Royer" goes, you are judging the source. I just thought it was a source that had some information of use. After you or someone else took it out, I did not put it back in. So please get your facts straight. Look at the history even more closely than you apparently have already been trying to do. And also remember, I thanked you for your revision, even though you took out a great deal of my work, whereas I don't recall your ever having thanked me for my work. You just thanked me for thanking you. I think that says something, doesn't it?--NYScholar 09:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My link to the Wikipedia article on Sourcewatch is in another article cross-linked to this one, not this one.--NYScholar 09:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writing

[and]

[edit] Formatting of notes and references

[added]

NYS, the writing on this page is not good, but when people fix it, you revert them. Please allow others to edit the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, please sign your posts. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think you are the sole arbiter of what constitutes "good writing," SV. Plus I always do sign my comments on the talk page. Don't keep bringing this up. They are signed. What is your problem w/ this?

You are constantly reverting my earlier changes, moving things around, leaving out punctuation, adding mistakes, changing references to mistaken references. See the talk pages of the other article on The David Project where I issued a 3RR to you. You've been reverting my work in more than one of these articles re: CJ.

Also, I've already explained more than once that "was graduated from" is correct English usage: scroll to that as well. {"Usage" above.) And please stop telling me that I don't write well. You originated this page, other people (not just I) tried to improve it when you clearly tried to make it an occasion for praising and trumpeting the subject. I'm trying to present him in neutral terms. Read the notes (if they are still there). Read this talk page. I'm tired of this.--NYScholar 11:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You are not writing the articles the way Wikipedia expects them to be written. You are a new editor and are not familiar with our style of writing or editing. Please read our editing policies and style manual. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Lead section, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This is an article about an American, so the dates are written July 30, 2006, and are wikified so that people's date preferences work (but only full dates are wikified). Do not keep changing them. The way you write your citations is unnecessarily long-winded and make the article harder to edit. Your writing style reads as though you're writing a shopping list, rather than a story. You must stop putting words and phrases in quotation marks unnecessarily: it is not always necessary to quote, and it's often best not to, especially with phrases like "research director," because the quotes make it look as though we are distancing ourselves from it somehow.
You must stop reverting other people's improvements. All you are doing is wasting your own time and ours. Finally, I did not "originate" the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Every time you revert my "improvements" (I put your "other people's 'improvements'" in quotation marks), you introduce more multiple errors (and you do not return to correct your own errors, indicating that you do not see them). In your own last version, there are many new and continuing errors of punctuation and multiple (new and old) factual errors. I have attempted to correct them (based on the sources, which I have read, and, in some cases, which I myself have added). I am not a "new" editor of Wikipedia; I've been here for over a year, and I have read the articles that you have linked. As far as dates, the MLA format is not "European" v. "American." Obviously, you yourself are not familiar with documentation style sheets linked on Wikipedia. See other article talk pages if I did not already point that out here. I do know what I am doing; but you just are not aware of the documentation styles and do not know that. Pity. You also do not punctuate sentences and notes correctly. There is no "one way" to cite sources in Wikipedia's editing policies. I've linked to them enough times; one chooses ONE documentation style and sticks to it; one doesn't continually shift back and forth inconsistently from note to note or reference entry to reference entry among an invented mish-mash of documentation styles. "n.d."=no date. See the abbreviations Wikipedia lists for more information about such abbreviations if some are unfamiliar. Usually, the rule of thumb is to select a documentation style format that is appropriate to the discipline of the subject (not a person's nationality) and to the readers of the language, in this case, English-speaking people (who are not always "Americans"). There is no "American" documentation style sheet per se; the documentation style sheets related to the disciplines of the organizations which create and recommend them to their professional participants and students of those disciplines (MLA, APA, ACS, etc.). The location of the society is not germane either in most cases; these are "universal" or international societies which govern documentation throughout their disciplines throughout the world (e.g., humanities and the arts, social sciences, sciences, medicine, the law, and so on). You need to learn more about these matters before you criticize those who do know more about them on these policies of Wikipedia (which make reference directly to them). Read the material at the links you've given. I thought you did originate most of this article after its initial stub creation. I'll check the history again later. Sorry, if I misstated that point. It was not intentional. --NYScholar 23:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't care what MLA style does or doesn't say. We edit according to our house style, which is outlined at WP:MoS and WP:CITE. Please edit within those parameters. Your edits are not improving this article. You have also just blanked it. I'm assuming that was an accident and not intentional vandalism, but either way, could you fix it, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I know that you "don't care": that's the point; you don't even "care" enough to read the section Technical issues with footnotes or the references to MLA style formatting on the very page that you have linked. I have read the page; I am doing what Wikipedia does permit. There is some "consensus" but no explicit requirement of which style chosen; consistency is the requirement. Read ALL the sections on the page and visit the links it links more carefully and again. There is no single "house style"; it's a possibility; it is not suitable for all articles, and I have used linking to sources in Wikipedia external link format throughout all the notes and references, as suggested, in all the articles that I've edited for the past month, including this one and related ones to it.--NYScholar 01:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
See also: Cite.php and read more carefully. In MLA format the names of authors in notes are first name first, then last name; in APA, it's the opposite. Bibliographies ("Works Cited") are organized alphabetically by last name, then first name, then title, etc., so that people can find the names listed in the text in parenthetical "in-text" citations or in notes (footnotes or endnotes) easily by last name that way. ACS format makes less sense to me, because, like APA, the references are both alphabetized and organized chronologically (with the publication date place directly after the author's/authors' names in notes and references). The names can be repeated (like the a,b,c etc.) in ACS style, though not in APA generally or in MLA (at all). I've deferred to the a,b,c, etc. format, but you can see how difficult it is to follow when the notes occur out of chronological order throughout the body of the text; it's harder to read. Then people have a tendency to sprinkle in numbered external links (larger numbers, not superscripts), which also make reading very difficult. I do use parenthetical citations in some of my other articles on subjects in the disciplines of the humanities and the arts, which traditionally (and universally) tend to use MLA format. APA is for topics in communications and the social sciences (and that often includes "Education" as a discipline, but not always). These distinctions are all in college writing handbooks and referred to in the links at in the external links sectin of the webpages linked in this reply and in SV's own links to the same webpages; except I don't think that she has read the material in the webpages at the links. --NYScholar 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in some sources being cited

Some of the sources used in this article have typographical and other errors, and they need to be fact-checked with other sources for verifiability. One source being used as "current" information ("currently") is possibly at least two years (or more) old--2004 is the last press release linked in it: [note 6 actually--see the note "[N.B]": "Note bene" means "Note well."]*[see bullet below]

People are doing "original research" in writing this article and not always relying on multiple verified reliable sources. I do still see inconsistencies among the sources. Other people need to check every single one of them with additional sources before making chronological claims based on them. JN is still in here changing things; what happened to the Wikipedia:3RR re: him and the other editors making reverts within 24-hours. Some of us are just trying to copy-edit and correct minor punctuation errors in the text; not doing anything to the "substance" or contested matters of the substance of the main article. If one sees an actual typographical error, one should be able to correct it. These changes of mistakes are not really contested; people just don't see them. As editing is what I do, I do see some of these details more easily and frequently than other people who do not do this kind of work professionally sometimes do. Correcting errors of mechanics and fact are also forms of "improvement" of articles on Wikipedia as in other encyclopedias and books. --NYScholar 23:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The entire site is copyrighted 2003-2006, but the information in that webpage seems to date from 2003-2004 (no later probably, given the 10 press releases from 2004 listed there). It cannot be considered "current" information and evidence of what offices/roles/functions Jacobs "currently" holds/has/is doing. Other sources are needed to corroborate and verify what he is "currently" holding/having/is doing. Even the corporate filings are dated to an extent (not necessarily 2006 but perhaps earlier, like 2005 and 2004. There are also typographical errors in the corporate filing papers. One can read some of them online for free; others require purchasing, which I haven't done and have no plans to do. --NYScholar 23:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [correction of typographical errors throughout this post later.--NYScholar 23:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC) and again later--NYScholar 01:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)]
I'm amused by the comment that "JN is still in here changing things". Of the last fifty edits to the article, 30 were by NYScholar and two were by me. --John Nagle 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm equally amused at your take on "things":
by "things" I meant "things" relating to content; I've just been correcting typographical, format, and other mechanical errors. The huge number of corrections of such kinds of errors relate to the huge numbers of times SV was reverting my previous corrections.[sorry this one I really did forget to "sign": it's prob. from around an hour or more ago. --NYScholar 08:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] Accuracy dispute tag

[I removed some of the charges of "vandalism" re: accidental way of posting the tag itself--just a formatting of the tag problem] Scroll up to previous section for explanation of a reason for the tag; scroll up to many other sections for the other problems of accuracy discussed by me and other editors.--NYScholar 02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)]

NYScholar, you've added a strange tag to the page that inserted the entire contents of other articles here. If you think there are accuracy issues with the article, can you explain what they are? Wikipedia frowns on tagging articles without explaining explicitly why you think the tags are warranted. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry: I went to the right page and provided an explanation there and above here in this talk page I thought (maybe it didn't get saved?), but the tag didn't look the way I thought it was going to look. I just wanted the graphic tag, not the whole page. The tag that I used turned out to be working differently from how I thought it was working. I'm still trying to find the right (small) tag. The explanation is in the talk page I thought (but now I see what I wrote is not here!). I'll look for the right link to the right tag. I've run out of time for this, and I'm very tired at this point. So I don't know how soon I can find what is needed.--NYScholar 01:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The tag intended is at the top of the following page WP:AD. I'm still working on this. The explanations are at the bottom of that page. I thought I was providing a tag that linked to it (but it put the whole page on top of the CJ page (which would still be there, but at the very bottom; not what I intended at any rate; an indadvertent mistyping; not vandalism (contrary to SV's charges!). It's happened before when I was learning how to use tags like "cleanup"; one sees the notice at the top of the page in editing and doesn't realize that the entire help page is there too!) --NYScholar 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake; I found the right tag code and added it. It's

 The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (March 2008)

. The link at the tag goes to the page where explanations are provided about articles being disputed. Sorry it's come to this; but after a week and hours and hours of attempting to deal with the problems relating to this subject to to articles relating to him in good faith, I have brought this to the attention of other administrators.--NYScholar 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please state the specific parts of the article you believe are factually incorrect, and why. The statements need to go here, that's where the tag says we'll find them. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's already here: read previous sections: I have not got endless time to repeat these problems. I've already edited and corrected the problems, but I fear that, once again, SV will see fit to reverting and adding the inaccuracies back in. My editing summaries in my recent changes already make very clear what I was correcting; read the history. I can't do that for you. You have to do that yourself.--NYScholar 02:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Scroll above to my previous section "Errors in some sources being cited." How much clearer could that heading be?--NYScholar 02:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only real factual issue outstanding is whether Jacobs still heads the AASG. The organization website says yes at one place, but State of Massachusetts corporate records say Mohammed Athie replaced him. That's not a big deal; we can report the source disagreement, and we have cites for both. It's probably going to turn out that somebody forgot to update the web site. Is there anything else? --John Nagle 02:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to Jayjg's message to me in on my talk page (and to above question by JN): There were some things that needed fixing; I fixed them; it should be as accurate as we have information to support now; I left the linked dates as they were, but I fixed the remaining inconsistencies in the dates of the references themselves (mostly punctuation errors); made it more concise in verbs. I found the repeated use of "was" in the beginning troubling, because it made Jacobs sound dead: chose action verbs to replace the "was" constructions. Added parethetical "date of birth unknown" as a blank to put a date of birth once there is one known. I figure that he was probably born around 1945-1948, but I can find no information posted in article accessible online with a bonafide date of birth; no sources for a date of birth.

I believe that the discrepancies in the web site (which seems current) and the 2005 or so posting of the corporate filing is just a matter of the latter being 2 years old, though, with this subject, who knows? A lot of the biographies that remain online in organizations relating to him (incl. Benador Associates) appear to contain inaccurate information regarding dates and titles of positions (E.g., "Director"), yet the various promotional material may still cite them. Newspaper articles tend to use the same old bios, so they are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources of his biographical information. He speaks the place of birth as Newark, NJ, in the audio excerpt, which is where I learned that information. I suppose one could check birth records of Newark, NJ, but I'm not doing it, as generally those require fees and would also constitute "original research" that one can't link to for verifiability purposes of other readers.
Most I can do now; I'm too tired from these disputes and have to turn to other thingslike sleep and the upcoming week [yay!], I am happy to say (I hope).
Thank you for your efforts (all who contributed them) to trying to resolve these disputes so that the article is better than it used to be. Remember that it has only been in existence a very short time. My concerns have been that it be as accurate and neutral as possible and as non-inflammatory as possible given what is happening in the Middle East (and in America as a result, it seems) over the past two weeks. I think that ordinary people who serve as editors for Wikipedia have a responsiblity not to add fuel to these flames. Part of my energy in working on this has resulted from these far more grave concerns. If anyone thinks the article is still in some way unnecessarily or unintentionally or unreliably inflammatory, please advise. I still have to look at the related and linked articles. The last person to weigh in on this can remove the tag if all agree it is as accurate as can be at this time.--NYScholar 06:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
JN: Try not to add anything controversial and questionably sourced! Let it be. I've seen various posts to, from, and about editors who have been involved in this dispute when I read Jayjg's talk page for the first time after seeing his message to me on my talk page; some of you seem to have a history of editing disputes with one another regarding articles dealing with anti-Semitism and Jewish and Arab-related matters. The Jacobs article is actually my first one on these subjects (leading me to see and consider the affiliated organization articles). I can see that I am not the source of the original disputes about such articles. It seems to me that I got caught in a web of already-existing conflicts, possible antagonisms, and perhaps negative energies among editors who have previously confronted one another over articles on interconnected related subjects. (Makes me regret having taken so much time all the more!) I refer readers to Jayjg's talk page and to each one of the other editors' talk pages for edification. I've tinkered some more with very minor changes to improve the accuracy of the article, I hope, and to take account of the need to indicate that Jacobs' "activism" takes a variety of forms (which one can find in the inter-linked "see also" sec. I hope that these changes resolve former disputes. --NYScholar 07:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC); [somewhat further updated.] --NYScholar 09:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [corrected] --NYScholar 10:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
NYScholar has made 20 edits to this short article in the last 24 hours. I have made one. NYScholar has made about 150 edits to the article in the last week. That's overdoing it. The result of all those tiny edits is a choppy article. --John Nagle 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
All that copy-editing was necessary because so many editors continually introduced typographical errors and errors of factual accuracy in this article so many times, over and over again, reverting one another's work, introducing new typographical and other errors of factual accuracy, all of which needed vigilant verification and correction. The "choppy" nature of the history is not evident in the text of the article. (It was more "choppy" looking when JN had created the central section as a "History" of dates.) "Overdoing" it is JN's repeated attempts to introduce material that does not conform with either WP:BLP or Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and the above controversies and disputes documented in this talk page make that clear. Many times other editors have asked him not to toss such unsubstantiated and controversial material so carelessly into the text of this article on a living person. See all the sections above this one. This dispute is over. If I see that it continues, I will put the tag WP:AD back on the article. JN has caused us all enough trouble. While I thanked him for his work on the "History," which I later altered to "Biography," a "list" of bulleted items which other editors ultimately recast into paragraph style, criticizing me for it (when actually it was initially JN's creation in a list format), JN has not appreciated the efforts of others (including me) to try to incorporate his work into a format that is acceptable in terms of the guidelines in WP:BLP. He should drop this program to make personal attacks on other editors (like me), and cease and desist in his efforts to make this article reflect his own particular biases and anything less than NPOV. See the Accuracy Dispute page for informaton about the nature of this dispute and the sections above in this talk page. --NYScholar 23:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relocated material from incorrect talk page for Charles Jacobs

I found some material posted by JN on a talk page for "Charles Jacobs," where it is misplaced; I moved it to this page in his own earlier section asking "What does Charles Jacobs do"; it was posted on July 26, 2006, and did not appear on this page before. I am assuming that he meant to post it here and chose the wrong page by accident.--NYScholar 23:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the direct link to the (other) Charles Jacobs talk page with comments questioning why it is there.--NYScholar 06:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitatration Request

I have now added this article to the requests for arbitration. I'll post the link to it in a minute. This is my notification of the parties involved (scroll up in this talk page) of the request for mediation.--NYScholar 23:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [typo corr--NYScholar 05:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)]

Here's the item: Request for arbitration Charles Jacobs (political activist). --NYScholar 00:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(I think I made this request to the wrong page, and it needs to go to "mediation." I'll try to put it there and fix this order of activities. It will take me a while to re-do it[, if I do.])--NYScholar 00:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)--[updated]--NYScholar 05:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As an Arbitration Committee clerk, I've taken the liberty of removing the request from Requests for arbitration. It does seem to me that you may need to consider mediation. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I had just tried to post the following and got an "editing conflict" message! Sorry for the confusion!! --NYScholar 00:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the above mistaken request

I thought I'd make such a request to mediation, but went to the wrong page (arbitration); I've tried to remove the posted request from arbitration page, but I ran into an "editing conflict"; I think it may be gone from there now though. I'll check again in a bit. I'm holding off for the meantime on making a mediation request first (the proper order). It's very time-consuming, and I hope that the parties involved here will be able to leave this article alone and desist in this dispute. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well no, if you're saying you're the only one who's allowed to edit it, that's clearly not on. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, I never said any such thing, and I think you know that. An administrator asked me on my talk page to consider whether or not it was okay (with me) to remove the WP:AD tag from this article. I did, and then JN started in again on harassing me about this article. I was considering filing a mediation request after that, but after looking at the required format, decided that I don't have time to do that. I will reconsider if people continuing bothering me about it. Please cease and desist from harassing me here and everywhere else you are doing that.--NYScholar 06:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You wrote above: "I hope that the parties involved here will be able to leave this article alone ..." That implies you think only you should be allowed to edit it. Everyone you deal with seems to be harassing you, in your opinion. No one else who edits knows anything, and so on. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous (again): I meant that I hoped that people would leave the article alone for a while so that it could sit and people could take a look at it as I was suggesting and people could weigh in on how it is now. All I got was JN's negativity as a response, about choppiness (in the history); I don't see how the article is choppy now, and if it is, it is basically SV's content edits that make it as it is now, bec. I have barely touched the content. I've only made stylistic, mechanical, typographical, and format changes. The writing of the paragraphs is something that she did primarily. So however it strikes one is a result of mostly her work. And I would appreciate it if SV would desist in continual "tit-for-tat"; it's uncalled for. I'm talking about whether or not the article is "better" now than it was before I added the WP:AD--in terms of "accuracy" of content--which was the reason for the dispute (not little things).--NYScholar 02:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Everything is my fault. :-D I just want to note that the article as currently written is not how I'd write it if I could have my wicked way with it; not that that's likely to happen. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
SV: I hope that you don't mind my adding the threading: I forgot to do that in mine and added a : before your : too. It's not anyone's "fault," in my view--it's not a "personal" problem. And if "the article as currently written is not how" you'd "write it if" you "could have" your "wicked way with it"--how would you want it to be that's different? The idea of a "discussion" or a "talk" page is to discuss those sorts of "plans" of action BEFORE one changes the article, to get some feedback and perhaps help with doing what a number of people--working together, as opposed to at cross purposes--would like to see in (or not in) the article. It would be better to discuss consequential or substantive or even major format changes BEFORE making them and see what other editors involved in the article composition think. Get the feedback, and THEN decide best course. This constant going into the article to make changes without discussion first is, in my view, what causes the problems. [For e.g., if SV had proposed changing the way the References list was set up in another article that I've worked a lot on before she came to it (she knows which one I mean), then I might have been able to consider that as a serious possibility and made the changes myself, which would have not introduced so many typographical errors (because I knew the material that I was working with and the format the entries are in).]
Doesn't Wikipedia's editing policy recommend that people discuss these sorts of things on the talk page first and THEN make changes after getting some consensus (if that is possible)? Just some I hope constructive thoughts. BTW: I actually like the content that SV created from the bulleted list ultimately; I just didn't like the negative remarks on bullets being "wrong" etc.; they are used all over the place in Wikipedia articles, when they can be helpful. I agree that it reads better as a para. than it did as a chronological list. Re: birth date missing: I don't mind that not being there; but I think comments like "please don't keep adding this" etc. are better placed in talk w/ an explanation (of why not) for future understanding. It's probably not Wikipedia format; I just thought it was W format to have a birth date and the spot was there for when it could be added if ever anyone can provide and verify it. [Later I saw a category of people with missing birth dates at bottom, and that is the way to handle the missing birth date, I understand now. (updated later).] --NYScholar 10:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jacobs and Orientalism (book)

An anon just added a line about Jacobs, trouble in Darfur, and Orientalism (book). I marked it as "citation needed". Jacobs did come out against that book in a different forum [10], but we don't have a cite to the specific statement added. Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with the removal of that statement. It's really a minor part of the "Columbia Unbecoming" issue, which is covered over at David Project. --John Nagle 17:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A source with related commentary by Jacobs (though not about Darfur etc.) quoted is quite easy to find via a Google search for "Charles Jacobs Edward Said Orientalism": See, e.g., an article posted on CAMERA. (The specific quotation added by the anon editor purportedly from a "speech" about "Darfur" given at "Brandeis University" still is not verified from a reliable source, however.) An editing summary in the editing history pertaining to the MOSAIC section (where the additional sentence was added by the anonymous editor without a parallel heading) refers to "defamation" pertaining to Wikipedia policy re: Blp. See the W article on CAMERA: (actually) Note 12, where I added some of the related material. In that note (12), I elided the allusions to living persons which appear in the linked CAMERA article. Technically, now there is no "defamation" of Said in relation to Blp; Edward Said is no longer living. As the "See also" sub-section appears in "Controversies," any reader of this article on Jacobs can read about those controversies in the cross-referenced CAMERA article. That is why I added the revised material to its note 12 in it instead of in this article. --NYScholar 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reconciling pages

On the CAMERA page, it now claims that someone else founded the organization, but here it says Jacobs founded it. At a quick read of discussion pages, all I can really tell is that this seems to be a very controversial area. Would somone who is working on this topic please sort through what is going on? - Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

An anon, 64.115.149.138 (talk · contribs) made that uncited change on September 6, 2006. "Winifred Meiselman" is mentioned in Google only in one blog, and not as the founder of CAMERA. Multiple sources indicate that Charles Jacobs founded CAMERA, but none of them are definitive. This David Project press release says he did. This article [11] cites "The New York Times, August 2, 1988; also, The Boston Globe, March 29, 1989; interview with CAMERA president Andrea Levin, 12/6/99" as a source that he was. But I can't find those articles in the Boston Globe or NYT archives.
CAMERA itself is silent on the subject. State of Massachusetts online corporate records don't go back far enough. In the 1999 corporate filing for CAMERA [12], Winifred Meiselman is shown as a director. (He's not listed in the latest filing.) So that name didn't come out of nowhere.
Still digging. --John Nagle 02:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
A 2005 article in The Nation says he's the founder of CAMERA [13]. But the text there is the same as the text in Sourcewatch [14], so those aren't two sources. The problem is that we're trying to find out a minor piece of info from the pre-Internet era, and may have to go to print sources for it. --John Nagle 02:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"Forming the nation’s foremost pro-Israel media-watchdog group would be enough of an accomplishment for most people to hang their hat on. As a co-founder of CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting In America, (camera.org), Charles Jacobs has the gratitude of thousands of lovers of Zion." Kansas City Jewish Chronicle - April 16, 2004. That's from the intro to an article about a talk Jacobs gave in person, so it's probably valid. Note that this says "co-founded", so there are probably multiple founders. --John Nagle 02:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Changed "founded" to "was a founder of", to allow for co-founders. That's consistent with the available info. --John Nagle 02:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The current version of this article now cites A Brief History of CAMERA", which makes clear that Charles Jacobs neither founded nor co-founded CAMERA. CAMERA has a single founder, Winifred Meiselman, identified as such in its account of its own history. Apparently, Jacobs' involvement with CAMERA began after the founding of the Boston chapter in 1988 by Andrea Levin, its executive director (head); he became the "deputy director" of the Boston chapter, which, after the retirement of "Win" Meiselman, the founder of CAMERA, became the national headquarters, etc.; Levin (not Jacobs) succeeded Meiselman. See W's article on CAMERA for more information as well. --NYScholar 02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are the relevant passages quoted from that "Brief History of CAMERA" just linked above and in the notes to the article:

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, or CAMERA, was founded in Washington, DC in 1982 by Winifred Meiselman, a teacher and social worker. Mrs. Meiselman formed CAMERA to respond to the Washington Post’s coverage of Israel’s Lebanon incursion, and to the paper’s general anti-Israel bias. Joining CAMERA’s Executive Board in the early days were such prominent Washington-area residents as Saul Stern and Bernard White. Win also recruited an Advisory Board which included Senators Rudy Boschwitz and Charles Grassley, Congressman Tom Lantos, journalist M. Stanton Evans, Ambassador Charles Lichenstein, Pastor Roy Stewart, and Rabbi David Yellin.

Under Win’s leadership CAMERA created chapters in major cities, including New York, Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and in 1988 a Boston chapter and office, founded and led by Andrea Levin. Ms. Levin had taught English in inner city Philadelphia, and later served as associate editor of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

CAMERA opens Boston chapter (click for full size). [photo on site]

In 1989, CAMERA took a large step forward with a highly successful conference organized by the Boston chapter: “The Media, The Message and The Middle East.” The event galvanized public interest concerning the media’s power to sway public opinion on Middle East policy – and the potential harm of distorted coverage. Held at Boston’s Park Plaza Hotel, the conference drew an overflow crowd of more than 1000 attendees, and featured such well-known speakers as Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary Magazine, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Professors Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University, Ruth Wisse of McGill University, Jerrold Auerbach of Wellesley, and David Wyman of UMass Amherst. Joining these speakers were Ms. Levin, who documented the Boston Globe’s bias against Israel, and the Boston chapter’s Deputy Director, Charles Jacobs, who critiqued a biased teacher’s guide which accompanied a PBS documentary.

. . . . In 1991 Ms. Meiselman retired due to health problems, and leadership of the organization passed to Ms. Levin. The Boston chapter became the national – and eventually the only – office of CAMERA, as the local chapters were allowed to reincorporate separately or to close. (Notably, the San Francisco chapter, headed by entrepreneur Gerardo Joffe, became FLAME, Facts and Logic about the Middle East, and exists to this day.)

A 1991 letter to CAMERA members signed by Ms. Levin and by Win Meiselman, CAMERA's Founder (click for full size).[Photo on site]

Under Ms. Levin’s leadership CAMERA’s membership grew within a few years from 1000 to over 20,000, and now numbers over 55,000, and besides the Boston headquarters the organization also has offices in Washington, DC, New York, Chicago, and Israel. . . . (bold print added)

--NYScholar 02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)