Talk:Clarion Project

Clarion Fund fails to identify its board of directors or financial backers on its web page. (http://clarioinfund.org) It lists itself only as a 501(c)3 organization dedicated to educating the public about international affairs.

It was founded, however, by Raphael Shore, who has published his view that the press is anti-Israeli. The release of the film, "Obsession: Radial Islam's War Against the West" in September, 2008 is a clear indication of the group's (or at least Shore's) interest in fomenting fear and anger related to strife in the Middle-East and in seeing John McCain elected to the presidency in November (http://popprog.blogspot.com/2008/09/clarion-fund-puts-lipstick-on-terrorism.html).

Any information about the founders and backers of the group, Clarion Fund, should be of interest to anyone interested in shedding light on the machinations of American and world politics. It would be no surprise if connections to AIPAC and/or PNAC were found. At this point no one I have located has made such connections, but I wonder who funded production and distribution. -- SpudWalleye (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is not anyone reporting that the source of the funding for the documentaries handed out at the DNC and in the newspapers came from Stass Communications? Owned by Arianna Huffington. 64.140.0.3 (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Go add that to the appropriate article. No one is stopping you. --John Bahrain (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Endowment for Middle East Truth

From ISP:

The group, the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), is working with another organisation called the Clarion Fund, which produced the 60-minute video and is itself tied closely to an Israeli organisation called Aish Hatorah.

While the initial press reports about the mass distribution focused on the Clarion Fund's financing role, it was EMET that organised and oversaw the distribution, EMET's spokesman, Ari Morgenstern, told IPS. Morgenstern, a former press officer for the Israeli embassy here, said he contacted IPS at the Clarion Fund's request.

EMET, according to a recent press release, is "a non-partisan, non-profit organisation dedicated to policy research and analysis on democracy and the Middle East."

--John Bahrain (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why has all discussion of the content of Clarion Fund's films been removed?

POV or censorship? --John Bahrain (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

POV. "Some believe", X "points out", extended quotes from critics and so on. That version clearly invited readers to see Clarion as something nefarious, which isn't something Wikipedia should do. There will be time after a fuller picture is known to add full context. Wikipedia should be more cautious about airing unresolved allegations. --Stargat (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This article uses descriptors such as "racist" and "facist" that are clearly opinions & not facts. Unlike the relatively neutral article about the film "Obsession," this article is written with clear bias. Political commentary that follows demonstrates that both US DNC and RNC supporters may be at work in using this type of format for political gain. The film itself begins with the caveat that it does not describe the whole of Islam - only a particular "strand of Islam" - this is repeated throughout the film. The film is largely comprised of Islamic film clips and views of Islamic peoples, both radical and mainstream. This article is clearly biased and should be removed or edited in the name of decent journalism.

CAIR asks for FEC investigation of the Clarion Fund

This was removed in this edit [1]. I have readded it because it is directly related and reported by a reputable news organization:

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

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

POV Tag?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More details on Clarion Fund-Aish HaTorah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Bahrain

 + Is is possible that he works for CAIR?  
 + Can it be that his wiki posts go back to CAIR headqurters?  

Source: http://www.geocities.com/rocketboy3434@rocketmail.com/index.html?1223935142671