Talk:Carl Cameron

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Journalism

See [1] and note the IP address which points to Fox news, intentionally removing documented information from Wiki that is unbecoming. [2]

Would you please sign your remark ? Would you also, please explain why you think this sorry piece of junk of an article complies with

WP:BLP ? Does your proposed revert really improve in this regard ? Wefa 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC) (updated)[reply

]

Well, since nobody tries to own up top this crap, I'll at least try to give it some proper structure. Wefa 12:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now this page has been "sanitized" by me. I moved the references into an own section and threw out the Bias allegation details - you can look them up from the references. I also moved in a sentnce or two from his Fox biography. Unfortunately, this is still borderline quality for a biographic article. My edit was purely formal - I know next to nothing about the guy and just rearranged the already given information. Someone with more info should at least give some more biographic detail (hint to those Fox News noses - get yourself a real account and add real data, instead of just deleting stuff) Wefa 13:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the reference to the bootlegged pre-interview tape. A bootlegged tape with off-the-record material is by definition not part of Cameron's journalistic work and thus can not be quoted in a section dealing with allegations of biased reporting. To put it more bluntly, Cameron's political opinion is not subject of this criticism and not subject of a wikipedia article. It is only relevant if and when it substantially influences his published body of work. This seems to be not the case in this reference. Wefa 19:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another entry on the sanitizing front: I just reverted an edit by user:Dachannien: there is already chapter on criticism of Bias. The chapter whose heading he changed from "Fraud"to "Bias" is about allegations of journalistic fraud, and, such, appropriately named. Furthermore mediamatters.org is appropriately linked, so it is completely redundant and POV to inject a diminuitive descriptions of them. I'll try to reintroduce the foxnews link to the article in some form. Dachannien: please explain why you think your changes are/were necessary. Wefa 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No good deed goes unpunished. I had kept/reincluded Dachannien's Fox news article link without actually reading the article. Now I scanned it. It does not contain the words "apology" or "fabricated". It does not mention Carl Cameron. It does not contribute to the understanding of the subject. I removed the link again - this wikipedia article is about Carl Cameron, not Fox News. Wefa 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I again removed the reference to the pre-interview tape. If you think this needs to be in this article, please explain why. See my comments above wrt that matter. Wefa 21:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hearing he was fired from Fox after he tried to perform an ongoing investigation into the Israeli Mossad spies in America that appeared to have had foreknowledge of the 911 attacks. Would anyone dare to clear up WHY he was fired from Fox here? Just curious. Cowicide 14:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- eh, he wasn't fired --75.84.196.46 01:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. he DID get caught fabricating a story that tried to frame some Israeli art students as "Mossad" agents. But he wasn't fired.

interesting issue. Is there any quotable writeup about the Israeli Art Students controversy that substantially details Cameron's journalistic involvement ? Wefa 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that Cameron fabricated anything notable pertaining to Israel. There are MULTIPLE independent confirmations of the Israeli art students and the Mossad-in-America stories:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html http://iraq-info.1accesshost.com/schrom.html http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A8381 http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A8271 http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/18/224826.shtml http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A3879-2001Nov22&notFound=true

Cameron's "Israel stories" are important in both their uniqueness among "major" US media as well as their subsequent purging from FOX News's website. A section on them needs to be added to the main Cameron article.

Musicmax (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got any quotable sources? This page is heavily attacked by folks from both sides with a chip on their shoulder about Cameron, and since WP:BLP, anything unsourced is going to be deleted sooner or later. I would love to have some more substance, though :-) Wefa (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here is an article written by freelance journalist Christopher Ketcham in 2007 originally for Salon who passed on it right before it was meant to go on their website. Later it was slated to be published by Nation but they pulled it at the last minute as well so it wound up being in CounterPunch. The source he quotes at Fox News is unnamed and states they sat down with the ADL and agreed to take down the story if they agreed to stop bugging them about it (apparently they were getting a lot of spam messages because of the story that and it crashed a server). They did not agree to post a follow-up retracting it. That might be too dodgy of a source to consider it for inclusion, but there was no fabrication on Cameron's part nor did he lose his job over it obviously. Ryal-oh (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user changed the article to claim Cameron were born "Karl Lamberg" and later changed his name to Cameron. Only reference given is a highschool web site that has Cameron's enail address listed as the contact for a "Karl Lamberg". Given the author is anonymous and this could be easily faked or be a prank I'll revert it. If anybody can cite better sources on this and wants to add his name to that we should discuss putting it in again. Wefa 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Bates College, he was Karl Emil Othmar Lamberg-Karlovsky. He also did not play Varsity Basketball nor Junior Varsity as he claimed to Pres Bush. He was Class of 1983. He is still listed in the Alumni Directory at http://community.bates.edu/s/209/index.aspx?sid=209&gid=1&pgid=94&cid=256&mid=10807&sys_tb=1.

He is the son of a respecte Harvard faculty member, C C Lamberg-Karlovsky. I think that should be noted. I knew him at Bates, good guy.

I'll remove the diminuitive qualifications from the critique section. The references given provide exact info who levels those criticism, and injecting them (especially in that form) in the text only serves to devalue them, which would be POV. I also dislike the tons of generic links inserted into the article by the same user, and have asked him to explain here via his talk page. Wefa (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have not seen any reaction, I'll remove the worst offenders in this regard now Wefa (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just again removed such an edit by Thehallman. The links given already show exactly who levels which critique, and inserting diminuitive descriptions into the Text is POV. @Thehallman : if you think your edit should be in the article, please explain why. Wefa (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chapter "Conflict of interest" (added by user:76.114.85.60) contains criticism without citing a source for the criticism. While such criticism, if made quotably elsewhere, might be appropriately mentioned here, this here seems to be original research. What do you think ? I'm currently inclined to remove that paragraph again.Wefa (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please, this is not the GOP party journal, and it's also not Carl Cameron's rap sheet. This article is in need of some solid information; what it doesn't need is GOP fanboys showing it to the eevil libruls, and what it also doesn't need is leftwing folks who think WP is the place to showcase their particular soapbox. Thank You. Wefa (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm still unhappy with that Conflict of Interest section. I don't like it but have not yet found an appropriate form to improve it. Wefa (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citing media matters, a george soros funded organization dedicated to attacking fox news all day every day, as a source of legitimate criticism is like citing 1950's pravda as legitimate criticism of capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.214.149 (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous Comcast user, probably from the Boston area, removed the whole criticism section. I reverted both his edits Wefa (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user just removed the Early Life section without any debate here. I restored it. If you have good reasons to remove it, please explain here why. Wefa (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just had to do that for a second time. Apparently the address both edits came from is a NewsCorp Addres - meaning that most likely a FoxNews employee is responsible for it. Wefa (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a third and a fourth and a fifth. All from Fox News IP addresses. This gets stranger by the day. Wefa (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inserting something into wiki article supported with a cite from media matters is a complete fucking joke. MEDIA MATTERS?!?!?! that's like quoting rosie o'donell or some other nutball as a legit source of news or criticism. this article could, as could all articles, be filled with fringe opinions and anyone. media matters is a george soros funded organization dedicated to attacking fox news. maybe we could just have an obligatory media matters disclaimer for ANYTHING fox news related that media matters doesn't approve of anyone or anything fox news related and, even though nobody give a rat's ass, we have to mention their opinions.

I added "fact" tags to the paragraph in the alleged bias secition about how conservatives dislike Cameron. This is completely unsourced. Given the recent debate I consider it possible that such allegations might have been made, but in a biographic article, there should be more substance. Please insert quotations for the factual claims that he did such reporting, its content has been refuted and he had had only anonymous sources. Folks, please remember

Ok, It's now a week and the author has not provided citations. Since this is a biographic article, I went with

I'm thinking abourt removing the praise praragraph Thomore inserted. It is not really correctly sourced (citing selected praise quotes from someone's PR Bio isn't exactly reliable sourcing) and reads like an advertisement. Furthermore it is not correctly sorted under Criticism and I don't really see a good place to put such data into an article. So I plan to remove it. Comments? Suggestions? What do you think? Wefa (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely needs to be moved at a minimum. I agree with you about the sourcing. Not exactly an unbiased source. On the other hand, the statement correctly attributes where the praise is coming from. Maybe we should start a praise section. I would recommend putting it in it's own section above the criticism section. It would be better to find quoteable sources that the Fox bio is referencing as opposed to using the third party quotes from the Fox bio. I'll leave it up to you. Just throwing around some ideas. Sperril (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone did the deed. Should have done it myself. So I'll try to reintroduce it as "critcal reception" Wefa (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that still doesn't win a price for editorial beauty, but it's better than before. Still, it leaves ample room for improvement. Fox should be kicked and screamed at for not providing any useful links for those quotes. Wefa (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also moved the Washingtonian quote from the career onto the praise section. I have to admit, even though those are a bit fluffy, the article actually gains by their inclusion. In time they could be replaced by more substantial references and remarks, but for now, the article loses that bit a "rap sheet" character which came from the imbalance of a rather short biographic part and an extensive criticism section. What do you think? Wefa (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted somebody calling Outfoxed a commentary film. Downtalking sources because you don't like the points they make does not work in a Wikipedia article. Outoxed is a documentary film in the classical sense. For more see its Wikipedia Article. I also adjusted the inline reference (changed it to a Wikilink and additionally added the old link under "external links"). Wefa (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that "material". Has that been covered by the main stream media? If not, that relation to the ethics is synthesis/OR. --Tom (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more tweaking. This article could use help. 2/3s of the citations are critical with most from partisan sites. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked over your tweaks. Problems

• you removed the transcript link. That is the absolute single and only source you will find about Cameron's College education - because he actually tells Bush in the tape he attended Bates and played College Basketball there. You'll find quite a few remarks in various fora from people contesting Camerons claims, he may well have brazenly lied to the Prseident there. But still thats all that was actually published.

(outdent) The birthdate seemed to have been different on a few versions, so I thought it best to find a reliable source and be done with it. RS for birthdates is not that rare, especially when different ones have been provided. As far as what school and sports he played ect., again, if there is some contention, and from your, er, remarks, there sure seems to be, then it would be better to have RS rather than just using his own "comments" ect about it. I was just pointing out that there seems to be alot of critical material and citations. I understand that could easily be becasue he has been heavily critized as you have point out. Also, imho, it seems like it is best to leave out your personal comments about the subject of bios least others think your bias might carry over into your editing. Anyways, hopefully we can improving/tighten this article up is all areas. --Tom (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please stop reverting my edit. I just trimmed that section according to your input (WP:SYN). As a minimun explain here what you do! Wefa (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your claim the film Outfoxed not to be a reliable source for criticism is ridiculous. I will reinate the section, please do not again remove it without seeking consensus on that. Wefa (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

youtube is not a reliable source. Again, has the main stream media covered what you want to add? Linking to a partisan documentary and youtube is not the best. --Tom (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ps, consensus should be for inclusion of material, not for removing it, especially questionable material from partisan sources. Anyways, maybe we need to get others involved since we disagree. --Tom (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't a youtube movie. Outfoxed even has an own WP entry, see sources, and ditribution there (among others, it is avialable from Amazon).Wefa (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered my question. It looks like you bias is effecting your editing. Like I mentioned, just keep this out unless there is consensus to include. I will bring this to the

WP:BLP board and get others involved. --Tom (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, I did. Outfoxed is a reliable (primary) source for the existence of this criticism. A film that has an IMDB entry and was reviewed by several national newspapers is mainstream enough.Wefa (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outfoxed seems pretty fringie/partisan. I was referring to whether an other sources have covered what you want to add? Anyways, hopefully others will chime in. Good night. --Tom (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If moveon.org is fringy for you, i am somewhat at loss. Short of pulling a Godwin I feel out of excplanations here. Furthermore, does criticsim by an organization of that size and visibility not merit reporting regardless how "fringy" you consider it being? Wefa (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, another link Wefa (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not only asked for help, you also reverted, for the third time, my edits. Please reinstate that section until we have reached consensus. Thanks. Wefa (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for including this, maybe add it to the outfoxed article. --Tom (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting troublesome. I have fulfilled all your demands. The sourcing ins independent and verifiable. There are two sources, one of them print media. I have trimmed the textual weight. You do not even bother to present another reason why you again deleted this. I will reinstate. Stop vandalizing this article! Wefa (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute not vandalism. Maybe we should get others involved again since we both disagree. Hopefully others can either say no, not notable or agree on NPOV wording if it is included at all. We could use RFC or the BLP board. Until there is a clear consensus for including this, please leave it out. Thank you. --Tom (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided any direct rationale for your deletion. Forthermore, your impression of the consesus on the BLP board seems to radically deiffer from mine. Can I derive from your above sentence that youi now opbject to the paragrapph on NPOV grounds? Or do you wish to argue notability?

Notability, in my opinion, is a complete non-issue here, as this is a concept that is only applied to the question of article creation/deletion. Since you have not serioulsy advanced a proposal to delete the Carl Camereon article, notability arguments are irrelevant.

'NPOV' deals with the question how an article is written. The point of this paragraph is perfectly neutral, since it objectively and verifiably reports criticism publicly leveled against the subject.

'Fairness' is an argument you have not raised here, but in passing in your BLP post. But Fairness is an irrelevant concept for Articles. Wikipedia is not a game, and, again, truth and verifiability provide the basis for what to put into an article.

lastly, your continuing refusal to actually put up and defend an argument makes it very hard to debate with you. Please finally provide enough substantial arguments so that I can either believe or refute them. If you don't, we have no chance of ever reaching consensus. Thank you. Wefa (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how widely has this "material"been covered? Please read: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. --Tom (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. What do you think of the NY Observer reference? Wefa (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much. Do you have three others that cover this? --Tom (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Now that is great. Is "four independent press articles, a bestselling documentary film and a book" now the new minimum standard for mentioning any non-republican criticisms? And you still do not give reasons.

This turns more and more bizarre. The guy is on tape describing his conflict of interest, there is a film, a book and a newspaper article describing that, it is all over the nonrepublican blogosphere, it is basically common knowöledge outside of the RNC that Cameron serves his corporate masters and not the truth, but here on Wikipedia, I am not supposed to trust my lying eyes (for reasons of WP:SYN), I am not allowed to even notice the existence of blogs (for reasons of verifiability), and now I am supposed to yield to this warped version of reality in which the reality based community is "fringy" while Republican propaganda is "Mainstream" and, apparently, the gold standard for truth.

I've worked on this article for 2 years, preventing it from both becoming a Carl Cameron rap sheet and a hagiography, rearranging, trimming and condensing the stuff others have basically thrown over the wall without even leaving comments, I researched claims, and looked (mostly unsuccessfull) for more reliable information about the guy himself. The goddamned talk page is for months basically me talking to me. But apparently all it needs are two unteachable republicans to warp reality around and revise it according to their view.

Well. You can have it. I give up. I can't work based on standards that shift hourly according to your wishes. Nobody of relevance ever criticized Carl Cameron. Write it. Wefa (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. and offtopic: You might want to look over your claim to having founded Wikipedia in 2001. Even in your version of reality that seems a little ... stretched --Wefa (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wefa, I am sorry you have to resort to personal attacks. It seems that it is always best to get other folk's input when disagreements like this arise, and would be happy to have others comment either way. I am far from perfect and have been on the wrong side of consensus before. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your other comments. This article shouldn't be tightened, it should be expanded. Unfortunately, Cameron's life and heritage seems to be an enigma. You find barely anthing about him; it is not even clear if Cameron is his birth name (some anonymous editor claimed him to be the son of noted Harvard Archeologist C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, a theory which is as good as any and which fits with his Iran year). But there is nothing even remotely quotable about him. So... to really improve this article you should find more stuff about the subject, not shrink it down until it is stub again. Wefa (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on the BLP board. As long as the "more stuff" is from reliable sources and not undue weight, then ok. when I talk about "tightening" I am referring to have better citations. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carl Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141012110911/http://65.36.150.71/alumni/cameron.html to http://65.36.150.71/alumni/cameron.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205060533/http://dir.salon.com:80/story/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index3.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619215552/http://dir.salon.com:80/story/news/feature/2004/07/23/fox_dui/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/07/23/fox_dui/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]