User talk:Lisa Graves

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

This is my talk page. If you'd like to reach me or have a question, you can leave a message here and SourceWatch will let me know there is a message waiting. Thank you! Lisa Graves


Hi Lisa. Can Source Watch host a pdf for me? It relates to Godfrey Bloom . It was obtained perfectly legitimately from the Companies House website, it is the accounts of Bloom's company proving that he is a director , contrary to his declaration of interests to the European Parliament.

Yes. Please contact me at lisa AT

"Report an error"?

Lisa, would there be a way to add SourceWatch to the Report an Error Alliance?[1] and implement (functional) "report an error" buttons [File:] on its pages? (someone asked me recently, how to report an error, & the process isn't obvious) Anna Haynes 21:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Anna! Thank you for the tip. I will look into it. In the meantime, there is a How to box on the left side of every page with the link to "How to Correct Errors," which is also available here--

Lisa, how about a box (& ideally, a macro that generates it) akin to the one I've put on right side of Matt Ridley's page? (is this ok with you?)

Dear Anna: I appreciate the effort you put into that. But I think putting that at the top of every article in SW would distract from the article. Plus, the page referenced basically asks readers to correct an error rather than report an error, unless they cannot fix it themselves (which creates a gap between the report an error concept and the reality). That's because we are very small and the wiki is very large and so we count on users to build the site with us by correcting errors as they find them, in wiki fashion. I can change the hot topics box to add the link to correct an error there and remove it from the how to box, though.

I think a box for errors on every page is overkill and ugly. There is a "contact us" link clearly visible on the left hand side of the page, if indeed they are somehow unable to edit the page themselves. ≡ SCRIBE ≡ 22:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Scribe, for your input! Lisa

Move page please?

Lisa, could you please move the page Easter Island (narrative) to Easter Island (allegory)? (it's more apt) Anna Haynes 19:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Lisa, could you please move the page Insitute for Clinical and Economic Review to Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)? It corrects a misspelling.


Hi Lisa, Just wanted to pass on some information regarding searches for the Baha'i Faith pages (see main one here- - now over 6500 views) in relation to this site. Currently, if you Google 'Baha'i' + 'Sourcewatch', the first search result is the Baha'i Faith entry on Wikipedia (a site well-known for its long-standing editor-stacking policies, and suppression of information regarding this organization), and the ninth search result on the first page is the in-house Baha'i Wiki, Bahaikipedia. Neither of these sites contain material from Sourcewatch or refer to these articles. This smacks of serious search-optimization to me. Do you know what would be required to achieve something like this? Thanks for continuing your great work on this site. Kind regards --Atomised 08:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


Dear Atomised--We will definitely look into this! Not sure how the wikipedians managed to do that, but we're on it. Lisa

Thanks very much, Lisa. It seems like a very complex form of search optimization. As a side note, the Haifan Baha'i organization has an official 'Internet Agency'(, which operates out of the main Baha'i 'World Teaching Center' in Haifa, Israel, and interestingly, the official annual Wikipedia conference this year was held in Haifa in June ( Thanks again --Atomised 08:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


Lisa - How do we control who edits our sites? Meaning, how to we prevent malicious edits from unauthorized writers ? Thanks Chiptex

Dear Chiptex: Is there a SW article you are referring to that has undocumented claims or that hase been vandalized? Please post a link here or email me at lisa AT

Islamic Bigotry and ADL Pages

Why not restore research and well sourced data?Postali 01:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Postali-- You cited Antidotto for vandalism for removing your contributions after you removed or minimized his contributions or prior content. Given the edit war, the page is under review until all of the recent changes can be examined more closely. Lisa Graves

Exactly my question, why prefer to support his edit which is an utter distortion and senseless, please see talk and not the previous version, and then block the page? Regards.Postali

I would have said that that page was worthless. Everything about "Islamic Bigotry" can be found with a trawl through blogs. A Google search will find a lot of blogs and SourceWatch - is that clever? Wouldn't an AFD on this page save wasting a lot of time on it?
Actually, I came here looking for news on the "review" of the ADL page. I seem to recall it was sued for defamation - is that a secret we mustn't talk about? MoshKat 19:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Moshkat indef. blocked. Scribe 13:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

All accusations were documented, and it is a fact that ADL was taken to court on its espionage / promoting breaking and entering into JeffB's house... they lost the case and had to pay damages to Jeff B and Steve Z. So, why cut this page out. Ibid about Yoav Shamir's documentary. He tags along with Abe Foxman... and all references are clearly in the documentary. --Antidotto 14:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Both of these pages are under review but there are other articles in the queue ahead of them. Lisa Graves

Jerusalem Prayer Team

Hi Lisa, The Jerusalem Prayer Team page has been placed under review in October 2011. I would like to follow up the status of the review. FYI, the source page has placed a copyleft notice on the page Thank you. Gladys Nejudne 22:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fracking - Portal:Water


Fracking is not's been around for decades. So has the use of sand along with other materials for 'propping' open a fractured reservoir. What is new is the extent of the fracturing taking place and the hazardous materials being used.

I don't see any mention of the limits to a gas well within a certain area and depth or formation. Usually, depending on the state, a limit is placed on the number of wells and the extent of the borehole that can be drilled within a certain area, such as being limited to a section (1 mile x 1 mile) in my state. Additionally, wells are limited to specific depths to protect adjacent formations above and below the formation being produced which the leaseholder may not even own. In my area, the producing shales are from 17,000 to 20,000 feet. Given that a permit for drilling sets limits on the area produced, when a well is fracked at a depth of 17,000 feet to such an extent that it's affecting water wells drilled from 100 feet to say 1500 feet and 1 mile equal to 5,280 feet, the drilling company is well beyond it's permitted depth and area. The above water bearing formations thus penetrated may well dump water they hold eventually into the producing formation. And this isn't even speaking of the hazardous material concerns. Fracking in this fashion is a threat to other tax paying businesses in the state that are dependent on water wells as well as municipal water systems. A significant percentage of what the state gains in taxes through the drilling of these wells in this fashion may well be lost in damage to these other businesses and also to lease holders of the adjacent formations above and below. Should these businesses and municipalities become aware of the danger to their sources of water, they could become allies of the activists who are fighting it and a familiar voice with the political PTB.

The limitations to the drilled well is usually set by a state's Dept. of Natural Resources or a similarly authorized state body. One thing I can't understand is why a drilling company would be allowed by the lease holder to frack to such an extent that they endanger the loss of the formation pressure to the surface which is what they're doing when they penetrate to shallow water wells on the surface. Also, they are conjoining the producing formation with other formations and damaging them in a way which may limit their utilization in future energy exploration and production.

James Horn 03:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear James: Thank you for your note and detailed information. I am sorry for the delay in response while I was away. I am going to flag your note for Sara Jerving on our team to follow-up on your views and suggestions. Thank you for reaching out to us! Lisa

SPN type 501's


Here's a couple more 501's similar to the organizations of SPN and ALEC with eerily similar neo-con agendas: Much support from industry - See Alumni page

"Today, Leadership Louisiana boasts a broad network of nearly 1,000 alumni from every region of the state. They are leaders from many sectors – civic, business, government, university, professional, cultural and nonprofit. Together, they represent a group of committed citizens who have made a difference in Louisiana."

"The opportunity to connect with the most talented people in our state is invaluable to our success as civic leaders." -- 2002 Alumnus Much backing by industry and the Chamber of Commerce, local and national See also and

There are multiple people who have worked on ALEC and SPN so have left this to your disposal,

-The emerging importance of education as a corporate cash cow was underscored in 2010 when Rupert Murdoch, who has his own education division called Amplify, said, “When it comes to K through 12 education, we see a $500 billion sector in the U.S.”-

Note: Some comments deleted, articles are more comprehensive than initially realized.


Gun Lobby

Hi Lisa, has CMD done much work researching the Gun Lobby? With the Senate vote yesterday, that's going to be a hot topic for a while. Chadlupkes (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2013 (EDT)

Pulling of Baha'i related articles

Hi Lisa- It appears that the very well established articles linked to the Baha'i Faith are being pulled pretty much wholesale for editorial review. Rather than any kind of individual edits, these are being systematically taken down and referred to some kind of editorial review. This looks very suspicious and I cannot see how every single article, based on this linkage, can be seemingly simultaneously pulled into an editorial review without some kind of explanation. All these articles have been established (and received page views in the thousands) and backed up with rigorous referencing, which may need updating, but this is no reason to pull entire articles all at once. Please look into this and get back to me asap, as this does not look good. I will be keeping a very close eye on editorial review here, and expect full and absolute transparency in terms of any review process undertaken. Thanks --Atomised (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

These articles are under review as we assess what topic areas can be maintained to ensure that they are accurate and up to date. Materials regarding religious beliefs and movements may be better suited to a general wiki than to a specialized one like SourceWatch. We are the process of reviewing these materials. Lisa

Hi Lisa- I assure you these and topic areas can be maintained. The fact that these pages have attracted a very large amount of views testifies to their relevance. Also, the connections of this organization in many, many well documented and referenced areas related to business, academia, information technology, the military industrial complex, intelligence and political involvement absolutely justifies their inclusion in Sourcewatch. This has never appeared to be an issue before, and and I absolutely cannot understand your suggestion that they may be better suited to a general wiki, when there are clear issues of interests, funding, and media and other areas involved. These issues regarding the religious beliefs of the organization are in some ways secondary to very well documented structure, influence and lobbying connections of the organization, and its importance as an area of discussion in relation to Middle East politics. --Atomised (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2014 (EDT)

As another note in this issue, Lisa, I would imagine from your suggestion regarding religious groups on SW, that should this be a valid reason for review (and given the associations of many religious groups, I doubt this would not be a justifiable reason to exclude articles regarding them from SW) you may also be reconsidering the entire Sourcewatch category covering religious groups in general, as well as reviewing the material in the other articles linked there (including Scientology)? Just to reiterate what appears to be current SW policy in this area, I would note the current header in the Religion category:

"Various religious organizations also take active roles in the public sphere on social and political issues. Some of the more significant ones are linked below.

Many, but not all, of these organizations can be described as "religious right", a catchall term for groups that are involved in socially conservative activism. This may include advocacy for prayer or against evolution in public schools, and against pornography, abortion, violence in media, homosexuality, embryonic stem cell research, drugs, and related issues."

--Atomised (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2014 (EDT)

And I also note, that contrary to what is stated on the 'editorial review', the contents of the page have not actually been transferred to the 'Discussion Page' for review. They have simply been removed. Where can I find this discussion? You need to maintain transparency about the review and discussion process, so please point me to where this issue is being discussed. Thanks--Atomised (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2014 (EDT)

Lisa, I would very much appreciate some further explanation here. I have raised some significant points, and have not received an answer as to where, or on what grounds, this "editorial review" is being conducted. The main Baha'i article has nearly 16,000 page views, meaning that it is obviously a highly visited, and therefore relevant, page. I have not yet received an answer as to where this page has been moved to, "for discussion". As one of the main contributors to this article, I can obviously be contacted by you regarding any editorial concerns. I have in no way violated ANY editorial policy, and have in fact maintained scrupulous referencing across all the articles to which I have contributed. I would also refer you back to your own editorial policy:

"Role of CMD staff

SourceWatch is a project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), and CMD sets the policies under which SourceWatch operates. CMD staff members edit and contribute content to SourceWatch and are responsible for maintaining and configuring the MediaWiki software on which it runs. Fixing errors and resolving disputes

Material posted on SourceWatch must conform to the ground rules. If you see content that does not, we encourage you to fix it yourself as SourceWatch relies on the contributions and vigilance of its SourceWatch:citizen editors to function. If you would really rather have the managing editors fix the error, you can contact them.

In fixing an error, you will need to "play nice" with the editor who originally made the contribution. Editorial disagreements between SourceWatch users should focus on facts and evidence pertaining to the article(s) being edited. SourceWatch talk pages should not be used to vent or to insult other users. Contributors who violate SourceWatch policies may be blocked."

If there is an issue with updating links or material, this should be resolved via discussion with one the main contributors, ie me. Otherwise, this continues to look decidedly suspicious, as there have been very few reasons given for reviewing this article, other than one of 'relevance' to SW, which I believe, according to your own continuing policies and descriptions, and consistency with other material not under review in this way, can be maintained. I am well aware of how the Baha'i organization operates, and the documented influence it attempts to wield. I very much hope this is not the case here. Looking forward to hearing from you on these matters. --Atomised (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

Yes. We are reviewing a set of entries that appear to be outside of our core scope. There may be other more general or more specially focused wikis where such material can be maintained and verified. Thank you for your note. Lisa

Why was the entry on removed "pending review"? This entry has been on SW since 2009. It's removal is extremely, extremely fishy. If there is an issue of content, then the content can be amended. But pulling the entry as a whole pretty unequivocally spells out that SW's new management is shifting SW's once independent focus to something entirely different. I have put the entry back up again --Wahid (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2014 (EDT)

These articles are under review as we assess what topic areas can be maintained to ensure that they are accurate and up to date. We are the process of reviewing these materials. Lisa

New template dealing with age

Hi Lisa, I've added a new template (adapted from the one wikipedia uses) to show a person's current age. I need this for the articles on climate change deniers, who are often old men (and their age is typically concealed by corporate write-ups, to give them more credibility). You can see it in use here, for instance, in our article on Fred Singer. ≡ SCRIBE ≡ 20:54, 9 July 2014 (EDT)

Hi Lisa,

I think you will find this article concerning The Rule of Law campaign of interest - Energy Firms in Secretive Alliance With Attorneys General -


JH -