Talk:Stop Islamization of America

POV

On Wikipedia, anti-Semitic organizations are always described something like, "Organization X is a conservative organization based in the United States. Some have accused Organization X of being far-right. The ADL accuses it of promoting anti-Semitism." However, there is a trend on Wikipedia, including this article, that flat-out states in no uncertain terms that organizations critical of Muslims are "Islamophobic"; e.g., "Organization X is a far-right Islamophobic hate group." This bias needs to be addressed.

Additionally, left-wing organizations that are anti-Semitic are never accused of it in the article's introduction. If mentioned at all, it is far down in some "criticism" section.

This article's introduction would be neutral if it read something like, "Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) is an American anti-Islamist organization.[1][2][3][4][5] It is led by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. The president is Pamela Hall.[6] It has been accused of "Islamophobia" by CAIR and various left-wing media." Σαμψών (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That would not reflect reliable sources. If you are concerned with wording in other articles, then take up those issues there, instead of trying to make this article worse to match them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources is only one policy. This policy should conform to both WP:RS and WP:NPOV, not just policies that suit your personal POV. Σαμψών (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment suggests that there is a conflict between WP:RS and WP:NPOV, but that isn't the case. Indeed, NPOV is about reflecting the views of reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How is a source reliable if it lies? Besides, this article deceptively presents opinions as facts. Σαμψών (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is why I said that I don't think your problem is resolvable. If you're going to insist that we prioritize your own personal opinions over the views of reliable sources, we cannot accommodate your issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

All articles about anti-Semitic organizations present the opinions of reliable sources as opinions, like they should. This article presents the opinions of reliable sources as facts. These double standards should be corrected. The ADL is cited as a source in this article that "Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) is an American anti-Islam/anti-Muslim (Islamophobic) organization." However, in articles about anti-Semitic organizations, it is always cited like "The ADL has accused Organization X promoting anti-Semitism." Why is the ADL more reliable for citing "Islamophobia" than it is for citing anti-Semitism? Σαμψών (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the same point (or similar to the point) that I made above in the section "New Lead Needed."Jason from nyc (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sort of yes and sort of no. You and Samson (mind if I call you Samson?) are both promoting the same sort of biased and unacceptable wording, but your argument was that we should take SIOA's claims about itself in self-published sources at face value, while Samson is talking about how we generally handle these sorts of issues. Samson, can you provide an example of a group whose primary function is antisemitism that we don't call antisemitic? Anti-Muslim activities are all that SIOA does, so obviously it's reasonable to introduce them with that, but if there's a group that is largely or entirely devoted to being antisemitic, multiple reliable sources talk about it, and we frame it as an opinion, that might be a problem to solve in that article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In a lead in Article about any group, why are we not using what the groups describe themselves as rather than using what other groups are calling them?Nickmxp (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Because groups misrepresent themselves all the time. For instance, certain groups that oppose gay marriage represent themselves as being pro-marriage or pro-family, but all of their energy and funding go toward opposing gay rights rather than helping hetero marriages and families. Wikipedia finds it more relevant to describe a group using independent, third party reliable sources rather than primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not consider Southern Policy Law Center a reliable source anymore. They have acquired a reputation for making broad assertions without much proof. CAIR is certainly not a reliable source given their connections with terrorism. The ADL, too, is of questionable reliability. -- Frotz(talk) 02:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

but it would seem that using the opinion of a secondary source in an article about a group is not a very nuetral way to go about it.. you're basically describing a group through the eyes of another group...if someone claims they are misrepresenting that description it should most certainly be noted... but i don't see how one can call a lead in on an article about a group described by the point of view of another group as a nuetral point of view...it would seem to me it is group b point of view...I mean is Stop the isamization of Europe not an islamphobic group but their sister organization is simply because the labeling groups scope doesn't go that far? Nickmxp (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Article rewrite

This Wikipedia entry needs an extensive re-write. I will be changing the beginning to remove the obvious violation of NPOV.

I will also create a separate section for criticism which is currently mixed in with the history section. Livingengine1 (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean "I will explain the changes I wish to make and get consensus for them." You must have misspoken. (Also, a separate section for criticism is not desirable - it gives it undue prominence, among other things - see WP:CRITGHETTO.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is in clear violation of NPOV, and needs rewriting. If you have anything to say about this, I am all ears. Simply saying something like WP:CRITGHETTO without explaining what you mean by that, is not helpful.

I repeat, this Wikipedia article is not abiding by Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV, and I am asking you not to engage in another one of your edit wars. I am asking you to work together to improve this article, and leave your politics aside.2602:306:BCE6:B440:90FF:DE41:5351:FCF4 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what is it about the article that isn't neutral. For starters, is the article too pro-SIOA, or is it too anti-SIOA? StAnselm (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It is inaccurate, and biased against SIOA.2602:306:BCE6:B440:90FF:DE41:5351:FCF4 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's go with inaccuracies first - they're generally easier to resolve. What's inaccurate? StAnselm (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The link for the citation to this quote is broken. "promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam" and "seeks to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy 'American' values"

What is the rationale for not including criticism, and response sections in this piece? Livingengine1 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, a separate section for criticism is not desirable - it gives it undue prominence, among other things - see WP:CRITGHETTO. I'll fix the link so it goes to the originally cited piece. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese - what does "it gives it undue prominence" mean? It sounds like you are willfully violating Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV, as well as BLP. There is needs to be a "response to criticism" section. I am not kidding about this. Also, Pamela Hall is not the president of SIOA. This article is written by people who don't know anything about SIOA. Livingengine1 (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "undue prominence" does not occur in the link you provided. Again, I ask you why have you have chosen to weaponize Wikipedia in this way? Livingengine1 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources in which SIOA has "responded" to criticism? (Re Hall, I see that we have that info from the Daily Mail and NY Post, which are poor sources. I wouldn't have a problem removing it.) It seems like you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's basic policies; I would recommend that you go and familiarize yourself with them before getting overheated over non-problems and especially before spuriously name-dropping them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This is vintage Roscelese. Why won't you explain the reason for omitting a "response to criticism" section? Please explain how this is not a violation of NPOV, and BLP? I want to see, read your explanation, please. Livingengine1 (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The lack of any apparent sourcing for one is a pretty decent one. There's a reason my previous comment, which you completely ignored, asked for some reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Livingengine1 appears to have a problem with WP:IDHT. The editor must come up with some WP:SECONDARY sources, reliable ones, which contain responses to criticism. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. There is NO response to criticism written here. There is no way this is not a violation of NPOV, and BLP. If you dispute this, write it down for me, please, because I think your position indefensible. This article is in violation of Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV, and BLP. To claim there are no acceptable sources in response to this highly biased article is laughable, and highly revealing.

I will give you a decent interval to find some acceptable sources. If you are unable to that it will be further confirmation that you are unable to responsibly edit Wikipedia on this subject.

This article is in violation of Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV, and BLP. Livingengine1 (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We're done here, folks. This complaint is not actionable and can be ignored. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Farewell, and adieu, but the fact that this article is in violation of Wikipedia policy regarding WP:NPOV , and WP:BLP isn't going away. Livingengine1 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor Binksternet suggests I read the link to " Single-purpose account".

On this page, is a section called " Further information if you have been linked to this page". This section contains a link to Wikipedia policy regarding a neutral point of view.

Here is some of what can be found on the page regarding Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—the core policy that informs how pages are to be approached.

This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.

The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias.

Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.

Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. 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.

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.

Jimbo Wales qualifies NPOV as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Wikipedia policy on NPOV is very clear, and non-negotiable.

I am still waiting for an explanation of how two editors of long standing can fail to see that this article on SIOA is in clear violation of this core Wikipedia principal. Livingengine1 (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Time for protection?

I'm thinking of asking for semiprotection for the article. While there's not the flurry of high-speed vandalism that is often the reason for page protection, the vast majority of edits here are non-autoconfirmed users (frequently drive-bys) removing sourced text with no explanation, and that's reason enough to get a page protected and spare us the trouble reverting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, probably more than half the articles in the project as a whole should be protected, as they get more attention than this one. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So? I would also support protecting other pages where the edits were almost entirely disruptive, and have indeed submitted many such pages for protection in the past. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem citations in the lead

There are several citations in this article that are irrelevant to the claims being made or are typos:

• Ernst, Carl W. (2013). "Introduction: The Problem of Islamophobia". Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1137290080.

This is from an author who has written many books on studying Islam for Muslims. He is not an objective source.

• ^ Empty citation‎ (help)

Why was this re-added?

• ^ Davidson, Lawrence (May 2011). "Islamophobia, the Israel Lobby and American Paranoia: Letter from America". Holy Land Studies 10 (1): 87–95. doi:10.3366/hls.2011.0005.

This one is questionable at best given its use of antisemitic buzzwords.

• ^ Jump up to: a b Stephanie Price (July 28, 2010). "'Anti-Islamic' bus ads appear in major cities". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved January 31, 2012.
• ^ Jump up to: a b "Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA)". Extremism. Anti-Defamation League. September 14, 2010. Retrieved January 12, 2013.
• ^ EDL Invites US Anti-Muslim 'Hate Bloggers' Pam Geller and Robert Spencer to Speak at Woolwich Rally

At no point in this article is Islamophobia mentioned in any of these articles.

Futhermore, it is inaccurate to state that SIOA is in any way against Muslims. It is against Islam, specifically political Islam (aka Islamism) and Islamic fundamentalism. The lead paragraph in this article should state that. -- Frotz(talk) 03:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if your description of Carl W. Ernst, the Kenan Distinguished Professor of Islamic Studies at UNC Chapel Hill, were accurate, you're not going to get very far with "he's Muslim, he can't possibly be unbiased." The book's from an academic source. Holy Land Studies is likewise a perfectly respectable journal which you appear to be dismissing based only on the use of "Israel lobby" in the article title, which is a term that has been questioned by a small number but which is used by countless reliable sources, including those with Jewish authors. Sometimes reliable sources say things you personally disagree with; it's a bridge everyone has to cross. Cross it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

My problem with Ernst is not that he's Muslim, but that the work cited is not objective. An intellectually honest person will not use a bible-study text to support an assertion that some other perspective on religion is good or bad. Why, then, do you use it that way? And, no, I'm not dismissing the article based on the use of "Israel Lobby". If you check many of the remaining articles, you'll find that they describe SIOA as being against Muslims while at the same time quoting SIOA as reaching out to them. -- Frotz(talk) 04:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Frotz, your conclusion is not shared by scholars studying Islamophobia. They say SIOA incites hate against Muslims without differentiating between extremists and centrists. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have proof of this from objective sources? I would like to see them. -- Frotz(talk) 04:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Gottschalk and Beirich, for starters. Note that the Park 51 project was to to be used primarily by American Muslims who are largely apolitical, yet SIOA called down upon the project the hate of the masses. Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Didn't see this before pointing Frotz to our NPOV policy at his talk page. We are required to show differents points of view, the question of 'objectivity', a subjective concept in any case, is a red herring. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As I stated to Dougweller on my talk page: You shouldn't do the equivalent of citing a bible study textbook from the Church of Foo as reliable evidence that the Church of Bar is bad. That's essentially what was done by citing a book intended to help Muslims in their faith as evidence of badness of a group critical of Islam. I realize that "not objective" probably isn't the best way to describe this phenomenon. Any other ideas? -- Frotz(talk) 07:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No one is using such a text. I have no idea what makes you think Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, from Macmillan, is a "bible study" book. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Frotz, if you think a book from respected Palgrave Macmillan is an unsuitable source, I suggest that writing an encyclopedia is not for you. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at the other books written by that author? That's what I'm talking about. The publisher isn't terribly important -- Frotz(talk) 22:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Tagged for Violation of Wikipedia Policy regarding NPOV

This article is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV, and has been so labeled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If you fail to identify any issues, the tag will be removed as a drive-by. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by tag with no actionable complaint. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This article contains unreliable sources, that do not support the claims made. This article is so flagrantly in violation of WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP you are only hurting your own reputations. For example, Deepa Kumar is not a reliable source. The work left as a citation is riddled with error, and bias. Unacceptable as a reliable source. But, even she does not say SIOA is an "Islamophobic organization."Livingengine1 (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

However, it happens to be one of a large number of sources. If we removed the Kumar citation, the article text would remain the same. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumar is an associate professor at Rutgers University. Her expertise is on Media Studies and also Middle East Studies. She is a reliable source, no matter what are her politics.

The tag has no basis. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Numerous editors have remarked on the lack of neutrality of this Wikipedia article. The tag is most apt, and will remain until the partisan editors fix this problem. Livingengine1 (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• No, this tag will not remain, not until a valid argument is presented here. I have removed it and urge editors to think twice before tagging: it comes with the responsibility of making an acceptable case on the talk page--not "numerous editors" have commented on it. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The Case for Tagging this Article as Being in Violation of NPOV

Can any Wikipedia editor explain why none of the sources cited in the lede call SIOA "Islamophobic"? Also, take note of Deepa Kumar calling Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer "racists". Is this the position of Wikipedia? Why is there no "Response to Criticism" section here? If one reads the various newspaper articles cited in the lede, the structure is plain, a claim is made, and response is included. Why doesn't this Wikipedia article do that? Livingengine1 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This is from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette citation number 5 - "CAIR's national office is also airing a series of public service announcements educating people about what it calls growing Islamophobia and anti-Muslim bigotry."

This is the only occurrence of the word "Islamophobia" in the article, and it is from CAIR.

So, here we have the opinion of CAIR being expressed in the voice of Wikipedia.

Without some kind of counter-point or response to criticism, this article is in violation of WP:NPOV, and should be tagged as such.Livingengine1 (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to actually read the sources. Several of them have Islamophobia in the title, and others also describe the group as part of a rising tide of Islamophobia, as anti-Muslim, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to read what I am saying. These are opinions of groups like CAIR being given in the voice of Wikipedia. You also have not addressed Kumar's accusation of "racism". Is it your opinion that Spencer/Geller are racists?

Here, I am looking at citation 4 from the CSM http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0728/Anti-Islamic-bus-ads-appear-in-major-cities

The term "Islamophobic" is only used in reference to bus ads, not SIOA. I could go on. I am seeing a definite pattern of bias here. This article is in clear violation of WP:NPOV, and should be tagged as such. If what you are saying is that various newspapers are calling SIOA "Islamophobic" (I don't think they are) then you need to say that is their opinion, and express it in a voice other than Wikipedia's. I am not the first person to point this out to you, Roscelese.

For Drmies to claim that a case hasn't been made that this article is in violation WP:NPOV is ridiculous. Livingengine1 (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother engaging with you further until you begin to meet the basic requirements for editing controversial articles on Wikipedia, such as reading sources and policy. Don't waste your time with more walls of text, and certainly don't repeat your vandalism or you will be reverted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

More threats, and no response to demonstrations of bias. Here we are at citation number 6 , the ADL backgrounder. http://archive.adl.org/main_extremism/sioa-a.html#.UvbYLLStaoJ

Search for the term "Islamo", and you get a "phrase not found" I could go on. The article is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV, and is being used by unprincipled editor to advance their prejudices, and it is up here for the whole world to see.Livingengine1 (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving on to citation number 7 from the IBTimes. A search for the term "Islamo" produces no results. I could go on. This article is in clear violation of WP:NPOV and should be tagged, and fixed.http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/edl-woolwich-pam-geller-robert-spencer-muslims-481268 Livingengine1 (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Finally, citation number 8 from The Guardian which never mentions SIOA, or Geller at all. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/12/ground-zero-mosque-islamophobia

I could go on. This article is a complete mess. It is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, and should be tagged, and fixed. Roscelse do you have anything to say, other than threats, and insults in response to what I am saying here? Livingengine1 (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I was going to list what the sources had to say about the subject and how they talk about Muslims (the sources, not CAIR or whatever), but this discussion with these editors is like talking to a brick wall. Livingengine here goes and search for the word "islamo" and can't find it--in an article that calls Geller and Spencer anti-muslim hate bloggers in its title, and refers to them as "extreme anti-Islamic activists" in its opening sentence. Yeah, that's pretty much what islamophobia is about. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Drmies - Again, what is being reported in the citations is someone's opinion. This needs to be off set with a response from, let's say, someone from SIOA. What is wrong with that? Livingengine1 (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Drmies - This bit about "extreme anti-Islamic activists" is the opinion of Timur Moon, a reporter. Why are you giving this undue prominence? I am not being a brickwall (there you go with the language, again) I am showing you specifically what is wrong with this article, and why it is in violation of WP:NPOV. I am not objecting to Timur Moon's opinion, I am objecting to the lack of a response to criticism section, or of any kind of objectivity, or balance in this piece. It is in violation of WP:NPOV.Livingengine1 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Drmies - I have to point out that the IBTimes not characterizing SIOA as "Islamophobic" is not an insignificant detail. Without this coming from the IBT, calling SIOA "Islamophobic" is original research, and again is in violation of WP policy. I am not posing, or being a brickwall, I am telling you the truth. Livingengine1 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Drmies - I also notice that you removed citation number 8 which never mentions Geller, or SIOA. This was after I brought that up on the talk page here. So, characterizing me as a brickwall is not appropriate. Livingengine1 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Can you please stop with these empty lines in between sentences? What you say is simply meaningless. Do you really think that what newspapers and books report are "personal opinions"? Stop talking about Wikipedia policy. I don't think you understand it. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am also right about none of the newspaper citations are calling SIOA Islamophobic. But on the basis of this Wikipedia is calling SIOA "Islamophobic". This is original research, and in violation of Wikipedia policy.Livingengine1 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Timur Moon's opinion? That's not going to fly. The headline of an article in an online newspaper that has editorial control calls them anti-Muslim and you think it's an "opinion"? You need to read WP:RS. Furthermore, the IBT called them anti-Muslim. The OED defines "Islamophobia" as Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims. It is your serious and straight-faced claim that if we cite a source that says "anti-Muslim" to support a sentence about "Islamophobia" it is original research? Please explain better, because I don't understand. Maybe you should try that idea out at WP:RSN and see how it flies.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

" It is your serious and straight-faced claim that if we cite a source that says "anti-Muslim" to support a sentence about "Islamophobia" it is original research?"

Yes. Islamophobia is an ill defined term. You can look this up on Wikipedia. It is perfectly appropriate to say that so, and so, who is a reliable source said such, and such. But that is not what is being done. Instead, what amounts to an editorial is being translated into the voice of Wikipedia saying something that the source did not say.Livingengine1 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Update on Breivik

Included update on Anders Breivik confession that his murders were an effort to discredit the counter-jihad movement.

I have again included this relevant material about Breivik. http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fexpo.se%2F2014%2Fbreivik-vill-deportera-illojala-judar_6336.html Livingengine1 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Included Response from Pamela Geller to CAIR Remark About Smoke Screen

"Pamela Geller, who leads Stop Islamization of America, said the adverts were designed to help provide resources for Muslims who were fearful of leaving the faith."

Included Response from Robert Spencer About SPLC Labeling SIOA as a Hate Group

"SIOA Associate Director Robert Spencer pointed out "That the SPLC would list SIOA and not CAIR as a hate group shows the hollowness and political motivation of the SPLC's classifications," Spencer said. " http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/human-rights-organization-sioa-vows-to-fight-far-left-propaganda-groups-hate-group-designation-116957253.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Included Statement of Support from Wall Street Journal

Wall Street Journal in support of anti-jihad ads “Call a Terrorist a ‘Savage’? How Uncivilized” - See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2012/10/wall-street-journal-in-support-of-anti-jihad-adscall-a-terrorist-a-savage-how-uncivilized-.html/#sthash.PYFjRuou.dpuf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you try to put new sections at the bottom? You're making it really, really hard to follow the discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Breivik's confession

I just removed this:

Breivik has since confessed to being a Nazi, and that his atrocity was designed to discredit the "counter jihad movement". <ref>{{cite web|last=Idag|first=Expo|title=Breivik wants deporting "unfair Jews"|url=http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fexpo.se%2F2014%2Fbreivik-vill-deportera-illojala-judar_6336.html}}</ref>

First of all, this is not an article about Breivik; we don't need every detail about Breveik in the lead of this article. Breivik's mentioned in the lead in a sentence that's about SIOA. That doesn't mean we need a string of random facts in the lead of this article explaining the secret truth behind Breivik's actions. The lead, per WP:LEAD, should summarize the body of the article. Second, the google translate version of the article didn't even support the sentence cited to it. Even if it had, though, this doesn't belong in the lead.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the supporting sentence concerning Breivik. "He says that he sent a manifesto "counterjihadistisk" rhetoric to protect the "ethno-nationalist" and instead launch a media drive against anti-nationalist counter-jihad supporter"

The inclusion of this statement apt, and revelent as it goes to show that Heidi Beirich's OPINION about Breivik is not supported by facts such as Breivik's own statements. This is not a random fact, but relevant to the statement made by Beirich, and is necessary to maintain balance in this article, and be in line with WP:NPOV. I will put this back in article, unless you have any objection which you can post here. Livingengine1 (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, don't put it back. The article is not about Breivik. That Geller may have inspired him is a different matter: you are trying to synthesize something that exculpates this organization. Your ongoing jihad against Beirich is noted, and of course completely misses the point. One could be "inspired" by many things, not all of which in the same ideological field. It sucks, I know, but the world is a bit more complicated than that. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that this article is not about Breivik, but I did not bring him up. This inclusion of Heidi Beirich's OPINION about Breivik/Geller is not supported by reality, and without some sort of responce is giving undue prominence to fallacious OPINION. What do you propose in way of a balanced response to HB's OPINION? Livingengine1 (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What do I "propose in way of a balanced response" to HB's professional opinion, set out in a book published by A & C Black? I know! How about a brief quote from the ravings of a deranged killer she discusses in her book!!! That'll certainly satisfy WP:NPOV. Seriously, you're equivocating on the meaning of the word "opinion." In this case it means a professional judgement, like a doctor's opinion. The profession and the credentials of the opinion's author give it weight. HB's opinions, as she is a professional and they are published in a book by a reputable publisher which exercises editorial control over the contents of its work, are taken more seriously here than whatever Breivik wants to say now about what his motives are. You might as well go over to Ted Bundy and try to convince them that his denials deserve equal weight to the sources they use in that article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

HB's professional opinion is just that, an opinion. In this case it is not supported by reality. Here is something you can try. Show us here where HB's opinion is supported by any facts. That Breivik would say he is a Nazi, and that he did what he did, is just as relevant as any opinion of Heidi Breirich. I am not excusing what Breivik did, I am simply pointing out that HB's opinion is not supported by the facts. Livingengine1 (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't support things by reality here. We support them by what reliable sources tell us is reality. Her opinion is supported for the purposes of Wikipedia by the fact that her work satisfies both WP:RS and WP:V. Breivik's does not. Your theories don't either. It's really that simple.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Her opinion is not supported by any facts, sir. Can you show us where Breivik said he was inspired by Geller? Does HB support this claim with any facts? To claim that reality is irrelevant is an extreme position, and I have point out, that with out some kind of substantiation, claiming that Geller had anything to do with Breivik is a violation of WP:BLP, particularly when there is evidence to the contrary. Livingengine1 (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, read your own opinions on original research in the section above. You seem to be opposed even to using dictionary definitions of words if they're not used literally in the source. Now you want us to contradict what a source says explicitly because of "reality"? Keep your stories straight, friend.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you are over analyzing. I am simply pointing out that this article is in violation of WP:NPOV.

My suggestion is to remove the reference to Breivik, because SIOA has nothing to do with him. If you want to include the opinion of HB concerning Breivik/Geller than you are bound by Wikipedia policy to include relevant facts such as Breivik contradicted this claim. Unless your intention is to stigmatize SIOA, I really don't understand your resistance to this.Livingengine1 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And I think you're underanalyzing and also evading the issues. Why should Breivik get to respond to what is written about him in a peer-reviewed academic publication? It's beyond belief that you seriously think WP:NPOV would require such a thing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Alf, It is not a matter of whether Breivik "gets" to do anything. It is a matter of giving a balanced portrayal of the facts. I think the way forward on this is to remove any implications that Geller inspired Breivik to kill. Just leave that out. It isn't supported by the factsLivingengine1 (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Luckily we have reliable sources commenting on the issue, telling us that it is important. Your version of the "facts" is not. Binksternet (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Too much detail in the lead

I think that this paragraph, especially the part about Breivik, is too much detail for the lead:

The group's opposition to [[Park 51]], a Muslim community center proposed for lower Manhattan, generated a lot of publicity in 2010.<ref name=Beirich2013>{{cite book |url=http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EUhMAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA89 |pages=89–92 |chapter=Hate Across the Waters: The Role of American Extremists in Fostering an International White Consciousness |last=Beirich |first=Heidi |editor=Ruth Wodak, Majid KhosraviNik, Brigitte Mral |title=Right-Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse |publisher=A&C Black |year=2013 |isbn=1780932456}}</ref> Norwegian mass-murderer [[Anders Behring Breivik]]'s widely published anti-Muslim manifesto quoted Spencer at length and, according to Heidi Beirich of the [[Southern Poverty Law Center]], was, in part, inspired by Spencer's and Geller's work.<ref name=Beirich2013/>

I would propose placing it somewhere below and summarizing it briefly. The sentence about Breivik isn't really about the group itself, either, so if it's moved to the body as I propose, it should be reflected only by a brief mention in the lead, I think.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, if the paragraph is slimmed down and it's made clear that the Park 51 stuff was their ticket to fame (which is what the body seems to bear out), then it serves a legitimate function. Breivik really has no place in the lead, as far as I'm concerned. If you could pull a thing or two, perhaps the cooperation with the SIOE as a founding principle, out of the article you could use that to beef up the paragraph. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Made some tweaks alf; see what you think. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's good. What do you think about just slapping the Breivik thing down in the history section in chronological order?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• No problem at all, alf: why don't you just go ahead and move it. Perhaps at some point there will be enough information to divide the article into more sections, but they're really just small fry, so anywhere you like is fine. (I just spent some time trying to figure out why you'd want to be EricBarbour, who's from before my time--I don't have a clue. Is it the vacuum tubes?) Sorry, yeah, I'm used to writing longer sentences. :) And thanks for getting the ball rolling. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it. Someone once accused me of being a sockpuppet of Eric Barbour's, maybe during the Qworty wars, and I made that for a joke. I can't remember the context any more, but no doubt someone somewhere does, so I leave it up there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Goals before History

I think the Goals section should precede the History section. Isn't that the usual style, letting the organization describe itself before the Criticism History section? --71.178.50.222 (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

We have plenty of real sources for history, while Goals is all self-published nonsense, so no, I disagree. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Beirich on Geller

If folks would take a minute to read page 90 of the article Beirich wrote, where she claims Geller inspired Breivik, folks would see that Beirich gives no evidence whatsoever for the claim. Because she gives no evidence for the claim, it should be removed from our article. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: Drmies and alf walla walla are doing a heck of a job on improving the article! --71.178.50.222 (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to Remove, or Respond to the Opinion of Heidi Breirich

HB's unsubstantiated opinion is a violation of WP:BLP without the inclusion of some kind of response, and should be removed Livingengine1 (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC) I have added a qualification to Beirich's statement on Spencer/Geller which clarifies the pair had nothing to do with Breivik's decision to kill.Livingengine1 (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You have no source for that. You'll need one to keep that bit in the article. The source which is cited in the paragraph—Beirich—does not say that the killer was not inspired by SIOA people. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You are being too finicky. Without some kind of qualification here the implication is that Breivik was inspired by Geller to kill. Breirich does not say Geller was the inspiration for Breivik's killing. Why don't you help us out, and come up with some language that clarifies this important point. Livingengine1 (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Heidi Beirich says that the killer "acted on his own" but that "the ideology that fuelled his shooting spree derived from a number of racist and anti-Islamic sources." Beirich lists the SIOE and the EDL as important sources for the killer's ideology. But Beirich emphasizes that "the primary sources for the anti-Muslim propaganda that had helped give voice to Breivik's manifesto were American." Beirich describes how Breivik was very deeply into Robert Spencer's writings. Beirich says that "Breivik also drew inspiration from anti-Muslim American blogger and close Spencer ally Pamela Geller." Beirich describes how Geller and Spencer formed SIOA which is "closely allied" with SIOE. Beirich starts the next paragraph by saying "The relationships between Breivik, Spencer, Geller, the EDL, SIOA, etc. reveal a thickening web of connections between individuals and groups on the extreme right in the United States and Europe."

This text from Beirich shows that the ideology of Spencer and Geller helped bring Breivik to his fatal actions by fuelling his hate-filled ideology. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop wasting your time, guys. Livingengine1 is not and never will be interested in improving the article - WP:DFTT, just revert any bad edits. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, in his court statement on 2012-06-04, Breivik says all his "ideological role models" did not support violence; that includes Spencer, Geller, Fjordman, Bat Yeor and others. How is one inspired to violence by writers who don't support violence? He distinguishes between "ideological" and "methodological" role models. He says his methodological role model is Al Qaeda. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Crusades? Auto-da-fé? Et cetera...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Did he mention Crusades and autos-da-fé as his methodological role models for violence, in his court statements? I only searched for Spencer and Geller. I guess I'll have to go back and look. (My wild guess is that he chose a more modern "methodological role model" of violence for changing society). --71.178.50.222 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be obscure. I was giving other examples of violence inspired by role models who don't support violence. Killers are often liars, you know. It's not often reasonable to trust their explanations for why they're doing what they do.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

after the killings but before it was known

I just removed this:

Upon hearing of the mass murder case but before it was known that the killer was anti-Muslim, Geller posted warnings on her blog against "ignoring jihad" and allowing Muslim terrorists to act violently.<ref name=Saletan2011>{{cite journal |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/07/christian_terrorism.html |last=Saletan |first=William |authorlink=William Saletan |title=Christian Terrorism – If Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism, are Muslim-bashers responsible for the massacre in Norway? |date=July 25, 2011 |journal=Slate }}</ref>

Now, how does this sentence tell us anything about *this* organization? If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in Geller's article. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts: A good faith removal from this article would be accompanied by the transfer of this material to the Geller biography. Instead, it is part of a general reduction of the importance of the Breivik murder paragraph, one which is not called for since Heidi Beirich says the Breivik murders were an important part of SIOA's notoriety. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

According to what, the Binksternet rules of AGF? I don't want to edit that article. I'm trying to make this article readable to people who aren't so up on the arcane details of this matter as you seem to be. Right now, it's not. If it's possible to write a reasonable, readable, generally understandable paragraph (or ten paragraphs, or whatever) about links between Breivik and this group, I'm all for it. What we had before was none of these things, and the 2012 material is much worse. This sentence is the worst of the bunch, though, because it's specifically about Geller only and what she did before anything about Breivik was known. Her actions during that period can't possibly be related to a connection between Breivik and her group because nothing was known about the connection at the time.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Saletan article

I just removed this:

After Breivik's manifesto was published, [[William Saletan]] wrote in ''Slate'' how Geller, Spencer, and other anti-Muslim individuals and groups were connected to Breivik's ideology and his killings.<ref name=Saletan2011>{{cite journal |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/07/christian_terrorism.html |last=Saletan |first=William |authorlink=William Saletan |title=Christian Terrorism – If Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism, are Muslim-bashers responsible for the massacre in Norway? |date=July 25, 2011 |journal=Slate }}</ref>

Saletan doesn't talk about SIOA, but about Geller in particular. I think this material would be more appropriate in her article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Take another look, please. Saletan refers to the far-right counter-jihad movement of which SIOA is a part; he refers to "Pamela Geller's Hate Group" which can only be SIOA, as there is no other; and he quotes a blogger who says "Breivik is a product of the groups and causes Pamela Geller continues to promote." What groups and causes might those be? SIOA is of course the group, and anti-Islamic racism is the cause. An elementary level of reading comprehension tells the reader that Saletan is not talking about Geller acting alone but Geller within the larger anti-Islamic effort she is involved with. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Saletan is saying that a bunch of bloggers blamed Breivik on Geller and that Geller denied it. Saletan is not saying that "Geller, Spencer, and other anti-Muslim individuals and groups were connected to Breivik's ideology and his killings." I don't mind a sentence or three saying roughly that "a bunch of bloggers blamed Breivik on Geller and SIOA but Geller denied it." However, it seems inaccurate to say that Saletan "wrote...how Geller, Spencer, and other anti-Muslim individuals and groups were connected to Breivik's ideology and his killings." It seems to me that he does no such thing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Geller's denial

I just removed this:

Geller denied the connection, saying it was "absurd and offensive" to link Breivik's killings to SIOA.<ref name=Saletan2011>{{cite journal |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/07/christian_terrorism.html |last=Saletan |first=William |authorlink=William Saletan |title=Christian Terrorism – If Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism, are Muslim-bashers responsible for the massacre in Norway? |date=July 25, 2011 |journal=Slate }}</ref>

Again, if she was denying a connection between Breivik and SOIA it wasn't in response to Saletan's allegations; he's just quoting various blogs in his article and doesn't connect Breivik and SOIA. I think this belongs in Geller's article as well.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you really want to deny Geller the right to deny the connection? Her response has been quoted by many observers, so I think it is important enough for this article. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Conor Friedersdorf

I just removed this:

[[Conor Friedersdorf]] wrote in the ''[[The Atlantic]]'' that Geller, Spencer and conservative commentator [[Mark Steyn]] should not be blamed for the killings, even though Breivik shared their belief that the multicultural liberalism of Europe was allowing a "Muslim takeover".<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/anders-behring-breivik-and-the-anti-jihadist-blogosphere/242533/ |title=Anders Behring Breivik and the 'Anti-Jihadist' Blogosphere |last=Friedersdorf |first=Conor |authorlink=Conor Friedersdorf |date=July 26, 2011 |journal=The Atlantic}}</ref>

Too much detail that is not about SIOA.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a notable person commenting on the connection. It's one sentence summarizing that whole article. It's about Spencer and Geller, SIOA's only two founders, thus about SIOA, as seen by Nathan Lean in his article in the Los Angeles Times. Your wish to reduce this section for undue emphasis would be laudable except that the SIOA gained notoriety from the Breivik killings, according to Heidi Beirich, and the paragraph about Breivik/Geller/Spencer is important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nathan Lean

I just removed this:

[[Nathan Lean]], author of ''The Islamophobia Industry'', wrote in the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' that Breivik's killing spree was inspired by the Islamophobia of Geller, Spencer and SIOA. Lean said the "growing threat" to the U.S. was not "Muslim-led terrorism" per warnings by SIOA, but SIOA's own "right-wing extremism".<ref>{{cite news |url=http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/26/opinion/la-oe-lean-breivik-hate-groups-u.s.-20120826 |title=Norway's sane killer |last=Lean |first=Nathan |date=August 26, 2012 |newspaper=Los Angeles Times}}</ref>

I really just think this is all too much about Breivik. There's some way to use this source, probably, but I don't think this is it. The link in the article between Breivik and SIOA is tenuous whereas it's quite clear between Breivik on the one hand and Geller and Spencer on the other.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Heidi Beirich, who you acknowledge as an expert on the topic, says that the Breivik mass-murder case is tied to SIOA, Geller, Spencer, SIOE, EDL—all of these elements strongly interconnected. Any time that Spencer and Geller are both mentioned, SIOA is involved as it is the child of Spencer and Geller. The two do not operate in a vacuum with regard to one other. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

On calling out Geller and Spencer specifically

This thing about calling out Geller and Spencer specifically is getting way off-topic. Could we compromise and agree on language reading something like this? "SIOA was cited by Breivik along with a laundry-list of other groups including Al Qaeda[1] and Naziism[2] for inspiration." That should satisfy those who want to mention Geller and Spencer and those who believe the same are being libeled. -- Frotz(talk) 23:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Too brief. Who's going to satisfy those who of us who are in neither of your falsely dichotomized factions? Who speaks for complete but readable material? Obviously your version underplays the role of Geller, Spencer, and SIOA by putting them on a par with a "laundry list" when we have a source that gives G, S, and their organization a larger role. The problem I have with much of the material discussed above is not its due weight but in some cases its relevance and in others its accuracy in representing the sources its cited to. These concerns are best discussed one sentence at a time. Others, I have no doubt, will weigh in above. TL;DR: you're leaving out too much for my taste.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Frotz, you are downplaying the importance of Spencer's writings in regard to Breivik's manifesto. Beirich writes that Spencer and Geller, the American anti-Islamics, were the main part of Breivik's manifesto. They were not down at level 7 or 8 on some laundry list; no, they were at the top, Spencer at the very top.

By the way, watch yourself that you do not violate WP:No legal threats. You wouldn't want to get blocked. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Is attributing the belief that a tort has been committed to unnamed editors without claiming to believe that a tort has been committed a legal threat?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, in his court statement on 2012-06-04, Breivik says all his "ideological role models" did not support violence; that includes Spencer, Geller, Fjordman, Bat Yeor and others. How is one inspired to violence by writers who don't support violence? He distinguishes between "ideological" and "methodological" role models. He says his methodological role model is Al Qaeda. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC) (copied from above)

Is there any reason why anyone here should care what Breivik says about his motives?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what Breivik's motives were. I don't think he should be mentioned here at all. The motivations of a madman are not rational and ultimately not particularly notable. My suggestion was merely an attempt to placate those who want to mention him. -- Frotz(talk) 00:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think you cared. My response was directed at only 71.178.50.222.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Because sometimes you don't have to read a person's mind to figure out what motivates him—sometimes he tells you what motivates him? (Are you also dismissing the 2083 manifesto? This discussion is about what "inspired" Breivik). --71.178.50.222 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody here is going to put Breivik's words into this article without having passed through a WP:SECONDARY source. That means the things Breivik says in court do not concern us, not until they are reported by a reliable source (not FrontPage.) The reliable source that is directly in front of us is the Heidi Beirich book which connects all the dots, saying Breivik was influenced by SOIA, especially Spencer. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's right (except it's SIOA). No weight to Breivik's explanations without a secondary source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

General discussion of how much space to give to Breivik and associated issues

Maybe we can discuss how much if any space should be given to Breivik and why? On the one hand, I can see an argument for none, parallel to the argument that keeps stuff about the Spanish Inquisition out of Jesus. I can see an argument for some, given that there's good sourcing. What I can't see is summarizing point-by-point every article on Breivik that mentions Geller, Spencer, and SIOA. I propose that we have a few short sentences based on whats-her-name, since that's the most solid source we have to tie them together. I also propose we leave out descriptions of the blog attack on G, S, SIOA and their responses to it. None of that is described in secondary sources except newspapers, including opinion pieces, and I'm loathe to judge the proper weight from such sources. Anyway, maybe if we can come to a general agreement first, it'll be helpful in negotiating the details.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edits, alf, have greatly improved the article. The problem with the article starts with the lead sentence, which describes SIOA incorrectly and slurs it as "islamophobic". SIOA is more accurately described as anti-jihad and anti-Sharia. "Islamophobic" is a political slur that has no place in an encyclopedia article. Geller herself denies being anti-Muslim. Specifics: "What-her-name" isn't a solid source for anything except her own political opinions whether they're printed by a reputable publisher or elsewhere. Two sentences about Breivik is plenty. In other words, the status quo is OK except for the second of the two sentences—Spencer is named 54 times in the manifesto, Geller is named once; can they both be "the primary sources" for the manifesto? That second sentence needs further investigation. (I've already pointed out that Breivik's model for violence was al Qaeda, not Spencer or Geller; so, whats-her-name got it wrong—she was trying too hard and reached too far.) --71.178.50.222 (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're wrong about "Islamophobia" being a slur. It's a word with a meaning, and it fits here per the sources. As I said above, the OED has it, and it means Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims. We don't ordinarily distinguish in our language between people who are prejudiced against a group in all possible ways and those who are merely prejudiced against them in some ways. E.g. someone who says "I don't hate white people, I just hate white people with characteristics X, Y, Z" is still a racist, ne c'est pas?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk • contribs) 04:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What's up with the Freedom Defense Initiative vs. SIOA?

All the sources in the 2012 and 2013 sections refer to the Freedom Defense Initiative. They all mention that it's headed by Geller. Newspapers since 2010 all distinguish between the two groups. There is no mention of the FDI in this article before the 2012 section. American Freedom Defense Initiative redirects to here. What's going on? Shouldn't we get this basic information straight in the article? I'm assuming that what happened is that Geller and Spencer put up the initial ads in May 2010 using the rubric of the FDI. That's what the AP said at the time, anyway. Then later whats-his-name Pedersen asked them to join up with his gang of Europeans? Do I have this right?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I see, the links are all dead but only point to self-sources. OK, I suppose no one's ever going to know what happened there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

alf, could you change the article to say American Freedom Defense Initiative? It's AFDI on their website. (Several of our references don't even mention SIOA, just AFDI.) Thanks. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. Most of the newspapers don't have the "American" tacked on, although some do.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done You hit this nail on the head, and we didn't even need to self-source it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"mentioned the advertisements creating"

I just removed this:

In late December 2012 both [[Al-Jazeera]] and [[Salon (website)|Salon]] mentioned the advertisements creating an anti-Muslim atmosphere that led to the December 27, 2012, murder of Sunando Sen, who was killed by a subway train after being pushed onto the racks by Erika Menendez, and similar acts of violence. Menendez told police: "I pushed a Muslim off the train tracks because I hate Hindus and Muslims."<ref>Murtaza Hussain, [http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/20121230135815198642.html Anti-Muslim violence spiralling out of control in America], [[Al-Jazeera]], December 31, 2012.</ref><ref>Wajahat Ali, [http://www.salon.com/2012/12/31/death_by_brown_skin/ Death by brown skin], [[Salon (website)|Salon]], December 31, 2012.</ref>

This sentence strikes me as a misrepresentation of what the sources say. They actually don't say the ads "created an anti-Muslim atmosphere." In fact, the Salon one says Although Islamophobes did not cause the NYC murder, they contaminate civil society with their toxic ideological fuel and remain a beacon for bigots, hate-mongers, and the mentally unhinged, all of whom emerge from the same diseased infrastructure. Both articles pose a rhetorical question as to whether the ads had a causal role in the murder. None of them will say it outright, and I don't think either is reliable for the statement they're meant to support. In fact, I think they're primary with respect to that statement.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That quoted sentence is apalling in that it suggests that we are only free to do that which could not possibly serve as an excuse for violent, insane, and/or lying people to cause trouble. -- Frotz(talk) 04:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

True. And the sad thing is that what could serve as such an excuse is only determinable ex post facto, because who can predict this kind of thing, what with the radio beams into people's heads and all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The Salon one says "In light of SIOA’s recent propaganda in NYC subway stations, it is not far-fetched to wonder if Menendez’s hate toward Sen was in some way influenced by these ads." That's pretty clear-cut. We don't necessarily have to keep the content as it originally was, but we do have these sources on the ads and the climate they created, which ought to be kept in some form. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You think it's not far-fetched to wonder if is clear-cut support for mentioned the advertisements creating an anti-Muslim atmosphere that led to the December 27, 2012, murder of Sunando Sen? Really? Why? It's obviously a serious hedge. I mean, you could possibly write something like mentioned that the author considered that it wouldn't be strange if people wondered whether the ads created an atmosphere but had too much journalistic integrity to actually wonder in print, but that's hardly relevant to this article. The Salon article explicitly says Although Islamophobes did not cause the NYC murder. Saying that the advertisements creating an anti-Muslim atmosphere that led to the December 27, 2012, murder with that as a source strikes me as a serious misrepresentation. I mean, we can wait for others to comment, or we can take it to RSN right now, since we have a clear case of a sentence being supported by a source. It's what they do over there. I'm happy to wait, but if you're in a hurry I'll be happy to bring it there, or you can.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, we can definitely work on changing the wording; I just disagree with total removal. The smallest possible change might be "might have led," but we could go further. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

spraypaint

I just removed this:

Journalist [[Mona Eltahawy]], who sees the ad as equating Muslims to "savages,"<ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-09-26/news/34108476_1_defeat-jihad-civilized-man-free-speech|work=New York Daily News|date=September 26, 2012|title=Let us spray, says lawyer for vandalizer of anti-jihad poster}}</ref> was arrested for spray-painting over one of the ads; SIOA associate Pamela Hall announced she would sue Eltahawy for having allegedly damaged Hall's filming equipment with spray paint while Hall tried to block Eltahawy's way.<ref name="dailymail"/>

How is this part of the history of the organization? Think of the KKK, e.g. We have actual lawsuits against them in there, and law enforcement actions against them, and so forth. Do we have every incident of someone defacing one of their signs? This seems trivial to me. If it's the kind of thing that has to be put in this article it makes me question the notability of the organization.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the spray paint incident brought the group's ads and ideology publicity that they might not otherwise have had, including international publicity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh, I googled. I'm not trying to include that claim in the article text, this is a talkpage discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh, OK. I thought talk pages were for talking about what goes in the article. My bad, and a thousand pardons I am begging of you. Strikethrough doesn't seem to work write on templates, but please consider my comment struck.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You asked why it belonged in the article. My look through the sources suggests that the ads didn't have as much coverage, and had minimal to no international coverage, before Eltahawy tried to spray-paint one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate refs

ref 21: "More ads . . ." is identical with ref 24. Can someone name and combine? Thanks. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Good eye, there, my Virginian friend.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, alf laylah wa laylah. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

=======Binksternet exchange======

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)

=======alf laylah wa laylah exchange, cont. ======

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)

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)

I have removed the portion about Geller/Spencer being primary sources

Without defining what is meant by "primary sources" there is the impression that the two had something to do with Breivik, especially his plans to kill. My suggestion is to leave Heidi Breirich's opinions out of this article.Livingengine1 (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

What part of that sentence you removed, which was rightly restored by other editors, do you not think is supported by the source?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Alf, Can you explain what Beirich meant when she said "primary sources"? What evidence does she provide to support this claim? How are Wikipedia editors ensuring that the reader does not get the false impression that Breivik was inspired by Geller to kill? We now know that Breirich's opinion is contradicted by Breivik's own statements, such as:

1. Breivik said he was planning to kill 2 years before Geller started blogging, and perhaps as much as eight years before the formation of SIOA, the subject of this article.

2. As reported in Expo, a reliable source, Breivik said he did what he did to discredit the counter jihad movement, and that he is a Nazi.

3. Breivik's statements in court have made it clear he was not motivated by Geller to kill.

4. Breivik specifically states in his manifesto that Muslims inspired him to kill. There is nothing like this statement made in reference to Geller

This Wikipedia article is not about Breivik, nor Breirich.

Breivik has nothing to do with SIOA.

If you want to introduce the opinion of Beirich, then in order not to give undue prominence to the view that Breivik "learned at the feet" of American ideologues, there needs to be inclusion in the article of the contradicting evidence. I am recommending AGAINST doing this, and avoiding the problem of violation of WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE by removing the unsubstantiated opinion of Heidi Breirich.

Violation of WP:NPOV includes a "type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives."

And this -

" Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

And, this -

" . . .when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

And, this -

" Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..."."

I am also appealing to common sense, about which Wikipedia says -

" it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. "

Based on what we know from reliable sources, there is significant, numerous, and compelling evidence which throws into doubt Heidi Breirich's opinion that Breivik was inspired by Geller, or that she was a primary source for his manifesto. If there is doubt, leave it out.

The implication of what Breirich is saying is clear; Geller/SIOA inspired Breivik to kill which is in violation of WP:BLP, about which Wikipedia says in part - "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."

I am asking you to consider the fact that Heidi B's assertion has absolutely no supporting evidence, what so ever, and therefore does not belong in this article.Livingengine1 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I can explain what she means. She means that Breivik's manifesto had sources (N.B. Source (n.) 4a. The chief or prime cause of something of a non-material or abstract character; the quarter whence something of this kind originates.) and that among these sources, Spencer and Geller's work, including their SIOA work were primary (N.B. Primary (adj.) 2. Of the highest rank or importance; principal, chief.). There is nothing here which says that Geller, Spencer, or SIOA inspired Breivik to kill, only that their writings were primary sources, in the senses of those words defined above, for his writings. Beirich is a sufficiently high-quality source to allow her take on the relationship between Spencer, Geller, SIOA, and Breivik to stand unrefuted by any other than a source of equally high quality. Breivik's statements do not qualify. If there are any reliable sources which disagree with Beirich's conclusion please bring them to this article. Until such sources are found, though, I think it's clear that both Wikipedia policy and reasoned consensus on this talk page are against your proposals to either leave the material out or to quote Breivik himself to refute it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Alf - "If there are any reliable sources which disagree with Beirich's conclusion please bring them to this article." Here it is -

" He says that he sent a manifesto "counterjihadistisk" rhetoric to protect the "ethno-nationalist" and instead launch a media drive against anti-nationalist counter-jihad supporter." - Expo http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fexpo.se%2F2014%2Fbreivik-vill-deportera-illojala-judar_6336.html

"The Muslims showed us that deadly shock attacks are the only tool we have at the moment which will guarantee that our voice is heard." - Anders Breivik manifesto page 1352

" Breivik claims that in 2002 (at the age of 23) he started a nine-year-plan to finance the 2011 attacks, founding his own computer programming business while working at the customer service company. " -Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_breivik#Planning_attacks

" It is very important to emphasize the distinction between ideological and methodological role models. The ideological role models do not support violence, but they describe the ideology very thoroughly. But when it comes to methodological role models you have Al Qaeda.

When it comes to ideological role models Robert Spencer describes problems in a good way. The same for Fjordman. They describe Europe's problems even if they do not support violence. Bat Yeor also describes very well. Pamela Geller supports the efforts against the Islamization of the U.S. but she is Jewish herself so she does not support the European Rights of Indigenous Peoples. " - Breivik https://sites.google.com/site/breivikreport/documents/anders-breivik-court-statement-2012-06-04

So, we have Expo, Wikipedia, and several statements by Breivik that contradict Breirich. This is enough to cast doubt on her claims. As Wikipedia editors it is important not to stigmatize people with Breivik's actions. Again, Breirich's opinion does not belong in this article. Breivik has nothing to do with SIOA. Not even Breirich says he does.Livingengine1 (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're still not clear on what reliable sources are in the context of Wikipedia. You should read WP:RS carefully. Beirich has an article in a book published by an academic publisher of the highest reputation: Bloomsbury Academic. Such books are vetted by independent experts on behalf of the publisher. Not only that, but the book in which Beirich's article appears was edited by Ruth Wodak, Majid KhosraviNik, and Brigitte Mral. These editors, also recognized experts in their fields, vetted the material in the edited volume before it was submitted to the publisher for independent review. This is about as reliable as sources get for Wikipedia. Up against that you have the unfiltered statements of a mass murderer about the reasons for his own actions and you have a Swedish blog that is reporting on those statements. There's just no comparison. What we need to counter Beirich's interpretation, aside from SIOA's own statement, a mention of which is included, is equally reputable reliable sources that contradict all or part of what she says. The consensus at this talk page and Wikipedia's own policies on reliable sources really seem to be completely in opposition to your desire to either remove the material or to allow Breivik himself to contradict it. But you don't have to take the word of the editors here for this. You can easily ask for more opinions either at WP:RSN or through an RfC. It's never bad to ask for more people to weigh in on a question if one finds oneself at an impasse.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Alf - Again, I am appealing to common sense in this matter. There is enough reason to doubt Heidi Breirich based on sources such as Wikipedia, and Breivik. As far as Expo is concerned, this is not just a blog, but was created by Stig Larson, and is part of an international network of anti-racist/anti-fasicist organizations that includes Britian's Searchlight, and Leonard Zeskind's Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, and is comparible to Breirich, and the SPLC. Again, we have Wikipedia, Expo, and Breivik's Manifesto contradicting Breirich. I have yet to see you address this. What's up? Livingengine1 (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about Expo not being a blog, that's my bad. But nevertheless, the article you link to is nothing more than a reporter recounting what Breivik said. It has no more weight than Breivik's words themselves since there's no peer-reviewed interpretation going on. That Expo article is reliable sourcing for nothing more than the bare fact that Breivik said what the article says he said. Breivik's words are a primary source (in the other sense of those words) and are not to be interpreted by Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia itself is well known not to be a reliable source. I really think none of these have any weight at all compared to Beirich's article, for the reasons I've stated above. If you're really sure that you're right and everyone else here who's still talking about it on this page is wrong, it's probably time for you to seek outside input. There are plenty of ways to do that, two of which I've mentioned above.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I really find it hard to accept that you believe Breivik's words don't count for anything. Breirich's opinion that Breivik was inspired by Geller is supposedly based on Breivik's manifesto, and yet, she doesn't provide a single quote to support this.

On the other hand, Wikipedia, Expo, and Breivik's manifesto provide explicit quotes that contradict what she is claiming. It sounds like you are making an argument based on appeal to authority, a fallacy.

Instead, I would like you to consider Wikipedia's guidelines concerning common sense. They encourage you to use common sense, not be hind bound by rules.

I want to be clear that I am not saying Heidi Breirich's opinion doesn't count. She does have status, but this particular opinion of hers does not belong here in this article. If you include this opinion of her's than this will lead to a Breivik section in this Wikipedia article, and nobody wants that.

What I am arguing is to leave out Breirich's opinion vis-a-vis Geller/Breivik, and thereby eliminate any possible WP violations of NPOV, or BLP.

I agree that this may be the time to take this to the broader Wikipedia community. What do you say to taking it to the NPOV dispute bulletin board? This would be the third time, and maybe the charm Livingengine1 (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Life is sad, life is a bust

All you can do is do what you must

You do what you must do and you do it well

I'll do it for you, honey baby, can't you tell?

Buckets of Rain, Bob Dylan — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. You are not addressing the issues, or answering my questions. Livingengine1 (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Matthew 11:15— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you drunk?Livingengine1 (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope. You?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit in 2010 Section

sentence now reads as follows - "SIOA first entered the public eye with its early opposition to the construction of Park51, a 13-story Muslim community center proposed for a location whose nearness to the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building."Livingengine1 (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

So it does. You have plucked a few words from a reputable source (the New York Times), where there was a particular context for them, and inserted them into our article in a way that makes a mockery of that context. That as far as I'm concerned is the last straw added to an already considerable pile of tendentious editing and gaming the system from you on this article, and I have accordingly warned you on your page. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC).

Vague Meaningless Words

The quote of Beirich is full of vague words that insinuates but doesn't make clear what she is saying. Here's the quote: "But the primary sources for the anti-Muslim propaganda that had helped give voice to Breivik's manifesto were American. The anti-Muslim author Robert Spencer, who runs the Jihad Watch website, was cited by Breivik 64 times in his manifesto and excerpted extensively. ... Along with Spencer, Breivik also drew inspiration from anti-Muslim American blogger and close Spencer ally Pam Geller. She, along with Spencer, established Stop Islamization of America (SIOA)...The relationships between Breivik, Spencer, Geller, the EDL, SIOA, etc. reveal a thickening web of connections between individuals and groups on the extreme right in the United States and Europe."

What is this "web of connections?" It is actually joint organizational meetings with Breivik? Are there funding connections? Are they joint members of a fraternal group? Or is it just similarity of ideas? This is clearly a weasel phrase and it doesn't matter if it comes from a well-published source. And what "inspiration" did Breivik "draw?" Is the author claiming that he was inspirited by the revolutionary violence advocated by Spencer? Or inspired by Spencer's erudition? And inspired to do what? To feel a certain way? To act violently? To seek publicity?

As editors it is our duty to extract clear information. There is editorial prerogative and it exists to assess whether an author, who would otherwise be reliable, is failing to express themselves clearly. If she has a clearer presentation, please use it. But this quote is completely meaningless. Livingengine1 may not have given the right criticism of this shameful quote but we can and should do better. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your criticism of Beirich just doesn't measure up to her expert standing. The passage by Beirich requires only simple reading comprehension to understand that there is a connection between SIOA, SIOE, etc. Trying to tease exact dates, places and facts from it is of course going to be a fruitless exercise. That's not the book Beirich is writing. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Reading the whole article makes it clear what she's talking about. I chose the words in the quote to give the reader a thumbnail sketch of the flow of her ideas and to establish that she does say what the line in the article cited to that source says she said. If the reader wants to know why she came to the conclusions she did, one assumes that they will read the cited source. Anyway, that's what I was thinking.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If I have to read the article, you haven't done your job. If the quote is taken out of context it doesn't help us. You haven't answer my question: what is the connection with Breivik? Why not just paraphrase her and explain to the reader what she sees as the connection? I have no idea what kind of connection she is talking about and I'm familiar with the subject matter. Imagine someone trying to learn about it. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Another way is that I've spent the last ten days or so trimming down the material on Breivik to the bare minimum that seems supportable by sources and seem to have gained some consensus while doing it, and removing a bunch of other irrelevant crap and innuendo about SIOA as well (see up-page). I came to this article thinking it shouldn't mention Breivik at all, but it's clear there's not consensus for that, and I'm more or less convinced by Beirich that Breivik deserves a mention along with SIOA's condemnation of his violence. This is the shortest bit we seem to be able to agree on and at least Breivik's out of the lead, where he used to have about two sentences. If you think you can do better here, you're obviously welcome to take a whack at it, but if your main complaint is that the quote doesn't make it clear that the source supports the sentence cited to it and you don't want to look into the source yourself, I'm not sure I can help. I'll be happy to discuss proposals if you have any, but rewriting the bulk of the article and seeing it stabilize for a day or two seem to have used up all my motivation here for now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Simply leave out the vague quote in the footnote but leave in the quote in the article: "the primary sources for the anti-Muslim propaganda that had helped give voice". You don't need a further quote. And you have a reference to the page number of that quote. Why muddy the waters by saying too much about vague "connections" and "webs?" Jason from nyc (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to do it as far as I'm concerned. The details are fuzzy now, but I believe I only kept putting more and more in there to satisfy a now-blocked user who wanted to quote Breivik's court testimony as a rebuttal. It's actually possible we started out with no quote at all, which is fine with me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotected

With apologies to all decent IP editors, I've semiprotected this talkpage for 10 days because of all the disruption from open proxies. Bishonen | talk 01:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

Atsme's latest edit to this page

Atsme, you have made it impossible for anyone to understand the conversation. In your last edit you refactored everyone's comments so they're no longer next to what they were responses to, removing them from their contexts, and therefore misrepresenting them. That section is now incomprehensible. Will you please revert yourself and try to figure out some way to respond so that everyone can keep track of the conversation? Is it just me?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

alf laylah wa laylah I didn't change the order of the discussion. *LOL* The responses still follow in line, and should not be confusing. I just added red text to the breaks that were already there because you complained my paragraphs were too bunched up. I did it for you!!! *lol* The comments were running so far to the right they were at the edge of my computer screen, and difficult to read, so I simply brought the indentions back to the right. Instead of using 20 ::::::: I went back to 2. Atsme (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Great; I'm glad it makes sense to you.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)