Talk:Canary Mission

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Le Monde

In what world is removing what Le Monde Diplomatique says a BLP action? Explain that abuse of process or this goes somewhere like ANI or AE. nableezy - 21:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Canary_Mission_and_Adam_Milstein nableezy - 21:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a RfC open on this issue in the BLP's bio. Le Monde Diplomatique merely describes the content of a leaked doco which was not published - being canned by AJ.Icewhiz (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the RFC is open on an EI source and including it in the lead of the bio. You cannot just blank reliable sources because you dislike what they said. Also both uninvolved editors at BLP/N agreed this material is not a BLP violation. nableezy - 15:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. There is a pending RfC, and it is far from going in the direction you desire, and in fact since RfCs require a clear consensus to add disputed material in BLPs you are in breach of it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The RFC is on using Electronic Intifida in the lead of a BLP. It is emphatically not on faithfully reporting what Le Monde Diplomatique and JTA have reported anywhere else. nableezy - 18:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The RfC is on whether the text is to be used, period. The person initiating the RfC cited four policies, principally UNDUE which is unrelated to sourcing, and the subsequent commenters (beginning with Icewhiz) were fully aware of the Le Monde Diplomatique op-ed. It had no impact on the RfC and did not make it "obsolete" or void or any other such rubbish. Coretheapple (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it very clearly says that EI reference in that lead, and I brought the Le Monde Diplomatique article, note not an op-ed as you dishonestly claim here, after the RFC was started, indeed after Icewhiz commented there, making that two false claims by you in one comment. I really dont know why you insist on distorting these things. nableezy - 19:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not responding to personal attacks anymore so as to perpetuate this circular and useless discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no personal attack there, it is a fact that the RFC statement clearly discusses text in the lead attributed to EI and Haaretz. You say otherwise. Icewhize clearly cast his vote prior to the Le Monde Diplomatique's article being brought to the talk page. Also a fact. This game of crying personal attack when your argument is shown to be false is quite tiresome. nableezy - 19:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

My !vote in the RfC takes into account Le Diplo's reporting on the canned doco via EI - I did not update my !vote as reporting on the canned video does not addreas the reliability issues. There is absolutely no need to call other editors liars.Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The very first time the Le Monde Diplomatique article was raised on that talk page is 22:20, 11 September 2018. Your vote was at 13:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Would you care to explain how exactly the statement the subsequent commenters (beginning with Icewhiz) were fully aware of the Le Monde Diplomatique op-ed is plausible much less true? And if it is not plausible, that would make it what, a false claim, correct? Is there any instance on this talk page of anybody saying the word lie or liar besides you? Yeah, didnt think so. nableezy - 21:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I, as well as any other editor following BLP/n and RS/n, am well aware of the Le Diplo coverage. This is furthermore self evident as I have responded [1] to your assertions regarding Le Diplo on the RfC's discussion section. Thus, it is not a false claim to say I was fully aware of Le Diplo's coverage of the canned dogo from circa 11 Sep.Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you are now aware. You however were not, as it had never once been mentioned at the time, and would not be for several hours. That is the false claim I was referring to. Again, I really dont see why this needs to be distorted anyway. nableezy - 22:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

So what? And what is the relevancy of this to anything? Coretheapple (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You claimed it was a personal attack to say that was a false statement. It wasnt, that was all. nableezy - 22:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

npov

The suppression of what has been covered extensively in reliable sources violates NPOV. The list of articles that cover Milstein being accused of being the founder and his denial ranges from Le Monde Diplomatique to Tablet to JTA to Haaretz. It is absurd that it is censored here. nableezy - 15:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This is disruptive. We have a BLP/n and RS/n discussion on this. Consensus has not emerged there to support your position. Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ill open another RFC where the issue is not obfuscated in due time. It is not disruptive to alert readers to an effort to censor material that is widely reported. nableezy - 15:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

If there is lack of editor consensus to include (or consensus to exclude) information on WP:V or WP:BLP grounds - a tag is unwarranted. Tags are meant to open discussions - they are not meant for use in situations that have been resolved. Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No, a lack of consensus is exactly a reason to include a tag. This has very much not been resolved. Again, I will be opening a new RFC to address the issues, issues that have repeatedly been distorted with outright false claims about the sourcing involved. nableezy - 16:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Mirror site

In regards to this revert, while Wikipedia is not and should not be a Canary mission mirror site, when Canary's activities receive wide and diverse coverage (e.g. in this case, Newsweek, Times of Israel, JPost and a whole bunch of other media outlets) - then placing a small snippet in our article is more than DUE. Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment and add that your insertion about someone entirely non-notable is just trivia. Zero^talk 22:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSes disagree - e.g. CBS, Fox, NBC. The not too notable (though they may be moving out of 1E territory - and I will note that the event of Firing of Lara Kollab probably would pass standalone event notability) resident is not an issue - it seems that RSes are focusing on the public health perspective/threat - Canary preventing the employment of medical staff that stated they would "Jews 'wrong meds'". So unless your trivia assertion is based on some policy based rationale, we follow the sources. Icewhiz (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It will be forgotten in no time and is a perfect example of why we have WP:NOTNEWS. Zero^talk 08:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

So far this has been covered much more widely (including international non-English coverage) than most of the other incidents/details in the page - per WP:WEIGHT this should be included. Public safety and health issues tend to be well covered. Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• In regards to revert - considering that this event has sustained coverage for over 3 months by several national and international soirces - is there any rationale for removal here other thqn IDKNTLIKE?Icewhiz (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Read the first source: "Lara Kollab, 27, of Westlake, was a supervised resident at Cleveland Clinic from July until September 2018. In November, the Canary Mission website published a compilation of dozens of her tweets.." In other words CM got onto the bandwagon months after she had left, and your summary that the dismissal was due to CM's discoveries is false. Actually none of the five sources you brought attribute the decisions of either Cleveland Clinic or Kern Medical to discoveries by CM. Zero^talk 04:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

All five sources clearly mention Canary Mission in the context of Kollab's terminations. Canary Mission itself published a profile, on its website, of Kollab's statements in March 2018. per JTA (Jewish News reprint) - "She worked for the Cleveland Clinic from July 2018 to September 2018. The Clinic said it fired her over the social media post that threatened Jewish patients. The tweets resurfaced through the website Canary Mission, which publishes dossiers on pro-Palestinian student activists, professors and organisations, focusing on North American universities.. Likewise USA Today - "The employee, identified by The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer as Lara Kollab, was the subject of an extensive dossier published by The Canary Mission, in which the site chronicled alleged anti-Semitic social media activity between 2011 and 2017.. It seems that after news of her termination (in September 2018) reached Canary Mission - that they publicized this (PR, tweets, etc.) - and this led to media coverage (in late December 2018) - however the profile was up prior to the termination, and sources clearly tie them together. Icewhiz (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Neither Cleveland Medical nor Korn Medical Center have identified CM as the source of their information. So it doesn't matter a damn when the profile was up. You also wrote that KMC "withdrew its offer of employment", which is indeed what some of the sources say but contradicts KMC's own statement "No offer was ever given. No contract was produced," with the detail that she was 17th in a short-list for 9 placements when her background was flagged.[2] Zero^talk 09:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSes trump what organizations say about themselves. Kern's removal of Kollab from their list was seen as significant (and 17th for 9 - assuming an acceptance rate (by top applicants) of well under 50% - is an acceptance). Per The Bakersfield Californian which you are citing - "It could have been a public relations disaster. Instead, Kern Medical, Bakersfield's only teaching hospital, never hired a first-year resident physician whose name has become associated with anti-Semitic declarations on Twitter.". While we shouldn't include every Canary profile and every run of the mill termination (or withdrawal of a job offer) due to such a profile in our article - given the SIGCOV of this particular series of events involving Kollab and Canary, it is clearly WP:DUE here. Icewhiz (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

"WP:RSes trump what organizations say about themselves." Bullshit. Your silly claim that shortlisting is acceptance is also bullshit. Zero^talk 10:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we use Canary Mission in some way at Francis Boyle?

@Icewhiz, Zero0000, Nableezy, and Coretheapple:IBoyle's lead describes him as "a staunch supporter of the rights of indigenous peoples and Palestinians." Canary Mission's page on him has a rather different take.[3] Doug Weller talk 12:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

More of a question for RSN or Boyle. Despite some editorial disagreement on Canary's own POV, Canary itself is generally meticulously accurate in information it collects on individuals - particularly well published information. Boyle's article doesn't properly reflect the significance of him publishing on Veterans Today who character was covered by the SPLC. At the very least, the Canary profile (all hyperlinked to other sources) raises several red flags worth pursuing - finding corroborating sources that may have commented on them. Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

e.g. the moment I saw he was writing for VT on Canary, I made a search for "Francis Boyle"+Conspiracy and got to a mention in - 2014 in conspiracy theories, Telegraph. Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: it is, but I thought I'd ask people here first who know more about it than I do. And who knows, some of them might be interested in the Boyle article. :-) Doug Weller talk 16:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No, not even a little bit. If they have sources for their material that are reliable then those sources could be used, but this isnt even a reliable source for things not covered by BLP. Canary Mission meets none of the requirements of RS, it is so far below that bar I am seriously surprised that the comment above this was not a single worded "no". generally meticulously accurate? Where are you pulling that one from? Canary Mission has been called a McCarthyite group that engages in slander. “Canary Mission information is often neither reliable, nor complete, nor up to date,” said Israeli human rights attorney Emily Schaeffer Omer-Man. It is nowhere close to an acceptable source, especially in a BLP. An actual reliable source lists its source of funding, who its editors are, what editorial control they have, they publish corrections. Canary Mission does none of that. nableezy - 16:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Omer-Man represents plaintiffs barred entry at border control due to Canary reports - which is a rather strong indication of Canary's reliability. Funding of a source is immaterial (and often unavailable). "McCarthyite" does not mean inaccurate. Per Canary's website they have strong editorial controls and an ethics policy. However, for high-profile individuals most of the stuff on Canary is available in NEWSORGs - Canary merely provides a convenient compilation of such reports. Icewhiz (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

lol, rather strong indication? Please. Reliable sources call them a smear campaign that engages in slander. You, in a completely made-up assertion, call them generally meticulously accurate. Would you care to guess whose views matter more, your personal ones pulled out of nowhere, or actual reliable sources? Oh, and another one of those wholly bogus claims. Per Canary's website they have strong editorial controls. Really? Cus I cant find even the name of a single editor there. Would you care to substantiate that claim, or if this another in a string of assertions made with the expectation that nobody will recognize it as having literally zero basis? nableezy - 17:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope this is a joke (albeit a bad one); when was anon sources ok on Wikipedia? Huldra (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Some people think that material written on digital toilet paper can be used on Wikipedia. I think it should be flushed, like most of us learned when we were kids. Zero^talk 08:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No, they dont. They think that such material may be used for people whose political goals do not align with their own. They have no problem demanding incredibly high sourcing standards elsewhere. nableezy - 16:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• No Canary Mission is not usable. However the article seems problematic due to excessive detail and for other reasons. Re the Canary Mission content: if there are usable sources re "ani-Semitic conspiracy theories" they should be utilized." Coretheapple (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I've taged. Doug Weller, the article needs work but sourcing etc should be discussed there. Coretheapple (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to rename "Reception" sub-section

Greetings. The content contained in the "Reception" sub-section entirely covers criticisms and controversies surrounding Canary Mission. It would be more reflective of the content to rename the section "Criticism" or "Controversy".--Djrun (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

External link to "Against Canary Mission"

I've removed an external link in the bottom section. We typically don't add links to organization that are merely mentioned in a page or because they serve as some sort of foil to the site; I can't imagine us putting (for example) Lexis Nexis's comparison of itself to Google Scholar in the external links section of Google Scholar. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hola

No se suponía que Dios no quiere a los asesinos de niños? Israel no debió existir nunca 188.78.118.19 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

New source

Just published, it seems.

• Name and shame: Pro-Israel website ramps up attacks on pro-Palestinian student protesters - Reuters

Seems like a good overview of the group, especially since we don't seem to have had an expansion of the article since prior to last year, despite Canary Mission increasing their activities over this year (and receiving much more negative coverage such as above because of it). Silverseren^C 18:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Funding

Published in December regarding financial backing of canary mission: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/canary-mission-israel-covert-operations/tnamp/ Bonelessboiz (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"Intended to silence critique of Israel"

Hi @BePrepared1907 - Rather than edit warring, we should discuss this here. It was not a 'personal attack' to suggest this edit was potentially a COI issue, since the edit description (...avoid unattributed pov statements (they aren't against normal "criticism")) strongly suggested that you had insider knowledge about what this group is and is not against. Rather than unilaterally - and without any reference - blanking content, if you have RS showing that Canary Mission is not opposed to any and all critique of Israel, you can include it in the body of the article and reference it in the lead. (Hypothetical: "The website is run anonymously and some say it is intended to silence critique of Israel, but the group itself in an interview with < neutral source > says xyz.") That ensures the article remains neutral, rather than avoiding the topic altogether. Anyway, I've added another reference that backs up the notion of the group's aims (to the body of the article). Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

"The website is run anonymously and it is intended to silence critique of Israel."

Ultra biased language that doesn't give the entire picture. While a lot of Canary Mission's targets are anti-zionists, they expose antisemitism from all walks of life, and don’t (to my knowledge at the moment) tend to have anyone in their database who is just criticizing Israeli policy in good faith for the most part. Many of the people have assaulted people or made violent threats. That is a very different thing than "shutting down critique of Israel".

This would be like the lead-in to a planned parenthood page saying, "The clinic is run with the intention of aborting pregnancies." Yes, it's ONE facet of what they do, but it's intellectually dishonest to say with zero qualifiers or citations that the intended purpose of Canary Mission is to shut down criticism of Israel, anymore than saying Planned Parenthood exists for aborting pregnancies. According to CM's mission statement, their intention is to shut down antisemitism and hatred—some of which is related to Israel.

Their mission statement says, "Canary Mission documents individuals and organizations that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond. Canary Mission investigates hatred across the entire political spectrum, including the far right, far left ****AND**** ANTI-ISRAEL ACTIVISTS." https://canarymission.org/about

I suggest a change in that sentence to less biased language that represents both POVs: "The website is run anonymously with a mission statement claiming to root out hatred on US campuses. Opponents have claimed it exists with the intention of shutting down critiques of Israel."

Otherwise, remove that line as it's obviously biased and has zero citations to back it up. Gratefulfor1776 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The given statement is attributed with two sources, so it is not "obviously biased and has zero citations to back it up". Per the "Activity" section within the article, the organization does list actual white supremacists and antisemites but it does also frequently list individuals who have publicly expressed support for Palestine or criticized Israel/Zionism. The practice of lumping in tons of these people with people who genuinely hold antisemitic beliefs has been considered as concerning. Personally speaking, I know of a Jewish person who is listed on the Canary Mission for publicly expressing support for Palestine and attending an encampment; some of these people listed on the site have been the exact opposite of violent but are rather listed as an attempt to make a Jewish person expressing support for Palestine or criticizing Israel feel ostracized or humiliated. That is absolutely a scare tactic to try and publicly humiliate and shame Jewish people who do not support Zionism. The sentence doesn't need to be reworded as it is objectively supported by sources. B3251_(talk) 21:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so you just repeated what I said while ignoring my point on WHY it's biased. They DON'T just target antizionists, and the lead in infers that with ultra biased language.

There are no sources cited in the lead in, which is specifically what I stated I was talking about—not what you're talking about, which is buried all the way down in another section. That lead in is extremely misleading and biased.

If it's listed further down the article, then it should be removed from the lead in, since that's repetitive AND has no citations attached. That said, your two citations are from journos who almost exclusively rail against Israel. I hardly think either of those are unbiased citations, considering their entire focus (to this day) is criticizing Israel.

Please cite who you are talking about on Canary Mission, since you're using an anectdote as the reasoning to deny blatant bias in this article. The fact you have a friend in one of those encampments and are using it justify an obviously biased line that multiple people have expressed they have an issue with—it sort of seems like a conflict of interest on your end.

Making an incredibly biased statement in the lead in (sans citations) and then justifying it because "I have a friend who hates Israel and got on this list for apparently no reason"... Isn't an actual defense of this being unbiased. If anything, you just dropped the mask on your own bias. Gratefulfor1776 (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, here is the Jewish Press from four days ago stating, "Canary Mission, an organization dedicated to documenting individuals and groups who promote hatred of the US, Israel and Jews, has released a new report exposing the widespread campus antisemitism at New York’s Columbia University."

https://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/ny/canary-mission-issues-report-on-campus-antisemitism-at-columbia-university/2025/01/23/

According to Media Bias Check, the Jewish News is a factual source.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-jewish-press/

If you're going to have two blatantly biased sources, at least include a source to balance it. As it stands, this entry is wildly biased, and only tells the story told by Canary Mission's opponents. I understand you have personal beef with them—and fair enough—but this is about wikipedia's requirement that entries are unbiased.

As per Wikipedia: Wikipedia has an internal policy which states that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant points of view that have been verifiably published by reliable sources on a topic.

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#:~:text=Wikipedia%20has%20an%20internal%20policy,reliable%20sources%20on%20a%20topic. Gratefulfor1776 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

You are not permitted to contribute about this topic until your account is 30 days old with 500 edits, please see your talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I didn't realize starting a discussion was considered editing. I'm obviously brand new here. My bad! Gratefulfor1776 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand; the only thing that you are permitted to do in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area is make uncontroversial edit requests(mostly fixing spelling/grammar, or anything else not requiring discussion). 331dot (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Womp womp! Gratefulfor1776 (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I said that I know of, not that they’re my friend. I don’t personally know them. Specifically speaking, I liked an editorial that they wrote and decided to look them up on google, and that’s where I found out that they were listed on the Canary Mission. No conflict of interest applies here. B3251_(talk) 10:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)