While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
In a bold edit, I have removed the section on Criticism. None of its content was based on reporting from sources independent of the journalists or writers who published those opinions or observations. I am quite sure that there are quite a number of notable objections and criticisms with regard to the Muslim Brotherhood that have actually been reported on by independent sources. We may begin with critical statements by governments, for example, that have been included in news reports. But we cannot expand this section based on opinion pieces of uncertain notability; we need to focus on those criticism that independent, secondary sources have found important enough to report on them. Cs32enTalk to me 00:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it written in wikipedia that criticism must be "independent" of the people making the criticism? Where is it written that we must "begin with critical statements by governments"? What evidence do you have that the journalists and scholar quoted are not reliable? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based primarily on secondary sources. An opinion piece that contains the views of a journalist or a writer is a primary source for those opinions. As we should use primary sources with care, it is not appropriate to have a section that is entirely based on such primary sources. Cs32enTalk to me 23:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put it to you that the Muslim Brotherhood, their spokesmen and documents, (e.g. website) are the primary sources, and the journalists and scholars who talk to them and read their documents are the secondary sources. I will do a RfC Tuesday on your deletions. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section is not about the documents, but about the criticism. The journalists and scholars are the primary sources for the criticism, because the criticism articulated by the journalists and scholars would not exist if they would not have written their texts. Other criticism, or even criticism of the same content may of course exist, but the journalists' (and the scholars') texts cannot be used as sources for criticism that is unrelated to them. Cs32enTalk to me 20:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We will see if anyone else buys your gobbledygook rationalization for deleting information on the MB provided by knowledgable journalists and scholars. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is about reporting noteworthy, verifiable facts. Opinions become noteworthy when reliable, independent sources are reporting about them. I'm pretty sure that third-party sources have reported about some of that criticism. This is not about deleting information, it is about reporting such information that has been considered noteworthy by independent sources. Cs32enTalk to me 23:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at what you deleted (deleted criticism section). It was not just the opinion of the journalists and scholar, it was the MB record. What it's spokesmen and representative members said.
Let me put another question to you. If the section you deleted did not carry criticism heading, and was part of the beleif section, would you have deleted it? or deleted all of it? --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any statement by the Muslim Brotherhood in a section about criticism of the organization should be related to that criticism. So if the criticism is being deleted, there is no reason to retain statements related to that criticism. Of course, if such statements are of general interest and have been incorrectly added to the criticism section, they may be added to the relevant part of the article. As with all other articles, negative information should always be based on sources of high standard, so it's reasonable to have a closer look at criticism sections. That does not mean that there is no other content in the article that may need to be deleted. Cs32enTalk to me 04:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt there are many things in wikipedia that could be deleted if we worked hard enough at thinking up ingenious reasons for their deletion and thus protect the public from what it has no need to know. As for the "negative information" that "should always be based on sources of high standard", yes it was negative to the critics, that doesn't mean it's negative to everyone. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Should the "Criticism or controversy" section of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt article be deleted?[edit]
Should the criticism section of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt be deleted, as it was here? The editor who added the section (me) believes the sources (two journalist and a scholar) are reliable sources.
The deleter claims that "All these criticism are not being reported on by sources independent of the journalists or writers that have voiced them, thus their notability is unproven." --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no it should not be deleted. The sources cited in the section are reliable. John R. Bradley, an Arabic speaking journalist and author of several books on the Middle East and is the information is from his book on Mubarak's Egypt, Inside Egypt: The Land of the Pharaohs on the Brink of a Revolution. Jeffrey Goldberg is the national correspondent for the venerable American journal of letters The Atlantic. Eric Trager (http://www.erictrager.org/Trager/Welcome.html) was in Egypt during the 2011 revolts and was a 2006-2007 Fulbright fellow in Egypt and is now Ira Weiner Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and an associate scholar at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sources you cite are reliable, and that the material can be included. But there is an issue with how it is included, specifically the use of a dedicated "Criticsm" or "Controversy" section. Can you try to (1) re-word the material so that it covers all viewpoints of the topic, and (2) break it into 3 or 4 topical subsections, and (3) give neutral topical names to each section? I"m sure it could be included then. See more thoughts in my comment below. --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no though I think the section could be trimmed down a bit. -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think it should be removed. All views should be available for people to decide their opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learjet7 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unless impossible to address in topical sections - The general policy of WP is to avoid polarizing material into distinct pro & con sections. Instead, it is considered better to organize the material by topic and weave the pros/cons about the topic within it. This is a consequence of the WP:NPOV policy. See the Wikipedia:Criticism essay for details. For example, the PETA animal rights organization has been involved in lots of controversy, but you'll notice the article does not have a "Controversy" section. Instead, the material on controversies/criticisms is woven through the article in the various topical sections. That is the WP ideal. Turning to this article: The Muslim Botherhood indeed has been subject to criticism and controversy, but I see no reason that the WP ideal cannot be followed. For example, lets say sources document one criticism as: "The MB claims it is moderate, but others say it is not". That material could be simply included in this article in a section named "Political viewpoints" or something like that. Another example: Say sources document the criticism "What the MB stands for remains confusing, not only to the West but also to many Egyptians" ... that criticism can be covered in a section entitled "Confusion about policies and goals" (or something like that). Note: I'm not suggesting that the controversy/criticism material be omitted from the article: I'm just suggesting that it should be in a topical section that covers both sides of the topic: the critic's view and the MB's response. --Noleander (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... You make a good case. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that doesn't mean that all the material is useless in the rest of the article. It's just a matter of using a neutral tone of a professional criticism on a certain subject. If we have a list on what critics say about them, it will never end. Therefore, as long as there ain't a large amount of content of serious criticism (and not violating WP:DUE) that can't be addressed within a certain subject, then a section might be created, IMHO. Yes, WP:Criticism is good to read, as mentioned by Noleander. ~ AdvertAdam talk 09:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the current version of that section cannot remain in the article, as it is not based on independent, secondary sources, but on primary sources. The section presents opinions, and the opinion pieces are thus primary sources in this context. It's another question whether presenting criticism in a separate section is the best approach in this case. We probably can make that decision only after we know - from a survey of secondary sources - what the content actually is that could be included in the article. Therefore, this question is a separate issue that should be discussed separately. Cs32enTalk to me 01:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section you deleted contains opinions, or at least analysis, (e.g. "what exactly the MB `stands for remains confusing, not only to the West but also to many Egyptians`"),
but also statements of fact (Hassan accused the Minister of Culture (Farouk Hosny) of leading what Hassan called the `current US-led war against Islamic culture and identity`. Another Brotherhood MP (Gamal Heshmat) took credit for forcing culture minister Hosni to ban the publication of three novels on the ground they promoted blasphemy and unacceptable sexual practices.[1])
I will attempt to integrate the facts into the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Bradley, John R., Inside Egypt: The Land of the Pharaohs on the Brink of a Revolution by John R. Bradley, Palgrave MacMillan, 2008, p.62
Wiki should be careful when adding quotes and text from Memri.
"The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon." It is no secret that Israel does not like the MB.
I've added "Israeli-affiliated" to the introductory sentence to give readers a headsup without censoring. The article by MEMRI gives quite specific information. If we have information that this info is wrong, that's another matter, but I for one am unwilling to relegate them to "unreliable source" status. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
