Talk:Stop Islamization of America/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Request to remove "Islamophobia" from the lede

None of the newspapers, or web citations call SIOA an Islamophobic organization. This can't be a mistake. It appears that a decision was made not to use this term. Anyway, it is not supported by the citations, and should be removed.Livingengine1 (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Islamophobia" is an English word, which has a defined meaning. I've quoted it twice above. Are you making the argument that SIOA doesn't satisfy this definition? If so, can you make it explicitly so that others can understand what you mean? If it's your position that before we can use a specific modifier to describe a noun we have to have a reliable source that explicitly uses that modifier to describe that noun, maybe you can point at some Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports that view. It's very hard to respond to you when you keep repeating the (rejected) assertion that calling SIOA Islamophobic is not supported by the sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm hatting this discussion. I think Livingengine is aware by now that the description is extremely well supported, and his own personal disagreement is an issue he needs to deal with on his own time, not by wasting the time of productive users. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


Islamophobia may have a defined meaning according to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation after they promulgated the term, but it's still a problematic one because there is no published definition that meets EU human rights, or US civil rights scrutiny. It is clearly not our place as Wiki editors to perpetuate the use of undefined or ill-defined words and terminology, or alter old definitions so problematic words like Islamophobia will fit into our vocabulary. The fact that it is frequently misused by the media, and other liberal resources doesn't make it acceptable. The International Civl Liberties Alliance (ICLA) has provided a true and accurate definition for Islamophobia along with information on its origin. You can read it here. The time has come for editors to stop using ill-defined terms including but not limited to Islamophobia, intolerance, discrimination, racism, hate, and zenophobia without reference to any underlying claims or facts. It is clearly a POV violation. Ms. Atsme (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's actually in the Oxford English Dictionary, so it's a little implausible to argue that it's "undefined" or "ill-defined." Being in the OED is pretty much the zenith of reality for words in English. Are you claiming that the OED is a "liberal resource"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, that was an interesting read. However, the ICLA cannot unilaterally assume the right to define Islamophobia in contradiction with various respected entities such as the Runnymede Trust, UNESCO and the United Nations. Rather, the ICLA's definition joins those other ones to help set the boundaries for the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually I don't think that the views of any of these organizations are salient to the meaning of the word. None of them employ linguists and their attempts at definition are all shot through with multiple instances of the etymological fallacy and other day-dreaming. Words obtain meaning from their general usage by native speakers of a language, which is then picked-out and articulated by professional linguists and collected into dictionaries. If we have to figure out what words mean by reading essays by advocacy groups on any side of an issue we're going to be in serious trouble. I would prefer that we just stick to dictionaries, since they don't have axes to grind but are purely descriptive regarding the actual meaning-as-determined-by-use of words.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Despite its misleading name, the Int'l Civil Liberties Alliance is actually an anti-Muslim group, so their view on what Islamophobia is is not especially useful to us. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with User:Binksternet in that one organization "cannot unilaterally assume the right to define Islamophobia" which further validates my belief that it becomes the responsibility of Wiki editors, especially considering there are many other respected entities world-wide in addition to the ones he mentioned who have an opposite view and support the ICLA's position. So the obvious question is who makes the choice of what position to portray? The obvious answer is the Wiki editor, but wait - it's not supposed to be a matter of choice. The latter is what creates POV, and results in imbalance as is the case with SIOA. The imbalance and POV is apparent in the comment made by User:Roscelese wherein she automatically excluded ICLA for being what she considers "anti-Muslim". What if editors decided that every organization who supported Islam or Muslims were anti-Semitic? It's ludicrous. I also agree with User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah in that I see no problem using Oxford as a reliable source. The problem is not Oxford, rather it is the misapplication of the definition by Wiki editors who are violating NPOV, be it intentionally, or inadvertently, it matters not. I'm sure we've all been a little guilty of losing our way from time to time especially when it involves a controversial subject where two very strong POVs are in conflict. Editors are only human, and we all have opinions. Our ability to disengage, and assume a neutral position is what sets Wiki editors apart. That's why corroboration is such a valuable tool. Oxford defines Islamophobia as a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially when feared as a political force. The definition is ambiguous at best because of its application of two very different emotions - hate, and fear. The ambiguity further validates my belief that the term is ill-defined. An editor's POV creates the misapplication. For example, the SIOA article focuses on "hate", and omits reliable resources that clearly demonstrate justifiable fear, or grave concern. The lack of balance in SIOA is quite obvious. It portrays the "hate group opinion" of the SPLC…"SIOA was named a hate group in June 2011 by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)." User:Binksternet made an excellent point when he said one group cannot unilaterally assume the right to define. In that same context, a Wiki editor cannot unilaterally assume the right to choose one opinion/ideology/religion over another. It is our responsibility to present a balance that can only come from NPOV, and doing so often requires editors to dig a little deeper than the obvious. Don't forget, the criteria for Wiki content must be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented. It is not a multiple choice criteria. Wiki readers will not be able to distinguish the difference between hate and fear when hate clearly dominates the SIOA article. With the latter in mind, how can anyone claim the article is balanced, or neutral? There are plenty of reliable sources to substantiate SIOA as being pro-Israel, anti-terrorism, anti-Islamlist extremism, and that they are driven by the "fear" of losing human rights, and religious liberty to Sharia, the sociopolitical dictate of Islam. Their position does not target all of Islam, or all Muslims, rather they are focused only on radicalism. SIOA is defined in the article as "an American Islamophobic organization" which is clearly POV, not to mention presumptuous. It is the goal of political pundits, partisan organizations, and liberal media to influence public opinion, so I'm not the least bit surprised that some editors believe the general consensus supports their view when in fact their view was formed by biased opinions. Again, corroboration is key which leads to my next line of questioning. Why wasn't the Dec 3, 2013 article on Front Page Magazine included in SIOA to balance the paragraph about the UK banning? Why wasn't the Jan 2012 Reuters' article, International Freedom Organizations Unite to Create Stop Islamization of Nations (SION), included? Reuters contains no reference to "hate", or "fear mongering", and succinctly and accurately portrays SIOA and SIOE as "the foremost organizations in America and Europe dedicated to defending human rights, religious liberty, freedom of conscience and the freedom of speech against Islamic supremacist intimidation and attempts to bring elements of Sharia to the West." That view has been totally omitted. It is not the job of Wiki editors to inject POV by choosing only those resources that agree with their own philosophies or ideologies. There is without a doubt a serious condition of POV in the SIOA article. Further, I oppose the creation of a series on Islamophobia for all the reasons I've mentioned above with regards to POV issues, and the term itself being ill-defined. It is our responsibility and moral obligation as editors to make sure our articles are NPOV. I thank you kindly for your time and consideration. Ms. Atsme (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
"I don't believe in Islamophobia" or "I think Islamophobia is justified" are never going to be policy-compliant reasons for removing cited material. ICLA isn't Islamophobic because it supports Jews or Israel, it's Islamophobic because its sole purpose appears to be opposing Muslims. Your Reuters "article" is a press release from an affiliate of SIOA. Front Page is another fringe anti-Muslim source. The fact that these are the only sources you can come up with that don't support the depiction of SIOA as anti-Muslim only reinforces that depiction. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Where's the "unlike" button?
Atsme, have you completely forgotten that SIOA foments hatred against Muslims? The group is identified as doing so by many of the reliable sources. Your concern with the word "Islamophobia" might be best applied to an edge case, where someone made rational arguments. In the case of SIOA, they make irrational calls to fear and hate. SIOA is the poster child of Islamophobia. Take your concerns to an article where the word is less apt. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Template:Dislike?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. You link to the Oxford Dictionary of American English. The Oxford English Dictionary is more specific, although perhaps not in a way that's useful for your argument: Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims. This is just a word, and it's used in this article to mean what the dictionary says it means. That's neutral. We let the dictionary decide what words mean. As far as the two sources you suggest, they're not reliable for much. The first, FrontPage Magazine, is arguably usable for some purposes, but the article you link to is not journalism, it's a reprint of a letter received by the author, seemingly written by Pamela Geller. The second, although hosted by Reuters, is also not journalism. It's a straightup reprint of a PR Newswire press release. It's hard to see how either of these sources might be useful for anything in this or any article. If you have specific and concrete ideas about improving the article content, perhaps you can put them in the article and/or discuss them here? It's hard to see the trees for the forest in your comment.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Binksternet and User:Roscelese your arguments are based on POV, subjective resources, and omissions, all of which violates Wiki criteria. alf laylah wa laylah, your definition of Islamophobia further reinforces ill-defined, and exacerbates misapplication by adding hostility and prejudice to the equation. It also doesn't resolve the issue of EU human rights, or US civil rights scrutiny. Just because a term is in the Oxford that doesn't make it applicable for all situations. For example, anti-Christian is also in the Oxford, but I've not seen it used to describe Muslims. There's not a person on earth who can deny the numerous attacks on Christians, Hindus and Sikhs by Islamic terrorists around the world. Read the Wiki article on Christianity and Islam, and tell me again how it reflects an accurate balanced portrayal of real world events. It is the most superficial treatment of reality that I've ever seen. My Iranian Muslim grandson also agrees. I digress…back on point - the article on SIOA is neither neutral, nor balanced, and actually conflicts in some instances with Pamela Geller as evidenced by the following: Pamela Geller is an outspoken opponent of political Islam and radical Islam. Explaining her position she says, "I have no problem with Islam. I have a problem with political Islam." In particular, she says jihad is a threat to civilization. After expressing her anti-jihad views in controversial subway ads she has been called an anti-Muslim bigot. Responding to these charges, she says the ads are not directed at all Muslims but only those "engaged" in what she calls "jihad.". Excuse me, editors, but I've not seen one factual piece of information to substantiate the claims that SIOA is a blanket hater of Islam or Muslims, or that either Pamela Geller or SIOA should be linked to a series on Islamophobia. All I've seen are POV and speculation, most of which are political or biased toward Islam. I am amazed that Admins and other editors have allowed what is clearly POV and possibly even libellous discrimination in a BLP and in the SIOA article when there has not been one trial or legal conviction against either for hate crimes, hate speech, or what could be termed as Islamophobia other than what has been represented by the biased views of organizations like the ADL who needs controversy and bigotry to survive. It is all based on opinionated controversy. You should be ashamed of yourselves. For example, an article published by the ADL on the Boston bombing led off with criticism of "anti-Muslim bigots", a term they apparently use as loosely as some of the editors here on Wiki. They continued their rant under a paragraph entitled Blaming Muslims wherein they criticized Pamela Geller, describing her as an anti-Muslim activist and founder of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), stating that she published a post on her blog provocatively titled, “Jihadi Arrested in Horrific Boston Marathon Bombing.” And you consider the ADL an unbiased resource knowing full well Pamela Geller was correct, and was actually vindicated of the ADL's libellous comments when prosecutors disclosed that when Tsarnaev was questioned by the FBI in a Boston hospital after his arrest, he "reaffirmed his commitment to jihad and expressed hope that his actions would inspire others to engage in violent jihad." It was reported on NBC News, and you can read the article here. The truth certainly didn't lend credence to ADL's credibility. Not one mention of it was included in SIOA, or Pamela Geller, yet you expect others to believe POV is not an issue? It's actually laughable that you would consider Reuters to be unreliable, or that you don't like the English version of Oxford. All I can say is that even if POV was not the issue, your research leaves much to be desired. Here's another example of omission - a BBC report dated 5 February 2011 - Prime Minister of the U.K., David Cameron, criticized "state multiculturalism" in his first speech on radicalisation and the causes of terrorism. He also communicated a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism. You can read the article here. Because of the controversy created by POV, and what appears to be a small group of obstructionists who refuse to allow NPOV updates on both Pamela Geller and SIOA, I think a team of NPOV editors should be appointed to oversee the Pamela Geller and SIOA articles so that editing may continue without incident. Atsme (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You quote Pamela Geller: "I have no problem with Islam. I have a problem with political Islam."
You give the Oxford Dictionary of American English definition of Islamophobia: Oxford defines Islamophobia] as a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially when feared as a political force.
You say that Pamela Geller is not islamophobic.
What's wrong with this picture?
P.S. It's really hard to read your long comments. Can you at least break them into paragraphs?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


I humbly apologize for the inconvenience, alf laylah wa laylah. I will not only add breaks to my paragraphs, I will also try to shorten them. Hopefully, doing so will add palatability to the points I've brought forward for consideration.
You asked, "What's wrong with this picture?" I'll respond with the following hypothetical sequence which basically replaces the word Islam:
I have no problem with Christians. I have a problem with the politics of Christianity.
I have no problem with Catholics. I have a problem with the politics of Catholicism.
I have no problem with Catholicism. I have a problem with the politics of the Vatican.
Where are the labels depicting anti-Christian groups that segregate them into a series on anti-Christianity (Christophobia) along with other active, and sometimes violent groups who protest against Christianity, all of which are based on articles from reliable sources that were primarily written by notable atheists, and atheist sympathizers? These are simply rhetorical questions to prove a point. Keep reading, and I'll show you why I did it this way.
Now compare the following paraphrases from WP articles on Islam to the Geller quotes:
the nature of Israeli-Palestinian conflict was not religious but political.
the issues surrounding anti-Semitism are political rather than religious.
Muslim anger is not against Jews, it's against Israel.
Jews, by the nature of Judaism, possess fatal character flaws.
Where is the WP series on anti-Semitism? Does it include all Muslims, or is there segregation of only those Islamist groups who actively speak out against Judaism as with Islamophobics who speak out against known terrorist groups who identify as Muslims following the teachings of Muhammed?
Where is the WP series on Islamic extremism that includes only those groups linked to terrorism, and confirmed terrorists who have been tried and convicted of terrorist acts against Jews?
The answers to the above questions clearly demonstrate why Islamophobia should be considered contentious labeling, and as hostile and prejudiced against the target subjects as would be any racial epithet or slur against Islam. It is without a doubt reverse discrimination. Wiki editors are obligated to exercise a much keener sense of responsibility. Perhaps it would serve the greater good if editors would refer back to WP Manual of Style/Words to watch from time to time.


At this time, I want to refer all editors to the Wiki article on Islam and Anti-Semitism which is policy compliant, and meets all the criteria for a well written, well sourced, well formatted, and very informative NPOV article. It doesn't matter whether editors agree with or oppose the dictate that is the subject matter of the article; i.e. Islamic views on Judaism. Our job requires that we look past POV so that we can provide factual information from a neutral perspective. I think the aforementioned article should be required reading for all editors. Please notice the two legends to the right of the article - the one on top is titled "Islam and Other Religions", and the one below is titled "Part of a series on Criticism Of Religion". Brilliant! Total neutrality. Get rid of the contentious label, Islamophobia, and replace it with a neutral term, like anti-Islamic Extremism, and make the series title, Criticism Of Islamic Extremism.
There is a list of designated terrorist organizations, as well as a 2nd list of foreign terrorist organizations. They are very real, and quite active in carrying out their jihad around the world. It would be irresponsible for editors to totally omit the activities of these groups, and the very real threat they pose to Jews, Christians, kafirs, secular Muslims, and converts. Excuse me, but I don't consider it a phobia when extremists really are trying to kill you. To accuse targeted victims of religious intolerance is ludicrous at best, but to label them Islamophobic while extremists are burning down their places of worship, and killing thousands of people around the world goes beyond the pale. Yes, it is our job as editors to maintain NPOV, but that doesn't mean we should omit historic events, and terrorist activity for the sake of political correctness. Atsme (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


Quoting Geller as a rebuttal to her critics is laughable. To be perfectly honest, this article does not care very much what Geller says. She contradicts herself too many times for us to pick and choose her words. No, what we do is refer to secondary sources who analyze Geller's words. The secondary sources, especially the scholarly ones, are in agreement that Geller spreads hateful messages that demonize all people of the Islamic faith. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment Binksternet. It further validates my talking points on POV issues, and the use of biased resources. Quoting Geller to rebut her critics is laughable indeed, but guess what? The quotes I used were copied straight from WP: Pamela Geller under the heading Views, and are the only apparent rebuttal to the overwhelming criticisms that are laced throughout the entire article. The cited sources are all negative, clearly biased, and POV considering there are many other reliable sources that provide a much different view of Geller from what is portrayed in her bio. They should be included, along with the most notable recognitions and awards she has received. The fact that this information was omitted further confirms POV.
There is an undeniable prejudice to Islam in all three articles - Geller, SIOA, & Choudary - but the good news is that they can be fixed by simply neutralizing the sources, adding the important omissions, and performing a few tweaks here and there to eliminate contentious labeling, and POV. Atsme (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


And not to kick a long-dead horse, but even if she doesn't demonize all people of the Islamic faith, even if she happens to only demonize some percentage (< 100%) of Muslims for some percentage (< 100%) of qualities that Muslims (< 100%) might have, it'd still be accurate to call her Islamophobic, because that's what the word means. If she hates Muslims who blow shit up because they're Muslim and they blow shit up she's still Islamophobic, because of the meaning of the word as given in reliable and neutral sources such as dictionaries of the English language. Just like Karl Marx is anti-capitalist, even though he had a lot of good things to say about capitalism as a world-historical force, and probably some of his best friends were capitalists... like Engels, e.g.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, alf laylah wa laylah, for your comments, but again, they only serve to further validate my position. Your use of the term "demonize" is POV, and a notable exaggeration of the very issue we're discussing. As I pointed out above, secular Muslims recognize terrorism, and the differences of political and religious views throughout Islam, the latter having been the basis for tribal wars for centuries. Fear of jihad, or a potential strike by the Taliban is very real, and far from being an extreme or irrational phobia. Warning others of dangers presented by radicalism when one's own country is under attack, has been attacked, or is in high alert over the potential of a terrorist strike is not the result of Islomophobia.
With regard to the contentious labeling of an entire group as a "hate group" or "Islamophobic", keep in mind, the organization itself is not a person, and it has no feelings, so the label actually defines all members of the labeled group as "phobic" by association? And you don't believe that is contentious, or contrary to WP policy on words to watch? As I stated earlier, the contentious labeling of persons or groups as Islamophobic is as hostile and prejudiced against the target subjects as would be any racial epithet or slur against Islam.
Read the following excerpt from the same WP article I cited above as recommended reading...
Islamist Groups
Many Islamic terrorist groups have openly expressed antisemitic views.
Lashkar-e-Toiba's propaganda arm has declared the Jews to be "Enemies of Islam", and Israel to be the "Enemy of Pakistan".
Hamas has been widely described as antisemitic. It has issued antisemitic leaflets, and its writings and manifestos rely upon antisemitic documents (the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and other European Christian literature), exhibiting antisemitic themes. In 1998, Esther Webman of the Project for the Study of Anti-Semitism at the Tel Aviv University wrote that although the above is true, antisemitism was not the main tenet of Hamas ideology.
The above is undeniable justification for the natural human emotion of fear, and far from being considered justification for labeling a group as a "hate-group", or "Islamophobic", or an individual as a "Muslim bigot", or "Islamophobe". Atsme (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Break at nominal vs. evaluative

There is still a general concern of how to write non-POV leads. I argue here and elsewhere that an appropriate style for an encyclopedia is to define the subject in nominal terms, not evaluative terms, in the lead with critical assessment following the nominal description. For example, we don’t start an article on Stalin by saying he was a vicious dictator who slaughtered millions. There’s no disagreement on that but our lead says “leader of the Soviet Union” who rose to power by “eliminating any opposition” and advocated “socialism in one country.” Or take Hitler. The lead says “chancellor,” “dictator,” and “was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust.” There is nothing about being a virulent racist whose aggression led to over 20 million deaths, although the Holocaust is mentioned.
I suggest a better lead for our article would use the more neutral “anti-Islamic” (or perhaps even anti-Islamist) with a separate sentence at the end of paragraph two mentioning that critics charge that the organization crosses the line into anti-Muslim bigotry. I prefer to spell out what the sources mean by Islamophobic because our article on Islamophobia shows there is considerable disagreement on the term. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your very rational comments Jason from nyc. I hope you will take the time to read my rationale which precedes your comments. It addresses the use of the Islamophobia label which is POV and clearly contentious. I've included valid reasoning in my statements above, and I sincerely hope all editors will consider it with careful deliberation. Ms Atsme (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I’m somewhat surprised at the OED’s definition as a fear of Islam as a political force. That would be a fear of Islamism. Now many sources (going back to Runnymede) consider it Islamophobic to broad-brush Islam as a political ideology. Perhaps the OED had that in mind or perhaps the word is changing in meaning yet again. That should give us pause and suggest we spell out what our sources mean. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I prefer the word "Islamophobic" occur in the first sentence. It is a defining term for SIOA, a group that sets the example of Islamophobia. Professor Carl W. Ernst emphasizes the Islamophobia of Geller, Spencer and SIOA in Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, a Palgrave Macmillan book. See his Introduction titled "The Problem of Islamophobia". Binksternet (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
That’s the question: what is a defining term? A nominal definition would use a general neutral term. Upon analysis, one may very well conclude that the central principle behind a person or group is quite reprehensible. What is the better way to write an encyclopedia? Of course, an author like Ernst who dismisses any criticism of Islam as Islamophobic (I just read his introduction) finds the analysis relatively straight forward. But it is still an evaluation, not a definition. I suggest we define the subject first, in nominal terms, before telling how and why critics find the organization bigoted. Martha Nussbaum does a better job in her analysis as she acknowledges problems with the Park51 backers but explains why she considers these problems as too remote to warrant the hysterical opposition lead by SIOA. But an analysis is just that, a post-definitional assessment. Reconsider your position as this is an important question for all our articles. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Jason from nyc It is refreshing to read your comments, and the questions you've been raising, even though I don't agree with you 100%, I do agree with most. At least you have taken the initiative to ask questions. Following is an excerpt from Muslim Center ProCon. I'm not presenting it as a rock-solid reliable source, but there are some valid points that counter Nussbaum's comment that the problems with Park51 backers as too remote to warrant "hysterical opposition". IMO, it is worthy of further research.
The Muslim community center debate traces back to the July 2009 purchase of an empty building (formerly a Burlington Coat Factory) at 45-47 Park Place, New York, NY, for $4.85 million in cash by real estate company Soho Properties. The purchase was led by developer Sharif El-Gamal and backed by an eight-member investment group, which also took over the lease of neighboring 49-51 Park Place for an additional $700,000. El-Gamal has refused to identify his fellow investors except for businessman Hisham Elzanaty, who claims to have provided most of the financing. Elzanaty has come under scrutiny for his 1999 donations to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a popular Muslim charity that had its assets frozen by the US and EU governments for providing material support to Hamas.(end excerpt)
We have consistently seen negative connotations attributed to SIOA's actions, and have yet to see the counter-balance explaining why SIOA, countless Americans, and notable politicians opposed the mosque. It is our responsibility to present an informative, balanced article from a NPVO. Atsme (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately we can't untangle the saga ourselves. We rely on the popular press to investigate and if they aren't interested, our hands our tied. Think of Wiki as a "readers digest" to the mainstream media and other standard sources. Even if I'm convinced by argument and evidence, I don't count. We need to report what's "out there" not what we write "in here" in the talk. But a good discussion gives everyone the heads up on what to look for. Whether we find anything is another matter. When a good source does the reporting, we can reflect it, among contrasting opinions, in the article. Thanks for your comments. (end of detour, back to main arg:) Jason from nyc (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A few things: @Jason from nyc:, if I correctly understand your distinction between "nominative" and "evaluative" from the examples you've given I wonder what it would tell us about the lead sentence of an advocacy organization? Like "SIOA is an organization."? Certainly with organizations, especially small organizations with simple goals run by only a few people, as opposed to human beings, who are infinitely complex, we ought to be describing them in terms of what they're organized to do and that's "nominative." I'd also note that saying "Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union" is not actually NPOV according to some people. Just ask a Romanoff. I'm not seriously claiming this point of view needs to be represented in that article, but it does make me wonder if your distinction can actually be made in objective terms. Any sentence that strikes X as a declarative statement of facts may well strike Y as a covert assertion of an ideological world-view.

Second, I'm surprised that you think "anti-Islamic" is more neutral than "Islamophobic," but I certainly won't argue that point with you. I think they're synonyms and would be happy with either, although I lean slightly towards "Islamophobic" because it's actually in dictionaries. I don't think "anti-Islamist" is acceptable, because it's torturing English usage in order to make a distinction that (a) will be lost on most of our readers and (b) is too accepting of SIOA's own pronouncements rather than of reliable sources.

Third, I'm surprised at your surprise at the OED's definition of "Islamophobia." The compilers of dictionaries don't sit around thinking of what definitions for words would make sense in the world, they go out in the world and see how words are used and then record the range of usages. No one uses "anti-Islamist" except Islamophobes who are trying to get people to stop calling them that. Just like no one contrasts the etymology of "antisemitic" with its meaning except people who want to say that they aren't it because they don't hate Arabs.

TL;DR: I don't think an objective distinction between "nominative" and "evaluative" can be made, and either "Islamophobic" or "anti-Islam" are fine with me but not "anti-Islamist."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There are schools of epistemology that declare all statements are subjective statements. We have to operate assuming that facts can be ascertained and aspire to do so. As to advocacy groups, their stated aim is often the nominal purpose. Obviously reliable sources (RS) can and in this case do say “they don’t buy it.” We then report what, upon analysis, RS say. I know there is a fear that using the nominal definition “whitewashes” or “defends” an organization. But that’s not so. It merely puts forth the alleged aim followed by the refutation of such a claim. In both Hitler and Stalin, the salient fact of their position of power is established before the bloody record is investigated and reasons given. There's no fear of whitewashing here. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough with respect to facts, but I'm not advocating such an extreme position. I think that using Hitler and Stalin as models will be misleading, because, as human beings rather than organizations they're much more complex. Another problem we have with SIOA is that it's so narrowly focused, as opposed to e.g. the ACLU, that it's hard (for me, anyway) to think of other models we might look to. I'm not so much worried about whitewashing as I am about the accurate use of words to reflect what secondary sources say about the organization.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
On the minor points: I choose “anti-Islamic” because SIOA often uses that as a nominal descriptor. Islamophobia is stronger and suggest unduly and unfairly critical; and sources suggest SIOA is indeed unfair. As to OED and common use, it’s a work in progress. I detect shifts which makes our article unstable. Anti-Muslim bigotry, when describing the evaluation by RS, spells it out and is preferable to controversial ever-changing jargon. As to Islamist, it is used by Muslims who advocate it and Muslim in their Criticism of Islamism. American usage general refers to a modern political variant of Islam. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "Islamist" is used by Islamists and many other people, it's "anti-Islamist" that bothers me, as I don't think it's used by anyone who's not defending themselves against accusations. Anyway, as you and I agree on the acceptability of "anti-Islamic," but for different reasons, I guess we wait for others to weigh in?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
There's no need to go to such lengths to avoid using the accepted term for these sorts of views. I also don't buy the nominal vs. evaluative distinction and it seems like a fancy way of saying "prioritize promotional material over reliable sourcing"; SIOA's statements about themselves are also "evaluative," even if you agree with them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Another break

As there is limited interest in my suggestion at the moment, let me just finish the thought for future reference by giving a few examples of other articles that I think are doing it right: Baader-Meinhof Gang, Weather Underground, Unibomber, Socialist Workers Party (United States), Nation of Islam, and Dianetics.
Take the Nation of Islam. The 1st two sentences read as a NoI blurb. It's not until the 3rd sentence do we read: "Its critics accuse it of being black supremacist[2] and antisemitic." Neither black supremacist nor antisemitic were part of the defining lead sentence. In Dianetics we don't read that it is pseudoscience until sentence three. Critical evaluations come after nominal definitions. This is more scholarly. It's not required by Wiki rules; but we evolve the culture and practice. I rest my case. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm interested in your suggestion, I just don't feel that I understand it. What's not evaluative about "American radical left organization," Weather Underground, "American mathematician and serial murderer" (Unabomber), "prominent left-wing militant group" Baader-Meinhof Gang, "far-left political organization" Socialist Workers Party (United States), and so on. I just can't see how those differ from "American Islamophobic organization" as we have here. SIOA is Islamophobic by the plain meaning of the word as given in a source universally agreed to be reliable and neutral: the OED. How is that different from calling the socialists "far-left" or the Baader-Meinhof Gang "left-wing militant"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I would be willing to give the organization more of its own rein in the first sentence if they actually accomplished something good, if they were not so widely condemned in scholarly sources. Because of its dismal record and because of the descriptions in our best sources, the group gets the short leash here, and the description about them is accurate but not lenient. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
In all those cases they would mostly likely talk about themselves in those terms. I remember and knew “radical left” individuals during the Vietnam War days and both “radical” and “left” were considered descriptive if not a badge of honor. The Unibomber was a convicted mass murderer so he doesn't get to define himself. But he wasn’t a mathematician for decades. He was a misanthropic hermit, yet our article says “he is known for his wide-ranging social critiques, which opposed industrialism and modern technology.” It doesn't seem he was seen, yet known, for decades. His 15 minutes of fame doesn't strike me as generally known for anything. "Pseudoscience" isn't used by Scientologists. "Antisemitic" isn't used by Nation of Islam. "Terrorist" isn't used by the Weather Underground (although they'd use "revolutionary" as our article does.) "Islamophobic" is a pejorative that implies an excess. Our definition used to read “irrational fear” until recently and the word is still used in the sense of “beyond reason.” It’s not a self-descriptor. As I said, "anti-Islamic" is often used as a self-descriptor. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Now I really don't understand the distinction you're making between "nominal" and "evaluative." You seem to be relying on what the groups call themselves; is that really what you mean by "nominal"? And you seem to be judging the neutrality of the descriptions of your examples based on your feelings about what members of the groups might think, rather than by what reliable sources say about it. Anyway, Bernadine Dohrn called herself an "outlaw." Does that mean that should go in the lead of the Weather Underground article, then? And I still don't see why you're so sure that "islamophobic" is pejorative. No dictionary I've seen labels it so, and they're usually quite careful to tag bad words. Are you proposing an objective distinction or going by gut instinct or something else? (Side note: once a mathematician, always a mathematician, and Kaczynski did some reasonably good work while he was at Berkeley; some of it still cited today).
A straight definition without the use of a pejorative. Clearly, what a group calls itself or at least what it wouldn't see as an insult, is one test of a straight definition. Use "revolutionary", as opposed to "terrorist." Use "alternative medicine" as opposed to "pseudo-science." Use "socialist" as opposed to "pinko commie." It's true that a term may be considered a criticism by some and descriptive by another. Some would consider "conservative" an insult but it is also purely descriptive even if one abhors conservatism. "Reactionary" would be a pejorative and we all know that calling someone "reactionary" is meant as an insult. "Islamophobic" is meant as an insult. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I understand your distinction well enough to apply it practically. Perhaps you mean something like "use labels that subjects might conceivably apply to themselves whether they actually do so or not"? That would handle "reactionary," which no one would ever use non-sarcastically, non-rhetorically, and non-humorously about themselves, and "commie" too, although not "communist." Probably that's also the case with "Islamophobic." But "revolutionary" and "terrorist" don't work that way. People and groups will call themselves terrorists, as it's a legitimate methodology of struggle (I mean "legitimate" only in the sense of "explicitly advocated for under that label"). What I worry about is that, too my knowledge, there are no reliable sources that distinguish labels this way, if this is what you mean. If it were to be a general principle to label in this way, how would we then apply it? It also seems to lend itself to granting too much gravitas to defense self-image management, as in your suggestion of "anti-Islamist." Perhaps we'd want to only use labels that could conceivably be applied by both subject and observer? In any case, you and I do still agree on "anti-Islamic," yes? If so, perhaps others can weigh in on that. If not, I'm not sure what to do.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to promote this principles beyond this article. I choose examples without cherry picking because I'm willing to deal with the difficulties. Nominal would mean "in name only" or "on paper" and that would generally be a self-definition or a definition of the stated aim of an organization. Thus, the words would be seen as fair to the groups/individuals and as you note a word which is acceptable to A may not be to B. The nominal definition is followed by a summary of a critical analysis. Nation of Islam is a good example: "The Nation of Islam (NOI) is a syncretic new religious movement founded in Detroit, Michigan by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad in July 1930. The Nation of Islam's stated goals are to improve the spiritual, mental, social, and economic condition of African Americans in the United States and all of humanity. Its critics accuse it of being black supremacist and antisemitic." Or consider: "Dianetics is a set of ideas and practices regarding the metaphysical relationship between the mind and body which was created by L. Ron Hubbard and is practiced by followers of Scientology and separate independent Dianeticist groups. Hubbard coined Dianetics from the Greek stems dia, meaning "through," and nous, meaning "mind". Dianetics has achieved no acceptance as a scientific theory, and is an example of a pseudoscience." In both cases it is a nominal "on paper" description that states what we are allegedly talking about, or what the aim is. It ends with the reality or what critics claim is the bottom line upon analysis. We see the same with Hitler and Stalin. Nominal titles and description precede horrendous reality. My summary many not be clear but you can abstract from the examples a pattern and express it yourself. Perhaps that would help. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm entirely unmoved by arguments based on pointing to other articles as examples. Instead, I continue to emphasize that our best sources tell us that SIOA is the most prominent example of Islamophobia in America, which is why I find it ridiculous to argue against that word in the first sentence. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there's no consensus here for my stylistic recommendations. It's still a concern of mine for all of our article and the discussion moved to my talk page. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The opening section really needs to be fixed. It's not neutral at all. 'Islamophobic' is always a term of criticism, unlike for example 'conservative', 'far left', or even 'militant', 'revolutionary' or 'extreme right'. Of course, add the allegation somewhere in the article. But, to have it phrased in such a way and in the opening section? That's not NPOV at all. Frankly, even replacing 'Islamophobic' with 'anti-Islam' would be an improvement, since 'anti-Islam' is sometimes used as a self-label. Also I don't see how the words 'extreme right' add anything meaningful to the section. Renren8123 (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I also note that the consensus in this discussion has reached that agreement on average. "Anti-Islam" may be a good phrase to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrinSudan (talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC) — GrinSudan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't see agreement. And I don't know what saying that the lead is not neutral means. We don't aim for neutrality. Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I see two users arguing for the claim, and many comments from readers that it is biased. As such their is consensus. Also, let me introduce you to NPOV standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (talk), 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? With your 10th edit you are lecturing me on NPOV? Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately you comment above indicates that you are not understanding it. To quote the article referenced: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view" which is in direct contrast to your claim that "We don't aim for neutrality". As such I would kindly suggest you rethink your aggression my way.

GrinSudan (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There is actually a big difference between aiming for neutrality, which means equal balance, and a neutral point of view. See WP:UNDUE, particularly "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.". Not an uncommon mistake to make, but as I said, we don't aim for neutral as in giving equal weight to all views. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a good point about relative levels of support, however the previous wording here was definitely not neutral as it presented a minority view as fact - hence it was not neutral. The goal of the standards is indeed to be neutral, and the sub-notes on undue weighting do not contradict that. To imply that they negate any "neutral" goal is inherently incorrect. To avoid clogging up this page though, you are welcome to send any further discussion to my talk page. GrinSudan (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


Why don't you try to make your case for ignoring the large number of sources? Neutrality isn't about making sure all article subjects look good, it's about reflecting what the sources say. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
When you use political sources you will get a large number of biased and loaded terms. "anti-Islamic" (or similar) is the term used by the credible news organizations referenced. Choosing political sources will obviously create bias which should not be perpetuated. I will also point out that, as it has come up numerous times here it is obviously considered a loaded term by a large section of the public. GrinSudan (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Please note that of the references cited and available for review only 2 use the term Islamophobia. All others (4) use some variant of "Anti-islam" or "anti-muslim". The remaining source I have not been able to review (text book). Of the two that use islamophobia one is referencing CAIR which is a political organization with a a strong agenda to push in this instance.
Continued insistance on the addition of Islamophobia is purely politicizing of the article. It is quite obvious with "Anti-islam" what the organization's goals are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrinSudan (talk • contribs) 23:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
In reference #3 the books are titled Islamophobia but the newspaper articles don't use the term. I think you're right that anti-Islam would be better since it is more general and would reflect all the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The new editor GrinSudan chose as his first-ever edit to remove "far-right" and "Islamophobic" from the lead section. This is the same concern held by the now-blocked disruptive editor Livingengine1 who started this discussion thread. It was also the concern of the now-blocked disruptive editor Σαμψών who started a previous discussion, now archived. In all the previous discussions, the consensus was that the reliable sources were conclusive that the SIOA was far-right and Islamophobic. So you'll understand why I am not convinced by the total absence here of "credible news organizations" which GrinSudan says will prove his point. Somebody who wants to succeed in their argument will have to find that argument carried by a WP:Reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the other banned editors. I came here to learn more about the organization after seeing an article in the New York Times, and was shocked to see the politicalization of the article. As noted here the majority of credible sources do use "anti-islam". Reading the discussion above there is no consensus that I can see implying that "Islamophobic" is more appropriate. The claim of one professor is not more WP:Reliable source than the common news usage. Further, the fact that it has come up multiple times (including the editors you appear to dislike) is evidence that it is definitely a biased term. GrinSudan (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
You are correct in that it is "Far-right" in the American sense. That should be included and was a mistake to omit on my part. To add "Islamophobia" is NPOV and furthering (what appear to be your own) political goals. GrinSudan (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I make no comment on GrinSudan's removal of "far right" several days ago. But today, Binksternet rushed to judgment by saying that GrinSudan's insertion of "anti-Islam" is unsourced and biased. Had he taken three seconds to look at the source (not even click on the link, but just see the summary at the bottom of the WP page) he'd see that "anti-Islamic" is repeatedly mentioned in the cited sources. Steeletrap (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
If you were really interested in telling the reader about SIOA's stance on Islam, you would have to write that they have been described as putting out "anti-Islamic racism". The phrase "anti-Islamic racism" is also found in reliable sources, used as a synonym to Islamophobia. Humayun Ansari and Farid Havez wrote that Islamophobia is often considered anti-Islamic racism. (From the Far Right to the Mainstream: Islamophobia in Party Politics and the Media, page 18.) However, Kai Hafez writes that "anti-Islamic racism" fails as a synonym because racism is but one element of the larger problem of Islamophobia, which is "perceptual extremism" making use of the "sweeping denigration" of Islamic culture, not very well tied together by race. (Islam in Liberal Europe: Freedom, Equality, and Intolerance, page 138.) The SIOA is not simply anti-Islam; they demonize Islam to create or increase fear of the foreigner. The racist element is strong at SIOA. Audrey Osler calls the SIOA racist, despite their slogan "Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense". (Contemporary Debates in the Sociology of Education, page 50.) Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I am happy you have now read the sources. But your summary proves that you were wrong to say Sudan's addition of "anti-Islamic" was unsourced and done out of biased. As you note, the group is described as "anti-Islamic" and racist. Being anti-Islamic is not incompatible with being racist -- quite the opposite, in the contemporary Western context. Steeletrap (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I realize that a number of editors have had an agenda that is disruptive of our aim of reflecting reliable sources. Nevertheless the majority of sources do not portray the organization as racist. Some just don't explain how it is anti-Islamic and to assume that it is the racist sort or across the board bigotry is assuming too much of these sources. You're taking the harshest critics as the dominant ones. The phrase anti-Islamic should subsume all cases and is a full reflection of all reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
You are mistaking "SIOE" with "SIOA". They may be similar but there appears to be no direct tie (although allies). I was about to say that, if this is their slogan, then it should indeed be in the header. However on further review that is incorrect. If you can find one then we should logically include Islamophobia in the header. As to Islamophobia/anti-Islamic racism - the article on "Islamophobia" specifically states that the definitions are contested. While I personally agree that they are putting out "anti-islamic racism", there really is no consensus in any of the sources present that their "anti-islamic" is racism. (Note again that you are looking at sources for SIOE not SIOA) Religionism is the term that appears most appropriate. GrinSudan (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by the newspaper stories not mentioning Islamophobic. I've added a quote from The Christian Science Monitor "In the Bay Area, more than 125 religious leaders of various faiths signed a statement in July denouncing the ads as "Islamophobic"" - maybe that should go somewhere in the body of the article. Can you be more specific about what sources don't describe it as Islamophobic? I've reworded the lead so that Wikipedia is no longer calling it Islamophobic, but the other version didn't mention Islamophobic at all in the article despite our sources. I also agree that we should call this far right, not extreme right, at least at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Doug . In the article you mention there are several uses of "Anti-Islamic" (by the newspaper) and the single quote of Islamophobia that you mention (noting that it is a quote indicating that one statement as such was signed in opposition to SIOA - not that it is a generally accepted term). There is also a descriptive use of "Anti-Islamic" in a different quote regarding SIOA. As to the other articles - The Post Gazette quotes CAIR's comments of "Islamophobia" but otherwise uses "Anti-muslim" as the descriptor, the ADL link uses "Anti-Muslim" exclusively, the IB Times uses "Anti-Muslim" exclusively, the Lawrence Article (despite being titled about "Islamophobia" uses "Anti-Islamic", and the extract of the Ernst' book (found earlier - trying to relocate it) implied "Islamophobia". As such that puts it at 2 (or 1 - given that the CSM article only quotes a reference to "Islamophobia") with Islamophobia and 4(5) with "anti-muslim/islamic". I think that is a pretty good consensus. As you note though, there is a good discussion of it though which - to my mind at least - merit's its own subsection with details. GrinSudan (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I think Doug's latest edit is a much better summary: "... anti-Islamist organization that has been described as being Islamophobic by scholars, religious leaders and others." That is close to how the ADL, in their extensive review, describes the organization. The 3rd paragraph of the ADL document reads: "consistently vilifying the Islamic faith under the guise of fighting radical Islam ..." It has both elements: the anti-Islamist and the excessive or Islamophobic elements. How these interplay and how SIOA goes from the former to the latter is the point of the report. Note, this is a major external document listed at the bottom of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I too think it is much better. I would also suggest that a new sub-section of the article be added, with further information as to the specific claims/characterizations of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrinSudan (talk • contribs) 13:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The Geller article does that. She actually gets more attention than SIOA alone. I just looked at the SIOA website (we have the link) and it hasn't been update in a year. Let's wait for the disposition on the merger request below. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
"Anti-Islamist" is obviously inappropriate. There is little evidence that they oppose Islamism rather than opposing Islam or Muslims. If we're not using Islamophobic, we should be using anti-Muslim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
But we're using both "anti-Islamist" and "Islamophobic" in the same sentence. We're doing that in a similar way to the sources. The ADL, as I quoted above, acknowledges the organization's anti-Islamist activities and aims but the ADL says they become anti-Muslim. In a recent court ruling the judge says something similar. [1] He says "her zealous critique of political Islam crosses the line into hate speech." Thus there is a general acceptance that the group is anti-Islamism (opposing "political Islam" or "radical Islam") but that it degenerates into a broad-brush attack on all things Islamic. Doug's sentence captures both the anti-Islamism and the general feeling that its more, it's anti-Muslim or Islamophobia. That seems to reflect the sources. If we wanted a single word I'd suggest "anti-Islam" since it covers all descriptions by being broad but at the expense of being less precise. In that case we can leave the details to the main body of the article. Doug's edit is more exacting. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
But the source you've just cited disproves your own argument. What is the justification for saying it is one thing and has been called another thing (especially when it has been called the second thing by so many reliable sources)? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Because it can be both. One can be anti-Islamist and anti-Muslim. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Am I misunderstanding you? What you seem to be arguing for is a phrasing that says SIOA is anti-Islamist but has been called Islamophobic by X, Y, and Z. One of these is in WP's voice as a fact, and one is phrased as a subjective opinion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
That is because it is an opinion Roscelese - an opinion voiced by a portion of the audience. They are nominally "Anti-Islamist", but some view their actions and opinions as "islamophobic". While I did not add or even advocate the "anti-Islamist" phrasing, I think Jason and Doug right on here. GrinSudan (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
But it's pretty clear from the reliable sources cited that they oppose Islamism only insofar as they oppose Muslims doing anything. That would be like saying that the Westboro Baptist Church opposes gay supremacy or that the American Nazi Party opposes Jewish supremacy. Obviously a group that hates Muslims opposes Muslim supremacy, but they also oppose Muslim equality. We shouldn't be prioritizing a promotional self-description over reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't comment on "other stuff" but return to the sources. Reading some of the sources (those that I can access online) I don't see the line of reasoning you present: they're anti-Muslim so of course they're anti-Islamism. I do see the reverse: they're anti-Islamism but they don't stop there and become anti-Muslim. Many sources return to the same point, that of anti-Islamism writ large to the point of being anti-Muslim. One source notes that her viewpoint that "radical Muslims ... are properly interpreting the Koran" is dismissive of the majority of moderate Muslims. That, again, sees Islam through Islamism. Thus, the interplay is talked about in most references. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I would actually interpret the statement in the opposite way - declaring that Islam is inherently violent, rather than condemning those Muslims who are violent, seems to be deriving anti-Islamism from generalized anti-Islam. Regardless, saying that they are anti-Islamist and that some have called them Islamophobic or anti-Muslim doesn't properly reflect the sources or our sourcing policies. (Consider, for instance: "an Islamophobic organization that has been called anti-Islamist" or "an Islamophobic organization that calls itself anti-Islamist." The only reason for demoting a whole host of reliable news and scholarly sources to opinion seems to be that their verdict is distasteful to you - but remove your own opinions from the situation for a minute.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Where do you get this idea Roscelese???? The sources do not use Islamophobic - they use anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic. We've hammered out this point before. You can debate anti-Islamist or anti-Islamic, but Islamophobic is absolutely NOT appropriate. I find it highly ironic that you attack Jason's point when you are the one "demoting a whole host of reliable news and scholarly sources" because they are "distasteful to you" and do not fit your personal political opinion. GrinSudan (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The cited sources are talking about Islamophobia and anti-Muslim, not anything less than that such as the narrower anti-Islamist.
So you see that the narrow "Islamist" definition is not supported by the references. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The wording is Anti-Islamic. Please reaad the article before you edit it. DougWeller changed it to "Anti Islamist", which has been corrected back to Anti-IslamIC, pending discussion here.
The sources cited in the article are Cite 3, which is well noted here and does not use Islamophobic. The main one that does is an activist organization, while the ones that use "Anti-Islamic" or "Anti-Muslim" are reputable news sources.
As to your new sources (which are not included by your edits . . .) the ADL is using "Anti-Muslim", and the others are quotes of activists. There is already a comment that some have called it "Islamophobic". The fact that some activists do does not make it so. They are accepted as "Anti-IslamIC" or "anti-muslim", which is what the article says. GrinSudan (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


I've lightly cleaned up the language and organization of the first paragraph. Since this has been a tenuous issue I'll note that the content has not changed from the consensus. GrinSudan (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Bink, Geller used the phrase "racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot" to mock her critics in the original NYT article. From there it seems to have become a "fact" by subsequent authors. It's hard to take Deepa Kumar seriously when she considers Obama to pursuing a liberal Islamophobic policy. The actual description in the main sources are multi-dimentional. I believe several of us found the joint description of "anti-Islamist" and "Islamophobic" to reflect the gist of what the sources were saying. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Roscelese, I don't see the ADL arguing that she's anti-Islamist because she's anti-Muslim. On the contrary, it acknowledges that the SIOA is anti-Islamist but it considers that to be the "form" of the organization which in practice is anti-Muslim by painting with too broad of a brush. Look at the Runnymede criteria. SIOA, according to the sources, sees Islam as essentially Islamists (#1 "Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change."). That means it sees Islam as political (#5 "It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.") The sources are arguing that the anti-Islamist description of Islam is Islamophobic per Runnymede. This is very different from the European sources of Islamophobia which pre-date 9/11. Most European countries have the majority of their Muslim population from one foreign nation. For the UK it is Pakistan; for Germany it is Turkey. Here antipathy towards the people often has its source in xenophobia, racist, and economic considerations independent of any real or imagined threat of "political Islam." In the USA the origin of Muslims are more diverse and generally middle class. Prior to the Iraq War they mostly voted Republican. For SIOA the sources closely tie "political Islam" in the post-911 world with an anti-Muslim agenda. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

mouthful

"anti-Islamist anti-Muslim Islamophobic organization" How about some punctuation?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Lokalkosmopolit socks

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lokalkosmopolit. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

POV and cite check tags

This article has evidently been a POV battleground. I'm not suggesting that the article has an overall POV slant, but there is an overemphasis on the political back-and-forth, with the factual content being relatively forgotten. Readers are entitled to know about whether SIOA's programs are right/wrong but also what they are and how successful they've been. Just as an example, I want to see content on why they opposed Park51, some substance behind the "Monster Mosque" label, how big the protests were, etc.

Another problem is that we have a lot of extreme but vacuous or redundant language in lengthy quotes. Just as an example, it is non-neutral piling on to quote Judge Englemeyer saying that SIOA's bus ads were "core political speech ... [which as such] is afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment." We can simply say the court held the ads were protected speech and leave it at that.

As for the cite check tag, the some of the most questionable content is supported only by book sources. Someone needs to check them and quote the relevant passages. I'm particularly concerned about the "far right" label, which is supported only by book sources. Generally authors are given wide latitude by their editors on their political views, so book sources aren't as reliable for such matters as the mainstream press. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you've got it backwards about whether or not academic books are more or less reliable than the daily news.
"some substance behind the 'Monster Mosque' label" - it sounds like you're insinuating that the article isn't sufficiently protective of their campaign. There's no call to go hunting for information that makes the center look monstrous, and if that's your main POV concern, we're not going to be able to get anywhere with that. I'd be perfectly fine with including a brief statement on why they opposed it if it's taken from reliable sources that are actually about SIOA, but the more information we try to include on the general background, the easier it is to cherry-pick.
No problem paraphrasing the judge's quote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding me a bit. I have no interest in making the article more pro- or anti-subject. My interest is to make it more substantively informative and less battleground-ish. The "Monster Mosque" thing is just an example. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd hope I'm misunderstanding! That way, we might be able to make some constructive changes...do you have sources that you want to add, or to cite more than they're already cited? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Not yet. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you could begin by consulting the ones already cited and seeing if there's anything there that you feel belongs? Seems like a good starting point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm certain there is. In these types of POV battles the most informative source content is often excluded (in favor of the "juicier" content). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the NYT article to start with. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese, failure of the tagger to fix the problem highlighted by the tag isn't grounds for removing the tag. I think the discussion above is more than adequate to enable editors to understand the basis for the tag. If you need further clarification, please ask. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No, bu failue of the tagger to adequately substantiate the concern and give concrete examples for how they believe neutrality can be achieved is a reason to remove the tag. Another reason is if the talkpage consensus disagrees with the tagger's concern.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree. We might be getting close to your latter condition (though I don't think we're quite there yet). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
No one can read your mind and you haven't identified anything that needs to be changed, in spite of my repeatedly asking you. If you decline either to fix the problem yourself or to identify it so that others can fix it, the tag would remain up indefinitely as a badge of shame, which is in direct contradiction to how tags are meant to be used. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The tags aren't badges of shame. Please explain what is unclear or inadequate about my fairly lengthy explanation at the start of this discussion. I provided a general overview of the problems as well as specific examples. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Besides the sourcing issue, where you're just incorrect about policy - I specifically asked if there was content you wanted to add and you said no. I suggested one of several sources you could look in and you ignored me. Posting a vague list of grievances and then walking away and expecting other people to do your work for you is not really how content disputes are handled - if you want to keep the NPOV tag up, you need to identify problems with the article and be willing to work with others to fix them, not post "wow, somehow this article on an organization of political antagonists and provocateurs whose main activity is running bigoted ads contains information about the ads and responses to them" and go off to play video games or something. What sources support the changes you want to make? What available information are we leaving out? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Are we having a content dispute or a conduct dispute? Because if you don't tone down the personal attacks we'll be talking about your conduct, not mine. Let's try to keep things on the high road. You seem to have some preconceived notions about appropriate tagging that I don't think are borne out by any policy, guideline, or essay. Of course you're entitled to your opinions - but please try to be tolerant of other editors' approaches, especially when they're acting in good faith, for the betterment of the project, and not in violation of any community guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the template usage notes specifically state that the editor who adds the tag should discuss their concerns and identify specific, actionable issues, that NPOV is determined based on high-quality secondary etc. sources, and that the template should not be used as a badge of shame. So I'll ask again, as your comment seems to have bypassed the content issue entirely: What sources support the changes you want to make? What available information are we leaving out? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Did I not "discuss [my] concerns and identify specific, actionable issues"? I thought that was exactly what I did. As for the content issue you claim I have bypassed, I believe I explained in some detail what I believe is missing. Moreover fixing POV issues is not just about adding missing sources, it's also about removing content and changing language and coverage of sourced content to create a balanced tone. I have explained all of this above, and your repeated demands that I do the same thing all over again don't appear constructive to me. If you have specific questions about what I wrote above, please ask and I will be glad to answer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Same question. What sources? Remember that NPOV is about reflecting reliable sources. What sources lead you to think we are overplaying anything here, then? Sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to provide sources to have a legitimate concern about the neutrality of the article. I will research and try to find some, but on my own time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
So this is just a feeling? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No. We're getting into WP:IDHT territory. I'll make a good faith suggestion: why don't we both take a break from this article for a few days? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully when you return, you will decide it's time to do some work on the article. See you then. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@DrFleischman: Well? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese writes: "'I just feel like it's unbalanced' is not enough. Why do you feel like it's unbalanced? What is being given undue weight?" I never wrote anything the likes of "I just feel like it's unbalanced." But to advance the discussion, and at the risk of being somewhat redundant:

  • There is an overemphasis on the political back-and-forth (e.g. whether SIOA's programs are right/wrong) compared to the factual content (e.g. what the programs are and how successful or unsuccessful they've been). Just as examples, there should be a brief explanation of why SIOA opposed Park51, some brief explanation for the "Monster Mosque" label, and how big the protests were.
  • There's a lot of unnecessary redundancy (undue weight) in the use of quotes. Take the 2012 New York bus ads just as an example. It's unnecessary to quote Judge Englemeyer saying that SIOA's bus ads were "core political speech." We should just say the were protected by the First Amendment. Similarly, it's non-neutral piling on to include three different quotes all saying essentially the same thing that SIOA's ads were hate speech/bigoted/attack ads. We should be able to summarize these similar points of view quite well in a single sentence with no quotes. See WP:IMPARTIAL.

Does this help? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

None of those concerns rise to the level of placing a POV tag at the top. The "political back-and-forth" reflects the published sources. The multiple negative quotes show what was published about SIOA. Rather than re-re-tagging the article with no positive results, you should create one or two RfCs to determine consensus about your concerns. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please tell me what you think POV tags are for. I thought they were for potential violations of WP:NPV, including WP:BALASPS, WP:IMPARTIAL, etc. etc. Rather than re-re-removing the tag, you should let it stay until consensus has been reached to remove it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Badge of shame? No. Binksternet (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? That's your response? What happened to collaboration? No longer interested? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstood you. Are you saying the purpose of POV tags is to serve as badges of shame? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

DrFleischman, the problem with what you're saying is that you're claiming that there's a vague weight problem while flatly and repeatedly refusing to explain why you think our coverage doesn't match the sources' coverage. Allow me a slightly more absurd illustration: I don't think this article says enough about the important role that green aliens play in SIOA. Why do I think this? Well, it's not my job to do that work - I've stated my complaint, go and find the sources yourself! (The bus ads is different and I don't know why you don't just make that edit yourself.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I challenge you to point me to where I have claimed there's a vague weight problem while flatly and repeatedly refusing to explain anything. I want diffs please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to link to every diff on this talk page and on my talk page. Stop the WP:IDHT, please, just provide sources to explain why you have a problem with the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Give me one example then, please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
While Dr. Fleischman makes some good points, they are issues of style, not POV and the tagging should go. Lots of articles that cover ongoing events are updated from news sources and end up reading poorly. We do not need information reporting straight facts, e.g., SIOA's publications are protected by the Bill of Rights, to be explained through long quotes. Just report the facts.
The sources btw do not call SIOA "far right". The first source calls it right-wing, while the second says that a right wing extremist terrorist admired it. Even if we could find sources that used the expression "far right", most do not and it is confusing because the term is generally used to describe more extreme groups such as Klansmen and neo-nazis.
TFD (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I can agree with your point on the term far right, TFD. Aside from that I don't see Dr. Fleischman point. The article more or less reflects the sources. I'll bow out on a question of style. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The POV tag isn't reserved for pro-subject, anti-subject, right-leaning, or left-leaning POV. In this case we have neutrality issues involving WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BALASPS, among possible others. The POV tag is for all NPV disputes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You have not explained how the article is impartial or unbalanced. TFD (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Do these comments (here, here) not do exactly that? I've said repeatedly I'm happy to clarify my concerns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
First, your comment here that you would be "happy to clarify" your concerns is misleading. You have never clarified your concerns because they cannot be made clear. Second, the two diffs are a perfect demonstration of your inability to explain what's wrong, as you point to some minor issues which could conceivably be fixed by simple editing of the article. In the second link you say "I'm not suggesting that the article has an overall POV slant", yet you wish to slap it with an overall POV tag. The contradiction fatally hurts your position here that the POV tag should stay (as a badge of shame). Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
What I meant by "I'm not suggesting that the article has an overall POV slant" is that not all of the neutrality problems fall in one ideological direction. The specific issues I cited (which you call minor) were examples; similar problems exist throughout the article. I will ignore the rest of your comment as a lapse in collaborative spirit. Your refusal to even try to understand a good-faith editor's input is tendentious and totally unwarranted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not see that any of the examples are POV issues. For example, while more could have been said about how and why they opposed the Ground Zero mosque, there is nothing POV about it. TFD (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Let's take that one example. It's non-neutral in that it puts WP:UNDUE emphasis on the controversy and the back and forth, rather than on what SIOA did. That's WP:BALASPS. This accumulated "contraversialization" throughout the article, if you will, gives the article the flavor of a criticism ghetto and leaves the reader with an excessively anti-SIOA impression. That's POV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that the 1st duty of an encyclopedia is to state the facts, not the reaction to the facts. The article on Park51 does this by saying "Protests were sparked by a campaign launched by conservative bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, founders of the group Stop Islamization of America, who dubbed the project the "Ground Zero mosque", and a national controversy ensued." Is this what you have in mind? Pamela Geller's bio has a whole section on the Park51 controversy: [5]. This has both a description of what was done as well as the reaction. If my memory serves me correctly, it was the more extensive treatment at the other two articles that led to an abbreviated mention here. But your point remains: first state what was done and then how it was viewed. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. And this is the pattern throughout this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Let me make sure I'm following you. Let's stay on the Park51 paragraph. I just re-read the paragraph again. It seems to state just the facts: (1) early opposition to Park51 (2) Geller posted a blog piece referring to it as a Monster Mosque, (3) SIOA launches a campaign. There is no criticism. What's missing? Her stated reasons for opposition? I think the Pamela Geller article has that. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Here are what I see as some NPV problems with that particular example:
  • doesn't describe the "early opposition" (unless this is merely introducing the following two sentences, unclear)
  • doesn't explain what Geller meant by vacuous "Monster Mosque" label (see WP:ENEMY)
  • doesn't describe the "Campaign Offensive: Stop the 9/11 Mosque!" campaign, or other protests - e.g. doesn't say that Geller encouraged a write-in campaign to the mayor
  • second paragraph: All quotes could be summarized. Also, "fearful of leaving the faith" quote misleadingly implies Geller used these words, even though she didn't.
There may be more NPV issues if research is done beyond the cited sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
1. The phrase “early opposition” may not do justice to Geller's role. The Park51 article says “sparked by a campaign launched by … Geller … Spencer … “ SIOA’s role was seminal. Something like that would be an improvement. 2. Noting her usage of “Monster Mosque” is not inaccurate but, yes, it doesn’t convey what scares her about it. An explanation would be better. The Geller article says more. 3. It doesn’t talk about her mobilization efforts but the Geller article has more. 4. Different paragraph, I'll hold off and stay on Park51.
One of the problem here is that this is an article about SIOA and sources that help write the Geller article don’t aways help us write the SIOA article unless they mention SIOA. After much effort we cut down this article from a much longer rambling article. We even considered merging the article into the Geller article. Think of this article as a brief on SIOA. The Park51 and Geller article has more, much more. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no signal to readers (such as a hatnote) that they need to click through anywhere to learn more. Moreover the existence of a content fork (which appears to have been improperly done here) does not exempt any article from our neutrality requirements. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just registering my objection to the summary provided for this edit. The suggestion that this discussion has led to any sort of consensus, let alone a "pretty conclusive" one, is hogwash. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hogwash is the determination to hold this article for ransom, to work as hard as possible to give it a badge of shame, despite the template instructions to the contrary. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This sort of "two wrongs make a right" commentary is unconstructive. If you have a problem with my conduct please take it to my user talk or the noticeboards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
As every user you've interacted with has observed, you have been unable to articulate actionable neutrality issues with this article in the face of people asking you for literally months. Do not waste other users' time with what is clearly intended to be a badge of shame. (I'm also unclear as to why you removed the reference to the First Amendment, which is explicitly supported by the cited source.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't remove the reference to the First Amendment--did I? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you must be talking about this edit to the 2013 section. I removed the reference to the First Amendment there because it wasn't supported by the source. The source's reference to the First Amendment concerned the 2012 ads, not the 2013 ads. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ivanova source

Is the Ivanova source reliable for the statement that SIOA is an extreme right-wing group? The author was a grad student in communications and contributed a chapter to a book edited by a communications professor. It was published by ABC-CLIO, whose reputation I know not. I have little experience applying WP:SCHOLARSHIP (which appears to be the relevant guideline). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Due to lack of response I've posted the issue for discussion at WP:RSN#Written by graduate student, published by ABC-CLIO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: please revert your unconstructive edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Double standards on Wikipedia?

Many reliable sources were found which stated that Students for Justice in Palestine is anti-Semitic. However, that information was whitewashed from the article by the Wikipedia administration. If it is not allowed to say that Students for Justice in Palestine is anti-Semitic, then it also should not be allowed to say that Stop Islamization of America is "Islamophobic, anti-Muslim."

What reliable sources? What kept being reverted in that article was the unreferenced addition of categories. This article has references for its claims. Helpsome (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
See here. It mirrored the the way this article describes Stop Islamization of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.145.12.27 (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that's pretty telling. The main difference seems to be that left-leaning publications (Christian Science Monitor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, International Business Times) count, whereas right-leaning ones (JNS, National Review, FrontPage Magazine, Daily Kos, Fox News) don't. For SJP a Huffington Post article is also referenced, so some crossover to left-leaning. Apparently the ADL's opinion only counts with regards to this article, but not that one (it classifies both SJP and SIOA as hate groups). Books are also cited here and not there; I'm sure I could find book citations for SJP being a hate group. But Islamists in general and Hamas in particular are masters at playing the victim, and have achieved massive inroads in left-wing media / colleges / among professors; and there are professional propagandist orgs like CAIR who get foreign petrodollars; so it is to be expected there would be a lot more books that cite SIOA as a hate group vs. SJP. I think there are also a lot more people willing to spend a lot more time on the other side, so we're probably just screwed. --Djbclark (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Comparing one low-quality article to another isn't productive. Look to Wikipedia policies and guidelines instead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC))
It's a bit weird to see the Christian Science Monitor described as left-leaning when this site calls it one of the leading conservative news sites. Ditto the other two, whose Wikipedia articles don't suggest that. Meanwhile I see two anonymous editors, one only here to attack another editor, the other, a blocked proxy and almsot certainly a sock or banned editor, here only to rant. Removing their edits now as personal attacks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

SPLC - controversial?

@Jason from nyc: I have no idea what you're talking about with the SPLC article using "controversial" in all lead paragraphs. That doesn't appear to be the case, and its article doesn't support the claim that it's especially controversial (objections from fringe hate groups to being called fringe hate groups, but only a few other commentators). This well-poisoning is counter to Wikipedia's verifiability policy and frankly kind of juvenile. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

In the 1st paragraph of the SPLC article it says "The SPLC's hate group list has been the source of some controversy." You are right that the last paragraph doesn't use the word "controversial" but does mention that its fund-raising methods have be criticized. There is a whole "Controversy" section. I believe that the editors of the SPLC article have reviewed reliable sources (over and over again) and we should defer to their judgment. They saw it fit to mention controversies in the lead paragraph and criticism elsewhere in the lead. This suggest that we should inform the reader that their authority isn't without question. I don't believe it is relevant if they are left or right, as accurate work can and is done by groups regardless of leaning. I removed the qualifiers that seek to question the motivation and partisanship. However, it seems important, as we are using their judgment in the lead section, to mention their list has been subject to controversy. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't care for Roscelese's personal attack and battleground tone, but I agree with them on substance. Including the word "controversial" is non-neutral and contentious. Yes, the SPLC's hate group list has generated "some controversy" but that's not the same thing as calling the SPLC controversial. Moreover there are many aspects of the SPLC, and its controversial-ness isn't even close to notable enough to merit "controversial" being the first adjective to describe it. The SPLC is a unique group that is not so easily characterized. Readers can easily click through to learn more about it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps it is the list that is controversial. We could reword it. Non-neutral doesn't mean lacking valuation; it just means representing it as the sources have it. The SPLC article notes that their list is controversial. That's a fair representation. WP:LABEL suggests spelling out the controversies. Perhaps more is warranted. What do you think? Jason from nyc (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Not in favor. Same problem. Spell out the controversies and it's undue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I mean, I think including it suggests that there was anyone of note who objected to SIOA being listed, which doesn't seem to be supported. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
"Spell out the controversies" - Geller mentioned the Ben Carson issue (in vague reference) - that would seem to be the fig leaf of respectability she wants to use. I'll add her exact quote. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Aronzak, in hindsight I think you misunderstood what I meant by my opaque sentence, "Spell out the controversies and it's undue." What I meant was, if we spell out the controversies, then we have an WP:UNDUE problem, so we shouldn't spell out the controversies. Sorry for the confusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
DrFleischman Are you happy with the "badge of honor" statement and CNN quote? The article doesn't need to discuss Carson (COATRACK), just the fact that she mentions it would be interpreted by any politically astute viewer as an excuse based on the fact that they have indeed admitted an error with Carson, giving something of a fig leaf to Geller, among, say, GOP leaning people. If those quotes have to be removed then you could take exact quotes from their more recent billboards and put it in the lead. The Park51 issue used widespread patriotic sentiment and hatred of terror attacks to (potentially) create a more broad brush anti-Muslim/anti-mosque movement. Some of the bus ads show it's just anti-Muslim and has little to do with security. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The February 2015 removal of Ben Carson from the "extremist watch list" shows the controversy of labelling people within the "mainstream" US two party system as "extremists" - labelling people outside the political establishment as "extremists" is (mostly) uncontroversial.
Note that Geller in 2011 said the hate group label is a "badge of honor" and in 2015 used the kernel of truth about Ben Carson to say to CNN, "Who designated the SPLC as a legitimate authority? They are a radical leftist group who targets patriots, vets and even GOP presidential candidates. They have never named a jihadi group as a hate group."[1]
The word "controversial" should not be used to describe the SPLC unless it has an WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV source to the claim - better to not interpolate and give exact quotes from Geller and co to let readers judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronzak (talk • contribs) 13:31, 5 May 2015‎

References

  1. ^ "Garland shooting: What is the American Freedom Defense Initiative?". CNN. May 4, 2015.
Even if there were statements by Geller criticizing the SPLC's designation of SIOA as a hate group, that would not merit labeling the designation as "controversial." disputed != controversial. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all, the "list" is called "controversial" in the SPLC article. Shouldn't that be made clear when we refer to the list? Jason from nyc (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Secondly, the phrase hate group is used by the SPLC is a new way that's unique to the SPLC (see the hate group) article. Most people that I know think of "hate groups" as violent, like the KKK. Our hate group article says "the SPLC, inclusion of a group in the list 'does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.'" When used in this broader sense, the label "hate group" just means bigoted. We already have the word "Islamophobia" in the lead to indicate that. Thus, we are repeating ourselves. We should remove the SPLC from the lead but expand the coverage in the body of the article explaining that the SPLC is using the term in a broader sense of mere bigots. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This is novel, the term "hate group" suddenly being redefined by an editor here, to be something different than the widely accepted SPLC definition. Let's go with published sources rather than personal musings. A hate group advocates and practices hate, which perfectly describes SIOA. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The "controversy" about the hate group list exists solely on the websites of groups called hate groups. Calling the list controversial is like calling a judge controversial because the people s/he convict all claim to be innocent. And the complaints about fundraising similarly have very little if any support in reliable sources. The writings of hate groups are consistent with the definition of hate in criminal law, particularly where hate speech is on the books. TFD (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
TFD, as you know there are no "hate speech" laws in the USA. Only laws against violent acts and speech that is seen as immediate incitement. Read the hate group and hate speech articles and the references within. That hate groups can be such without "the use of extreme language against an individual or a group that either implies a direct threat that physical force will be used against them" is a SPLC innovation and not universally accepted. Only one expert in the "hate group" article implies that mere speech can be a violent act. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I am of course aware that there are no hate speech laws in the U.S. because hate speech is a constitutionally protected right. However, there are hate laws in the U.S. Where hate is a motivating factor in a violent crime it is an aggravating factor and hate is defined in the U.S. laws in the same manner it is in laws of other countries where hate speech itself is a crime. Not sure what your point is. If a group in Canada or the UK carries out hate speech, where it is criminalized, it is a hate group, but the same group in the U.S. cannot be called a hate group because its anti-social actions are legal. Case in point: the leaders of SIOA were barred entry to the UK based on among other things statements by the SPLC that it was a hate group. Are you saying it only is considered a hate group when it crosses a border? TFD (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, TFD, language differs from country to country. "Hate group" traditionally refers to violence-prone groups that are motivated by hatred and malice. The FBI document cited in the hate group article is about violent groups. When it defines hate group it gives the Klan as an example (left out of our article) and the whole document is about groups that urge violence. The ADL makes it clear when it is talking about hate crimes and hate groups while separating bigoted individuals (and groups) from the former (ex. [6].) The SPLC doesn't. We currently say that the ADL lists SIOA as a hate group when that is not supported by the citation. The word hate is not even in the citation [7]. We are making this up. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Jason, no one ever suggested that the SPLC's hate group list was universally accepted, and omitting the word "controversial" doesn't implied that it was. We can't include the word "controversial" with every reference to every group that did things that someone disagreed with. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Jason from nyc, I do not know where you find that hate group "traditionally refers to violence-prone groups that are motivated by hatred and malice." Obviously the FBI, ADL and SPLC all distinguish between groups that promote hate and groups that carry out violent attacks, and we should not confuse them. Here is a link to a review of hate groups. Here is a link to a recent article about Geller in the conservative Daily Mail. Notice the wording: she "has a long history of inflammatory anti-Islam propaganda, and watchdogs have labelled her organization a hate group." There's nothing about well maybe they are not a hate group or the SPLC is leftist/merely trying to scare people into donating/maybe Geller is right. Neutrality requires us to provide the same weight to opinions as the mainstream does.
I do not see any sources within the mainstream raising the issues that you do. Certainly Geller's supporters support her - they believe that her claims are accurate. But no mainstream writers do.
TFD (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the fact that you are well read and having a discussion is always pleasurable; but we should not be doing original research. The Gerstenfeld book is interesting and I've read parts. The Chapter on "Hate Groups" (page 130) starts by saying "there is no simple way to define a hate group, and surprisingly few scholars have tried." The very next paragraph starts "Whether a particular group is to be classified as a hate group is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. For example, the Anti-Defamation League ..." All interesting stuff and I appreciate that scholars find the term hate group problematic. The point, however, is that we must conform to the sources and the ADL does not call SIOA a hate group in the reference we provide. Our article is incorrect to assert that the ADL lists SIOA as a hate group. We can discuss why it doesn't but the fact remains that it doesn't. We are doing original research unsupported by the source. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Certainly we should not say the ADL considers them a hate group unless they actually do and it is sourced. AFAIK while they refer to hate groups on their website, they do not define the term or classify groups, so we should probably not mention it even if it is sourced. But the SPLC classification is clear and we should follow mainstream media and say the SPLC calls it a hate group. That is not the same as us calling them a hate group. I appreciate that they deny it, that they think Islam is a real threat, but most people think it is only certain versions of Islam that are a threat. TFD (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree that we shouldn't ascribe views to the ADL unless we have valid sources. I also have not been able to find any instance of them describing SIOA/AFDI as a "hate group", so we should limit the article to what they actually do say, like an "anti-Muslim organization" that sponsors "inflammatory advertising campaigns" voicing a "hateful anti-Muslim message", reflecting Geller's "long history of promoting her bigoted anti-Muslim views through inflammatory messages in public spaces". 2600:1006:B148:91D0:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Too Many Citations?

I have just come across this article and have noticed it has 48 citations which appears to me to be WP:OVERCITE considering it is only about 1100 words long. A couple of statements appear to have way too many citations ie. in the lead "widely described to be Islamophobic" with 7 citations (and this statement is not further developed in the body of the article), and "Judge Engelmayer held that AFDI's ad was "core political speech" protected by the First Amendment" with 5 citations. I can see with the above discussions that the article has had some controversies so I will not be removing any of the citations, having a lack of expertise in this area (although we editors are meant to be WP:BOLD so I may revisit this in the future). What do other editors think?Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a few places where a citation or two could be trimmed, but I don't think the overall ratio between word count and citations has any bearing on WP:OVERCITE. Some articles, such as this one, contain a lot of controversial and hotly contested content and can be expected to have more citations. The "widely described to be Islamophobic" sentence isn't so much overcited as it is non-neutral and improper synth. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it does seem to be SYNTHESIS. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

SIOA a Hate Group?

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists SIOA as a hate group.[10]

I went to reference 10; and found nothing that explicit said that SIOA was a "hate group", and I also question the credibility of the source as they are obviously biased. If SIOA said that the SPLC was a "hate group", would the Wikipedia Article on SPLC put that statement in the 1st paragraph of the article as if it was a fundamental truth about the organization, instead of a term of political rhetoric issued only to serve a larger political and social agenda?Jonny Quick (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ref 10 doesn't mention "hate group" but ref 17 does. SPLC has, annoyingly, made their site prettier but a lot less navigable since I last checked; nonetheless, SIOA is still verifiably on the hate map, as well as on the list of anti-Muslim hate groups. I'm sure I don't have to explain why the opinion of a long-established and well-regarded org as to who is a hate group matters while SIOA's does not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I am really on the fence over whether the SPLC's hate group designation should be included. On the one hand the SPLC is indeed a long-established group that is the de facto authority on hate groups. On the other hand the designation is arguably used as a factual assertion rather than as an opinion, in which case I'm not sure the SPLC is a reliable source per our standards. I see a lot of opinions in RSN but I haven't found any consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the usage of SPLC's hate group list reflects the routine usage by the media. A hate group was once a group that committed hate crimes. The SPLC achieved its reputation fighting white supremacists, who were hate groups committing hate crimes. The FBI only lists groups that commit hate crimes. As our article on hate groups notes, the SPLC is broader in that it "includes any group with beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people - particularly when the characteristics being maligned are immutable." As the SPLC has branched out beyond white supremacist groups, its research has become controversial. But the media continues to rely on its work based on the achievements of several decades fighting white supremacists who are hate groups that commit hate crimes. Our article on hate groups notes the concept is disputed and defined differently by different authors. I believe it is preferable to describe the facts (like the UK ban) instead of an opinion by SPLC although I respect that fact that the media routinely reports SPLC's judgment. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
...particularly when the characteristics being maligned are immutable... Being a Muslim is not "immutable", it is a choice, and the Koran has explicit instructions to Muslims to commit what can only be termed "hate crimes", and Islam has a centuries-long history of committing those crimes, up to and including the most recent executions by ISIS. Yet Islam is not considered to be a "hate group", but the organization that attempts to tell the truth about Islam IS considered a "hate group". I do not blindly accept the SPLC's (politically motivated) opinion, nor the fact that the mass-media blindly repeats it. If the case cannot be made that SIOA could be termed a "hate group" by some reasonable and objective standard (besides the fact that "everyone says so"), then Wikipedia should not be complicit in perpetuating the falsehood. Words mean things. To hell with the "reliable sources". As Forrest Gump used to say, "Reliable is as reliable does."Jonny Quick (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, this discussion is clearly a waste of time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Then why are you in it? My points are valid, and instead of responding to those points you change the subject to the value of your time. Is the discussion about SPLC's long-disputed (I've been reading the archived discussion pages) reliability, or the value of your time?Jonny Quick (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It should be mentioned because whenever academic writing or mainstream media (including Fox News) mention the SIOA, they routinely say they are a hate group. And the UK government used SPLC's evidence to exclude SIOA's founders from the UK and that position was upheld by the Court of Appeal. TFD (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
^ Yup. It's one of the most notable things about SIOA. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
If it's so "notable", then it should be easy to make an independent case that SIOA is "hateful".Jonny Quick (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You must be kidding, right? Have you read anything written by scholars about SIOA? You know, like in books? SIOA is the poster child for hatred of Islam in America. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, if the evidence is so overwhelming, then it should be easy to make a standalone conclusion that SIOA is a "hate group" and provide 3 examples of why this is true, rather than blindly relying on the fact that "everyone is saying it". Now you are saying it too. Please provide evidence to support your claim.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
TFD, if there are academics and mainstream media sources routinely saying SIOA is a hate group, then we should be able to say the same thing without attribution to the SPLC. Can you provide some examples? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said that they routinely mention that the SPLC calls them a hate group. Google book and news searches for "stop islamization of america" "hate group" for example shows that most sources attribute the ADL and/or SPLC.[8][9] I do not think we should say they are, per WP:LABEL, but should mention the SPLC calls them that. TFD (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thus far I find no SPLC list of "hate groups", no specific mention by SPLC that SIOA is a "hate group". The "citation 10" has been shown to not support the statement that SPLC lists SIOA as a "hate group" and this far no one has shown any evidence that SPLC does so. The Wikipedia Article on SPLC does not list the SIOA as a "hate group", however it DOES say that the list is "controversial" and it also says that SPLC lists the "Family Research Council" as a "hate group", and that point undermines whatever claims someone else would like to make about their "reliable source" status. The list is "controversial" and, in my opinion, ridiculous. So then the question is whether or not Wikipedia should be putting ridiculous, controversial and unsubstantiated claims in the 1st paragraph of the Lede, and how much effort are other Editors willing to invest in trying to do this?Jonny Quick (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, we have a) reliable sources and b) your opinion. Guess what Wikipedia prefers to use. // Liftarn (talk)

Garland Shooting

Why is this aspect of SIOA's history given such shabby treatment? It's the American equivalent of Charlie Hebdo, only this time the good guys won and the crazy Muslim terrorists were killed before they had the chance to do what they came to do. No mention of the Muslim terrorist's names, no mention of the Muslim terrorist's religion, no mention of the Muslim terrorists religious motivations, nor any mention of the Koran which exhorts Muslims to do exactly what they did. I'm left wondering what this evil "hate group" must have done to provoke the attack.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to expand on our coverage, have at it. Remember WP:BALASPS. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Often the reason something is given minimal coverage is that no editor has decided to spend their time expanding it. The shootings are covered at greater length in the main article about them. If you choose to expand it yourself, please take DrFleischman's advice. Avoid terms such as "good guys" for example. TFD (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: "good guys", I did that for provocative effect, trying to indicate the "dog bites man" irony of the situation. I wouldn't expect the encyclopedia to actually say that. I was trying to get a sense of level of support or opposition, and didn't consider it could simply be a lack of time, energy, desire, motivation, etc... I'll look into it. How best to present what I come up with, 1) to paste into the article and let it "sink or swim", or paste a "working copy" into the discussion pages for people to critique?Jonny Quick (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Assume good faith and do not provoke other editors. Most editors do not "support or oppos[e]" the group, but think the article should reflect reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Islamophobic

I have concerns about both the verifiability and the neutrality of the statement in the lead section that SIOA has been "widely described as Islamophobic." If there are reliable sources saying that the organization is Islamophobic then we should be simply stating that the organization is Islamophobic, no "widely described" or unreliable sources needed. If there aren't, and the sentence is based only on expressions of unreliable sources (such as the ADL), then the content needs to be re-written with appropriate attribution. My 2 cents. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Worry not, as there are now not only six separate published works specified to back the claim, but also the dedicated report on the organization itself which you referenced, written by the Anti-Defamation League. Fortunately, said report is primarily built around damning quotes taken directly from speeches given at their officially sanctioned events. To provide an example: "As we all know, America, New York and shari'a are incompatible… A tolerant society, like your city New York, must defend itself against the powers of darkness, against the forces of hatred, the blight of ignorance…. We must never give a free hand to those who want to subjugate us."
All and all, it's quite conclusive. But hey, good try mate. - TheMurgy (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you please explain how each of those sources both (i) satisfies our guideline on reliable sources and (ii) supports the "Islamophobic" label? Not a snark - I'm serious and I'm looking for a non-snarky answer. A report by the ADL is definitely not a reliable source, regardless of how reasonable it may appear. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia needs context

The sourced statements about this organization's supposed Islamophobia need some context. Has the organization advocated discrimination measures against Muslims or persecution of Muslims? Has it criticized specific aspects of Islam, such as the ones listed in the Criticism of Islam article? Has it been connected to the Counterjihad movement and views Islam as a totalitarian political ideology? Has it been connected to what the Islamic world views as a Crusading War against Islam? What is their stance towards the practice of Islamization?

A simple opposition to the building of a mosque is not in itself particularly befitting of the term. Per the article on the term mosque itself, modern mosques often serve as centers of political preaching and activity and quite a few recent ones are considered evidence of Saudi influence. Dimadick (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably the sources being used to source the label have more info. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Source removal

@Ktr101: if the sourcing is too much for the intro, can you propose another place in the article to restore it rather than removing quality sources entirely? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it would be a good idea to put their status or something as a section above the history? I would not be opposed to that, as I meant to write to you earlier but got caught up in grading and class. Binksternet (talk · contribs), what do you think of this idea? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It's difficult to give my opinion for a notional change which could be well-written and appropriate or poorly written and redundant. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Roscelese:, do you think a separate section could be done, which would incorporate the sources? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I think a separate section to say they're Islamophobic seems like a bad idea. In previous versions of the article I'd have suggested incorporating it into the Mission/Background section or whatever it was called, but that doesn't exist anymore and I don't support bringing it back. Why not just do what Binksternet suggested and include the text where it was, but condense the string of citations? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources saying the group is Islamophobic (or anti-Islam, I'm ok with considering that a synonym), then that seems sufficiently important to leave in the lead section. If instead we have a variety of unreliable viewpoints, then those viewpoints need to be laid out in a paragraph that would probably be too long to include in the lead. In that case it probably belongs in an "Ideology" section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I have no concerns with that, so let's do it! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What is this ideology section? An ideology is a comprehensive normative vision. I don't see any ideology articulated. Now we have in our article an unspecified ideology with an adjective calling it Islamophobic. Where does this come from? Not from the sources. Ernst doesn't talk about SIOA's ideology. He also doesn't call SIOA Islamophobic but mentions that the SPLC calls it a "hate group." (p126-7) We already have that so Ernst doesn't any anything. Kumar doesn't talk about SIOA's ideology but applies the word Islamophobic often. I question this source as possibly far-left fringe (she calls Obama an imperialist.) Davidson sees Islamophobia as a Zionist conspiracy according to the abstract but I can't read the article. Does he talk about ideology? Rice calls Geller an anti-jihadist; that the ads are Islamophobic; but no discussion of an ideology of SIOA nor is Islamophobic applied to SIOA itself.

We don't have an ideology for SIOA nor do the sources give us one. Let's drop the section. The additive "Islamophobic" is used as an adjective for the organization and that merely has to be mentioned in the lead with one or two citations (SPLC is enough as is the ADL.) Jason from nyc (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I see two problems embedded in your comment. The first is that the section isn't comprehensive / balanced / reflective of what "ideology" means. I agree but the way to fix this wouldn't be to delete the section , it would be to add balancing material, especially using statements from SIOA itself. The second issue is whether there is reliable sourcing that SIOA is in fact Islamophobic. On that front I share your concerns. (See section immediately above.) To say that without attribution or elaboration that the organization "has been called Islamophobic" seems to be non-neutral and possibly non-verifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Please don't give us this same old runaround, DrFleischman. The alternative to "has been called Islamophobic" isn't attribution, because there are so many different sources that "by scholars, civil rights watchdogs, religious leaders, journalists, and the UK government" is WP:POINTy. "Has been called" is the soft version of "is." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Rather than either of those, I'd prefer something that specifically identifies those who have called the organization Islamophobic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with using Islamophobic as an adjective as the sources do--to describe an attitude, prejudice, or bigotry. It just isn't an ideology. There is no comprehensive philosophy or system called Islamophobia. An ideology is a broad encompassing guiding philosophy. Kumar's book is about imperialism. Davidson addresses Zionism. I can see these as ideologies and if one could provide sources that this is SIOA's ideology and that their variant is Islamophobic, that would justify an ideology section. The ideology section is pretentious. I just don't see an ideology. Perhaps you want the group's "platform" but that is a shopping list of goals, not an ideology. I believe the lead is enough because there really isn't anything more to say. The rest of the article chronicles events. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said before I don't think having a separate section just for this is a good idea anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Jason from nyc, ok but this doesn't address the sourcing/attribution problem. If those who are describing the organization as Islamophobic are not reliable sources then in-text attribution is necessary, in which case we're probably talking about several sentences. That might imbalance the lead section. Your thoughts please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I think I see what you're saying. There are two issues. One is whether we can justify an "ideology" section. The other is supporting the qualifier "Islamophobic" or more exactly using it in Wikipedia's voice, expressing it as an assessment by some sources, or some other option. I didn't address that and, of course, we've discussed that many times in the past. I'm not sure reopening that discussion would lead to a new consensus. Besides we have "widely described as" with sources, a self-proclamation, and the ubiquitous SPLC summary judgment. I don't think we need more, certainly not by creating a section on ideology or worse, a dreaded "controversies or criticism section". I did express some concern about some of the citations in ref #2 but it wouldn't change the text. The label is indeed "widely" used and our job is to note that. Did I address your concern? Jason from nyc (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm saying, with two responses. First, if you look back over past discussions, many editors have expressed objections to the current wording; perhaps it is time for an RFC? Second, isn't using the word "widely" WP:SYNTH? None of the sources say anything about how broadly SIOA has been described as Islamophobic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Let me appreciate some of the problems. First we have this monster footnote in the lead. Secondly, the lead should sum up the article but we're summing up the footnote. Consequently, an "Ideology" section was born with just a single statement. I suppose a section called "SIOA's Goals and Purpose" could have elaborated on it's state purpose and then quote critics who see such claims as nothing more than a smoke screen for bigotry. Then the lead wouldn't need a footnote because it would be a summation of the text. The problem is that critics generally dismiss SIOA's positions and actions a bigoted on the face of it, just as one might dismiss "Jews control the world" as antisemitic without further comment. Perhaps the lead needs rewording but there's not much more to do than noting that SIOA claims to be fighting Islamism while critics see it taking aim at all of Islam. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
PS. I think you're right about "widely." Jason from nyc (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
If "widely" is synth because the reliable sources don't don't talk about how widely the group is known as Islamophobic - but rather mostly just do the actual describing - then logically "described as Islamophobic", rather than just "Islamophobic", is also synth. The sources mostly don't say that the group is "described", they just talk about SIOA's Islamophobia..... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, DrFleischman? You've had several weeks to achieve consensus for your change to the status quo and you have not succeeded. No one other than yourself is advocating the removal of "widely" and both Jason and myself have noted that that's what the sources support. Please revert yourself and stop trying to edit-war your version in. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Jason agrees with me that "widely" should be removed, and you didn't disagree. You merely said that other material should be removed as well. (As a side note, can we please try to keep the emotions toned down a bit more? No need for the "excuse me" or other less-than-fully-constructive comments you've left here. Please remember we're on the same side.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I did indeed miss Jason's PS about "widely" and was responding to his pointing out earlier that "widely" is what's supported by the sources. Per your comments earlier, I'm removing "described" as synth. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I do agree with Roscelese that the Islamophobia section is not needed. I know DrFleischman believed it could work if expanded. That hypothetical copy hasn't been written. As it currently is, it contributes nothing not found elsewhere; let's delete it. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Outspoken lies and brainswashing

Today, April 16th 2016, "Jews News" the world's largest and most active Jewish Facebook page in its own words, brought an article by Spencer in which he alleges the British paper "Daily Mirror" of suppressing the truth about a Jihadist bomb attack on Manchester Airport. The article seems to have done its purpose- mostly "Rednecks" are in arms against the Muslim world. Fact (!!!) is that nothing had happened that came close to an attack at the airport. A car had simply caught fire by accident and burnt out. Last year Pamela Geller issued a fake (!!) Facebook profile of that depression ridden German pilot Lubitz, turning him into a suicide bomber/jihadist to "deliver the truth" about the crash of his German Wings aircraft in France. It would just be too interesting to investigate how much of that fear mongering and mudslinging by this group takes place without the Israeli government knowing and masterminding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:59:E7D:6201:60DA:B485:AEAC:3805 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ideology

Regardless of how/where we include it, here's a very useful source that has information about SIOA's idology that goes well beyond what's currently included in our article:

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Organization of the Lead

The lead is being questioned by several editors, mostly IP editors. We discussed the lead in depth in May of 2014 (see archives) and perhaps it's due for another discussion. Instead of edit warring, I suggest getting a Wikipedia ID and join the consensus building by arguing for consensus in the talk page. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be talking about WiseguyBob who made this edit on April 3, along with other poorly thought-out edits such as this one. When that stuff was correctly reverted, WiseguyBob then re-appeared as Special:Contributions/117.215.192.226 geolocating to the state of Kerala in India, edit warring the same changes.[10][11] The IP demonstrated a previous knowledge of Wikipedia,[12] so he's probably evading scrutiny. More evasion came with the appearance of Special:Contributions/95.14.78.130 geolocating to Istanbul, Turkey, to edit war the same text as WiseguyBob.[13] So your appeal to "several editors" is aimed at one person likely using proxy servers to evade a block. I don't think we need to re-open discussion based on repeated visits by persona non grata. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think mass drive-by deletion of content/sources warrants discussion unless/until someone puts forth a meaningful argument for the deletion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Amazing, Binksternet, I'm somewhat behind the times with regards to the technology. I appreciate your time and work. My good faith welcome was apparently based on a mistaken assumption. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources for Islamophobic

The following sources do not appear to verify the contention that SIOA is Islamophobic:

I'm willing to agree that "anti-Islam" and "Islamophobic" are essentially synonyms. The CSM source doesn't say in its own voice that the SIOA is anti-Islam; rather, it quotes Steve Spreitzer saying the group is anti-Islam, and also includes a quote from Geller disputing the label. The Post-Gazette article doesn't describe the SIOA as either Islamophobic or anti-Islam.

(By the way, I am comfortable with the IBTimes source verifying the "Islamophobic" label, so I'm not proposing removing the label.)

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The other option is to revert even further to the point when we weren't using "Islamophobic" with Wikipedia's voice. Instead we can say that critics consider SIOA anti-Islamic/Islamophobic which it disputes. Keep the above sources and restore the ADL reference. This reflects the more typical source. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Jason, you're talking about the poster child of Islamophobia in the US, the group fanning the flames of hate, and you're wanting to remove the label? No, definitely not. Professor Peter Gottschalk describes the group as purposely fomenting Islamophobia.[14][15] Let's not whitewash the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't suggest removing the label. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Jason, if an organization is Islamophobic and there is reliable sourcing for that statement, and we remove that information to replace it with a statement that the organization has been described as Islamophobic, then we are removing reliably sourced content. Like Roscelese I am not in favor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The CSM describes SIOA's campaign as an "anti-Islamic campaign" and the Post-Gazette says that it fuels the flames of "Islam-bashing" and "anti-Muslim rhetoric", but sure, I guess they're just a neutral organization that happens to engage in Islamophobic activity. /sarcasm
I freely admit that when I looked at the change page I didn't notice that "Islamophobic" remained in the lede, so my annoyance is somewhat mitigated, but I also don't see the value in distinguishing "an extremist organization best known for its Islamophobic campaigns" from "an Islamophobic organization." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought one of us was going nuts because I couldn't find anything about an "anti-Islamic campaign" in the article... until I found it in the summary. Hum. I've never sourced anything to a news article summary before and I don't know if it's appropriate. I've always held the position that a headlines are not reliable sources (since they're designed to draw readers and are notoriously inaccurate) but I'm not as sure about summaries. Thoughts anyone? As for Islamophobic organizations versus their anti-Islamic campaigns, I can understand your position but this strikes me as stretching the meaning of the source. The source says the organization ran a single anti-Islamic campaign. That doesn't support the blanket statement that the organization is Islamophobic. I say stupid things all the time; that doesn't make me stupid. (Sorry I couldn't come up with a better analogy. Maybe I AM stupid.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe your problem (and others) is that you are cherry picking sources to support your statement. You want the article to say "SIOA is Islamophobic" so you pick sources that say only that. You don't want to say "X,Y,Z say it is Islamophobic but they say they're not" so you want to drop those sources. But those sources are valid as well. CNN's article on AFDI: [16] "Its name paints an image of a group dedicated to protecting American ideals. But critics call it the opposite -- an intolerant hate group opposed to freedom of religion." The ADL's [17] "Consistently vilifying the Islamic faith under the guise of fighting radical Islam, the group has introduced a growing number of Americans to its conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda."
This is just the right way to present the total context: They claim to be fighting radical Islam but on analysis critics find they are anti-Muslim (i.e. Islamophobic). Jason from nyc (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't speak for Roscelese, but I for one am by no means wed to any particular wording or terminology. I just want the content to be verified by the sources. If we have reliable sourcing that SIOA is Islamophobic, then we can say it's Islamophobic. If we don't, then we can't. Sources that say neither that SIOA is Islamophobic nor that it's not Islamophobic, but instead present a more nuanced picture, should not be cited in support of a statement that SIOA is Islamophobic. That's a straightforward application of WP:V. If we want to use these sources to summarize how SIOA's supporters and opponents view SIOA, then I have no problem with that, as long as we adhere to our policies and guidelines (most applicably, WP:NPV, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:WEASEL). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
We don't need a lecture in Wikipedia 101. We all know the concept of Verifiability. We are not talking about something known by direct perception. If a source close to Dr. Fleischman says he is light-skinned, we assume direct observation was sufficient. But if someone said Dr. Fleischman was a communist which he denies, we have a "he said, she said" situation. Such a conclusion, when denied by the subject, can be arrived at by an analysis. An analysis is performed by a reliable source; this suggests we mention "analysis say" or "critics say" since the subject denies such an attribution and an analysis is required to reach the conclusion. Notice the careful statements from my sources respects the context and complexity. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Holy smokes! You are trying to remake the group into something it is not. SIOA foments hatred, a hatred that is not as finely tuned as you describe it here. The group spouts a broad anti-other philosophy, even celebrating their stance by putting out coffee mugs printed with the wording "Islamophobia is the height of common sense." The result is that all Muslims are tarred with the same brush, the tar and brush supplied by SIOA. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
That's obviously not what I'm doing when I suggest we express ourselves like ADL or CNN. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we're getting a little far afield. My intention here was to discuss whether the CSM and Post-Gazette sources verify the "Islamophobic" label as currently written. So far only Roscelese and I have weighed in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your logic; I disagree with your premise. The citations made sense when the lead stated "... has been described as Islamophobic." I think we should revert to that lead. If not, the two citations you mentioned don't belong, for the reasons you give. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"Who" tag

@DrFleischman: How are you hoping to resolve your tag? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I propose separating the reliable from unreliable sources. We should state that the organization is Islamophobic without attribution and cite the reliable sources. Then we should determine which unreliable sources are notable and which are not. The non-notable unreliable sources should be omitted. The notable unreliable sources should be cited with in-text attribution per WP:INTEXT. So, it would look something like this:
"The SIOA has an Islamophobic ideology.(cite reliable sources) In (date), (so-and-so) condemned the SIOA for (such-and-such) and described the organization as (such-and-such).(cite so-and-so) In (date), (so-and-so) wrote a letter complaining that the SIOA was (such-and-such).(cite so-and-so). The SIOA responded by saying that it was not (such-and-such) but was instead (such-and-such).(cite SOIA)"
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, I continue to think the entire section is unnecessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The section in question is indeed in desperate need of a rework in presentation, as it's really not deserving a full section to itself now that the history section has been expanded, but unilateral removal of such extensively citationed entry is not the answer, Roscelese. I'd personally suggest simply relocating it, but I've held off for now, seeking your input before committing any further changes. TheMurgy (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not removing info, it's already elsewhere in the article. I just see no need to have a single-sentence section that repeats something we already say, and frankly removing it does also address Fleischman's frivolous tagging. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Group self-description

Anyone have a source for how the group describes itself? The previous content was from an unverified Facebook group:

It describes itself as a "human rights organization dedicated to free speech, religious liberty and individual rights."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Islamization-of-America/109113042509908?sk=info&tab=page_info|title=About Stop Islamization of America|publisher=Stop Islamization of America}}</ref>

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

SPLC source

Motsebboh, I don't understand this revert of my addition of a secondary source for the statement that the SPLC considers the SIOA a hate group. I was merely trying to reflect the community's preference for secondary sources over primary sources. Reverting in this situation seems counterproductive. If you don't like my choice of secondary source then by all means, pick a different one! As long as it's reliable I'll have no objection. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

First, allow me to apologize for a fatigue error, I guess, in using the term "homophobic" instead of "Islamophobic" [18] in the my most recent edit to the article. As for DrFleischman's addition of another source to a lead item. It was both unnecessary and poorly chosen. Lead items don't have to be sourced if they are already sourced in the body of the article, but if one does source a factual item in the lead, he/she shouldn't use what amounts to an opinion piece in an opinion magazine. Motsebboh (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I think I see a misunderstanding now. The source is used twice and it's good for the ideology section but not so much for the lead content.--TMCk (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Labels for extremist groups

Why is it that Wikipedia never calls anti-Semitic organizations far-left extremist, yet it libels this Jewish human rights organization that opposes Arab supremacism and racism as "far-right extremist" and "Islamophobic," which isn't even a real word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.40.112.194 (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The answer can be found above in the section entitled "Serious POV issues." Please pay close attention to EvergreenFir's careful analysis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stop_Islamization_of_America/Archive_2&oldid=871304187"