Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism

Should there be an islamophobia navigation template on here or not?

An IP removed it. I think it's plausible given the number of RS which refer to this group as either Islamophobic or anti-Muslim or which refer to it in association with SIOA and other such groups, which makes it plausible that a reader might want to navigate amongst those articles.

• Kumar, Deepa (14 August 2012). Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire. Haymarket Books. pp. 179–. ISBN 978-1-60846-212-4.
• Ernst, Carl W. (20 March 2013). Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 55–. ISBN 978-1-137-29008-3.

and so on.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Deepa Kumar

Subjects: U.S. "Imperialism," "Islamophobia," and anti-Muslim "racism." She believes it is "Islamophobic" to "depict Muhammad in a negative light," despite the fact that Jesus and Moses are constantly depicted in a negative light. She also believes it is "Islamophobic" and racist to criticize Muslims who respond violently to criticism of their prophet.

Carl W. Ernst

Professor of Islamic Studies

In other words, Islamophiles. Yeah, really reliable sources indeed. Alf person would do well to see this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.64.11.204 (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

192 person would do well to consider whether IPT itself is the best source on whether they're Islamophobic. Do you have an substantive point to make or not?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears there are far too many editors who are disregarding the requirements for NPOV. I've reviewed several articles on terrorism, including various bios of people who have been labeled Islamophobics by Wikipedia editors. This is deplorable behavior. I also noticed the same few editors consistently trying to hang Islamophobia labels on every organization, group, and/or individual who is/has been involved in exposing Islamist extremism. It's not an editor's job to diagnose a phobia. There is no question whatsoever that Islamophobia labeling is pejorative, especially in instances of BLP. Forget the medical qualifications, who gave such authority to layperson volunteer editors? Only qualified individuals in the medical field can properly diagnose a phobia. Where is the balance? What happened to NPOV? This behavior has to stop because it violates Wikipedia standards, and threatens our future as a credible resource. Atsme (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You are seriously making the case that the suffix "-phobia" can only be applied to a noun to form a word after a qualified medical professional has made a diagnosis? That's seriously what you're saying? What in the world makes you think that? Are you logophobic?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

One thing that strikes me about this situation is that the article says nothing about Islmophobia.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It's very clear that there is some level of consensus that this group is tied to descrimination. Some of the wikiprojects that link to here show that. However in the article there is no connection to Any kind of descrimination. If this group is considered islamophobic by a reliable source it should be mentioned.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

*Template*

On the Islamophobia Template talk page I have made a few comments. Essentially as of right now this template I feel is being used as a Rubber Stamp to make an unverified claim. Since no actually informtion in this article says anything about Islamophobia at all then one of two options need to be considered to fix this.

• 1- The template is removed from this page.
• 2- What ever relation this organization has to Islamophobia needs to be written in the article.

Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Islamophobia Labels Are Reverse Discrimination

WP Editors should follow the example of the AP's journalistic integrity and neutrality, and discontinue use of the words Islamophobia and homophobia. On 11/26/2012, Politico reported the nixing of those words from the online AP Stylebook, and included the following quote: "-phobia," "an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness" should not be used "in political or social contexts," including "homophobia" and "Islamophobia." I've made a similar argument on a few Talk pages where the labeling has been misapplied, and I'm sure there are more I haven't found, yet. Applying the label Islamophobia is as racist and discriminatory as what the label itself attempts to define, the latter of which is in clear violation of WP:POV. I've also noticed a rise in Islamophobia labeling, and it appears the same group of editors are usually involved as evidenced by the recent addition of the info box that now links the Investigative Project On Terrorism to the racist, discriminatory series on Islamophobia. Their actions and edits reflect an unmistakable prejudice to Islam. Any person or organization who is active in the fight against terrorism, or critical of the politics of Islam, or who oppose Sharia are among those targeted for an Islamophobia label. It has clearly gotten out of hand, and needs to be addressed ASAP. Atsme (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside your conspiracy-theorizing about some shadowy and undefined "same group of editors," let me point out that no one has labelled this group Islamophobic. The presence of a navbox does not label, but merely organizes. Secondly, if the AP stylebook thinks that that's what the suffix "-phobia" means in English they're wrong. As always, we can turn to the dictionary (OED again): -phobia, comb. form Forming nouns with the sense ‘fear of ——’, ‘aversion to ——’. Nothing about irrationality or mental illness in the way this suffix is used in English. Finally, yet again, you've fallen prey to the etymological fallacy. Now, do you care to actually discuss anything specific about this article? Because that's what talk pages are for, you know. You want the navbox out of the article? Make a policy based argument for taking it out. You don't like the existence of the navbox? Go to TdF and make a policy based argument for its deletion. You don't mind the navbox but you think it should be called something different? Go to the talk page of the template and make a policy based argument for whatever it is you want to do. For someone with 53 edits to article space you've got an awful lot of opinions about how to do something you don't seem willing to actually do: write content.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The AP stylebook is irrelevent. We alreadt have guideline. The AP stylebook isn't one.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho WP guidelines point to contentious labeling. The latter coupled with what's written in the AP Stylebook provides a strong argument for deletion. I presented a 3-step plan on AC Talk, so if you get a chance, I'd appreciate your input, but totally understand if it's not a priority. Between you and Alf, I've acquired some valuable knowledge, so thank you. You've also helped jump start my memory recall. I now remember why I took a hiatus. *lol* I've been keeping the template debate central to AC Talk since the navbox is being used to designate a series which involves several individual articles. It will be a one decision effects all. Once a consensus has been reached, and the key editors have weighed in, I'll consider it a signal to come out of the fox hole and start editing. Alf has already hinted that it's time to get work, and his hints come in megaton packages. Atsme (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Alf, don't forget, every conspiracy started out as a theory. I like the idea of navboxes, but not the one that's sporting the title "Islamophobia". And Alf, I actually do admire your knowledge as an editor, and all the work you've done at WP. Wishing you a happy day! Atsme (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The "AC" article talk page is not the appropriate place for your discussion. That talk page is for discussing that article. You should find some more appropriate place if you want people to participate. This isn't the appropriate place for this discussion either. Article talk pages are for discussing changes to the actual articles they're associated with. See WP:TALK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Alf you are edit warring. That Islamophobia template does not belong in this article, and neither did the paragraph you added to make it applicable because you sourced from a WP article about a partisan progressive think tank. Hardly NPOV. It appears the time has come for a Tdf, and to the Isamophobia propaganda. Atsme (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not edit-warring. There's a discussion open on this topic up-page and you refuse to engage. I didn't source the sentence from a partisan think tank, I sourced it from a reliable secondary source that discusses the think tank, which legitimizes the think tank's statement. Read WP:RS for details and please engage in the already open conversation above.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are edit-warring, Alf. I did engage in the exchange, so don't go there. 75% of this Talk page consists of my comments. Up-page, down-page, all over the page. You'll also see that Serialjoepsycho was the last response in the up-page section. Nothing more needed to be said after he commented - an admin gave his opinion, and I agreed. You apparently disagree, as expected. The navbox has no relevance in this article. Period the end. I deleted it, you reverted, I undid, you reverted…you are being disruptive. The links in the navbox are all POV, totally unrelated to this article, and so is the term Islamophobia. You are spreading propaganda, and obviously trying to promote a cause by using WP as your platform. Atsme (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Leaving comments is not the same as engaging in conversation. You're babbling. Talk about actual concrete issues regarding the content of the article. That's what talk pages are for. Also, I'm not the only editor who reverted your removal. Please stick to concrete policy-based arguments.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The off topic discussion on AC was bubbled. Any issue you have with a certain page you should take up with that page. If you don't like the Islamophobia template you should go to it's talk page. If you don't want it here forgo the shotgun argumentation and start talking directly.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Besides that if I was an Admin it wouldn't have mattered. There's a difference between adminastration actions and editorial opinions.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• The AP stylebook doesn't point to anything. It doesn't have a place in a wikipedia policy debate. It doesn't trump anything or add to a debate on the use of current wikipedia policy or guidelines. WP does have policy on contentious labeling WP:LABEL and yes Islamophobic can be considered among those terms even it is not specifically listed. I as an editor can not call someone Islamophobic in an article. However I can atribute a claim of Islamophobia to a reliable source. For example, "According to a report issued in 2011 by the Center for American Progress, the IPT was one of ten foundations constituting what it called "the Islamophobia network in America." In this example I am not calling anyone Islamophobic but the source is.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly right, with one addendum. In this case, we're not citing the CAP report directly, which would be dubious, but instead we're citing two separate independent reliable sources that are reporting on the CAP report. I don't think the CAP report itself would be a strong enough source to support the information, but there's adequate secondary sourcing to let us attribute the opinion to the CAP report.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well no you could use a primary source it's just not ideal. You really have to use those with care. You don't really won't to exclude relevent information because it comes froma primary source if it happens to be a significant minority view. I can't relly speak whether that's a majority view as I'm only aware that Center for American Progress hold it but is at least a significant minority view. But yes it is better to use relible secondary sources when they are availible.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision

This diff was how the article previously tied IPT to Islamophobia. I'm not sure why it was removed. You are really going to have to justify it's removal, Atsme. I do question though beyond this off remark has anyone else linked this group to Islamophobia? I also have to ask if IPT has defended itself? Serialjoepsycho (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Serialjoepsycho To begin, it should be very obvious to you that the ONLY reason User:alf laylah wa laylah is here is to stick an Islamophobia label on the page. He didn't come here to improve the article, or contribute something beneficial. He is too busy running an Islamic propaganda campaign, acting just like a WP vandal going around slapping Islamophobia stamps on any and every article and BLP that criticizes the politics of Islamic extremism, or is in the fight against terrorism. It's discriminatory targeting, and that alone should justify disciplinary action against him. Is arbitration the next step? His actions are totally disruptive to editing.

The paragraph he added in an attempt to justify the Islamophobia stamp is nothing but misinformation from a George Soros funded progressive organization, Center For American Progress (a communist organization) that published a biased article titled Fear, Inc. co-authored by Wajahat Ali, none other than the man of "hate" himself, and former Board member of the Muslim Students Association. FYI -the MSA was established by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Read about it here. Furthermore, the financial report that he included in the article is incorrect and misleading. Here is the link that proves it. Just think about it - is someone who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood going to write anything truthful about organizations who are trying to expose them?

The “Fear Inc.” report claims to expose a network of Islamophobes supposedly stirring up prejudice against Muslims; but wait - some of the people targeted in the report were Muslims. For example, Zudhi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, was condemned in the report because he “dangerously and incorrectly labels mainstream Muslim-American organizations as subversive.”

The Islamophobia labeling has gotten out of hand, and it must be deleted permanently. It is compromising the future of Wikipedia. Those who are running around sticking Islamophobia stamps on everything are "Anti-Islamophobia Phobics". Atsme (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no agenda, and believe it or not, you're not the first to decide that your pet issue is "compromising the future of wikipedia." It's not. Anyway, your accusation is dubious given the other edits I've made to this article, which you fail to mention. You've written nothing at all on this article. Finally, the "Islamophobia stamp" is not "nothing but misinformation" from CAP, it's a statement from CAP that's been covered in secondary independent sources, at least two of which the material is cited to. I have added nothing to this article with a citation to anything published by CAP. Get your facts straight, and please try to figure out the applicable policies instead of raving about George Soros and the Muslim Brotherhood.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not obvious at all if I assume good faith. I have no reason but to assume good faith. Assuming good faith I have to ask myself only a few questions based on WP:NPOV at WP:WEIGHT. The first question is if this is a majority viewpoint? The answer I come to with all the information provided to me is that no this is not. The second question is this a viewpoint held by a significant minority with prominent adherents. Center for American Progress do seem to meet the definition of prominent. While I would like to see more information I don't see a reason to exclude this information. Alf I think this information should be put back in if you would like to put it back in. Atsme if have any wikipedia based policy arguments please share them. But most of what you posted I can't personally give any weight. While CAP and George Suros may be biased wikipedia is not. We can't leave out their opinion because you don't like them. I try not to edit based on politics. I find that most everyone that does ends up disappointed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's already back in, with some more info and a rebuttal. The point, as before, is that the CAP report was covered pretty widely in secondary sources independent from CAP, so it's appropriate to discuss their claims. I also added some independently reported material on their funding situation, along with IPT's actual denial. This is in preparation for rewriting the old part of the funding section, which does quote the CAP report directly, so I think it's inferior to basing the material on independent accounts of the CAP report for this subject as well.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• One final point Atsme. The Islamophobia Template. We put it here because they put it there basically. If you don't think it should be here you should have them remove it from there because it being on there really is a reason to post it here. Here is the template talk page. Bring your issue to them.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If anyone linked to the template cares about the template not being on pages they think it should be on, then it's up to them to make a case for its inclusion. People can't just make a template linking or labelling things however thehy like and then demand the things have the template on until people can persuade them that the template is wrong. The article is primary, not the template. And this particular template, for this particular article, is a breathtaking POV violation which should not be re-added. Podiaebba (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The template and the page are interconnected. Removing this template from this article wouldn't remove any apparent "breathtaking POV" violation if you didn't remove this page from that template. And I demanded nothing. I asked that either this template be removed and this article be removed from the template or some apparent connection to Islamophobia be made in the article. When found out of the apparent connection that was removed I demanded to know why. It is nuetrally written and well sourced.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Podiaebba, how is there not a case for its inclusion? The CAP report calling this organization Islamophobic is discussed by multiple independent sources. The purpose of the template is to link related articles. Readers who are reading about Islamophobia will be interested in this organization because it is widely called Islamophobic, anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, and so on, in independent reliable secondary sources. That is a policy-based argument for the inclusion of the template. Do you have any argument for its exclusion other than your bare, unsupported, and dubious assertion that it's a "breathtaking POV violation"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Podiaebba I agree. The Islamophobia template is definitely POV, and should not be used at all, especially when editors are unilaterally "defining" an organization as Islamophobic, and then purposely linking them to atrocities and other events that are irrelevant to the primary article. It's one thing for an editor to quote from an article that claims an organization is "Islamophobic", but it is not an editor's job to label it as such. In reviewing the discussions at Template _talk:Islamophobia there is a substantial amount of opposition to its use, perhaps more opposition than support. It is a highly controversial template nonetheless, which makes it contentious and strips it of all neutrality. I know of no instance where the label has not created controversy, heated debate, or argument. It is a form of propaganda because it shows support of Islam, and demonizes the organizations that are labeled Islamophobic. Again, POV with no discernible differences.

The word Islamophobia was recently nixed from the AP Stylebook, an action some editors contend is unrelated to WP policy, but I disagree for the simple reason that we as editors use the AP as a reliable source. If it's considered reliable in one aspect, it should be worthy of our consideration in another. One might also be inclined to conclude that the use of the template is reverse discrimination by anti-Islamophobia phobics, and anti-racism racists. This article is a good example of Islamophobia gone wild.

The template was attached to the article when there was nothing in the article to substantiate what some consider to be Islamophobia. Rather than pull the template, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah decided to take on the challenge, but not for the same reasons most editors would undertake a project. He had but one purpose in mind - to validate the Islamophobia label, making his primary mission to demonize and condemn the organization. He found a very biased and inaccurate report titled, "Fear Inc.", that was authored by an individual with ties (indirectly) to the MB, and added a paragraph based on that biased report to justify the Islamophobia template. I disputed his actions, but was subsequently distracted by another issue. As Podiaebba so wisely pointed out, the template includes links to articles that are in no way related to the article itself, therefore a blatant POV violation. I further validate her concerns, and contend that there is nothing in WP policy that gives editors the right to label a person or organization as Islamophobic, much less link the primary article to unrelated articles. Atsme (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme::: Welcome back, Atsme. If you feel that should be wikipedia follow the AP stylebook then go to Wikipedia:Village pump under the policy section and suggest it. It however is not policy. It can be great source for your personal opinion of what editors should follow however it's still not policy. You can source it and everyone else can ignore it. WP:BIASED Sources don't need to be nuetral. This biased source is perfectly acceptable. As used in this article it doesn't violate NPOV.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme:: Alf.laylah.wa.laylah decided to take on the challenge, but not for the same reasons most editors would undertake a project. He had but one purpose in mind - to validate the Islamophobia label, making his primary mission to demonize and condemn the organization. Are you kidding? You're super-confused and super-duper dramatizing. Anyway, that report was cited in this article before I ever edited it, and I didn't cite anything to it whatsoever. What, pray tell, are "the same reasons most editors would undertake such a project?" Is it possible that someday you might consider talking about article content? Probably not.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

One issue I think however that is being presented or at least hinted at is the use of Non-neutral but common names. Islamophobia is probably such an animal. That is the Name of the Template and the name of the primary article it connects to. However I think WP:POVNAME applies to this. This is the most commonly recognized term for this type of descrimination. Compare to homophobia. The proposed alternatives are not well known. Homonegativity for homophobia or Anti-Muslimism for Islamophobia. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Thank you for the "welcome back". The break gave me a chance to do a little reading and research. Also, thank you for your advice, and recommendation for the AP Stylebook. I'll certainly give it a try. I do understand that it is not an established WP guide, and will keep that in mind. I remain committed to my quest to help others better understand the repercussions of reverse discrimination, and the derogatory effects of WP:POVNAME templates.

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: It's one thing to cite a primary reference, but attempting to validate it with circular references is an exercise in futility. They all link back to the primary report. You stated, Are you kidding? You're super-confused and super-duper dramatizing. Anyway, that report was cited in this article before I ever edited it, and I didn't cite anything to it whatsoever. I apologize if I came across as super-duper dramatic, but I'm not super-confused. Just look at the revision history, 18:15 3 March 2014, which is when you added the IPT was one of ten foundations constituting what it called "the Islamophobia network in America" in what appears to be justification of the Islamophobia template based on the date/time stamp of the edit. I suppose coincidence is a possibility, but such perfect timing couldn't have been more perfectly planned considering it was added after Serialjoepsycho's comment (page-up): One thing that strikes me about this situation is that the article says nothing about Islmophobia.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC) He mentioned it again on 4 March 2014. It's very clear that there is some level of consensus that this group is tied to descrimination. Some of the wikiprojects that link to here show that. However in the article there is no connection to Any kind of descrimination. If this group is considered islamophobic by a reliable source it should be mentioned.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What I find somewhat disconcerting is the fact that Serialjoepsycho, through no fault of his own, was led to believe the subject organization was tied to discrimination simply because it was linked to other wikiprojects. The latter further validates my concern that the Islamophobia template is WP:POVNAME that could prove damaging to linked organizations. It is not the job of WP editors to unilaterally commit an article as "part of a series" that includes unrelated links in the template in an attempt to propagandize a particular belief. WP:PROPAGANDA. I think it's perfectly acceptable and quite helpful to include a neutral template that is actually relevant to the primary article, and that includes related links in the navbox. For example, the navbox on the WP article Jews, and the template titled Part of a series on Jews and Judaism - a perfectly neutral, interrelated project with relevant links in the template. Atsme (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme:That's not circular referencing. That is using a secondary source. Are you saying that secondary source is unreliable and doesn't meet wp:rs standards? If so how so? I wasn't lead to believe anything. You'd have to explain how that violates WP:PROPAGANDA. There is also a box on antisemitism. As for WP:PROPAGANDA: I remain committed to my quest to help others better understand the repercussions of reverse discrimination, and the derogatory effects of WP:POVNAME templates. Wikipedia is not for advocacy. If you have a reliable source that comments on this as Reverse discrimination add it to that article. This template may inflame your sensibilities. You do not have to like it. However if you want to remove it you do have to justify it based on wikipedia policy.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, you say: It's one thing to cite a primary reference, but attempting to validate it with circular references is an exercise in futility. Actually, that's how we handle primary sources on Wikipedia. We don't usually cite facts straight from them, but cite secondary sources which cite them. That way we have a layer of professional evaluation of the primary sources. You're right, you're not just super-confused, you're super-duper-uber-confused. You accused me of citing the report. I did not. I cited a secondary source which cited the report. That's the edit you linked to in your diff. You ought to read a little policy before you go accusing people of things. Your arguments against this template being on this page are pure word salad.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah I was referring to primary sources like an AP wire, or legal docs, Congressional records, academic research, and the like - sources that corroborate the story, not just secondary sources by the liberal media and pundits who have their own opinions, or biased sources like those who put together the Fear Inc. report. Changes to an article can happen while one is in the middle of making a comment about it on the Talk page. The point I was making is that when Serialjoepsycho first commented on it (page up), there were no references to an Islamophobia network in the article until you added the paragraph showing IPT listed as one of ten foundations alleged to be part of "the Islamophobia network in America". The time/date stamp on the Serialjoepsycho comment and the time/date stamp when you added the Islamophobia network paragraph were close together which is what I was referencing, and why I included the diff link. This is turning into petty bickering. Bygones. Move along. I need to get back to work, and try to improve the article. Your input is appreciated as long as it's NPOV. Atsme (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe you. You're a liar.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: The IPT talk page is not the place to post album titles unless it has some relevance to IPT. Thought you knew that. Atsme ☯ talk 12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: You are writing for wikipedia and not AP. WP:BIASED Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Yes, I am quite aware of where and what I'm writing for WP, and I also understand the NPOV policy. And your point is….?? Atsme ☯ talk 12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme:"I was referring to primary sources like an AP wire, or legal docs, Congressional records, academic research, and the like - sources that corroborate the story, not just secondary sources by the liberal media and pundits who have their own opinions, or biased sources like those who put together the Fear Inc. report." reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Does the use of the Islamophobia template in this article violate wikipedias policy on NPOV?

Yes or no

A simple Yes or No will do. Please give a brief explanation why.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes per Atsme and their point about AP Stylebook. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• No "Islamophobia" is a word in the English language. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it clearly: Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims. It is first attested to in English in 1923 (so it's not a neologism). Thus the word can be used without violating NPOV as long as its use conforms to the definition and is supported by reliable sources. We have reliable secondary sources that call ITP "Islamophobic." Therefore it is not a violation of NPOV to use the descriptor in this article, especially, as is now the case, we use attribution rather than applying the term in the voice of Wikipedia. If it is not a violation of NPOV to describe IPT as Islamophobic, then a fortiori it is not a violation of NPOV to include the navbox, since navboxes don't make claims, but merely aid the reader in navigation.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yes The template heading is judgmental, and violates WP:NDESC and WP:POV regardless of where it is used. It should be deleted all together. The question is not if the word is in the dictionary. Islamophobia is a neologism that has not been accepted into mainstream language because it is as racist and discriminatory as what the label itself attempts to define. The word Islamophobia was recently nixed from the AP Stylebook, a writing style guide that's widely used by journalists and other writing professionals. The reason given was "-phobia, "an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness" should not be used "in political or social contexts." Editors have been adding Islamophobia labels on organizations they unilaterally determine to be critics of Islam, (blatantly Judgmental), regardless of the organization's mission statement, or stated goals. It is acceptable for editors to cite a reliable source that claims the organization is Islamophobic, (according to [source], the organization is Islamophobic), but what about the reliable sources that claim an opposite view? If the editor chooses Islamophobia, it becomes a judgment call, therefore POV. Also, the template includes links to secondary articles that are not related to the primary article. It is WP:PROPAGANDA— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 02:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Atsme (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• No - I think it is very clear from the organizations website it is focusing on one specific form of terrorism. Namely Islamic terrorism. If it was also targeting eco-terrorism or white supremacist groups I would be more inclined to say it isn't Islamophobic but it is clearly targeting Islam.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• No. Because Islamophobia is a strong claim, I would like to see additional sourcing. However, based on the sourcing that is there, the organisation has Islamophobia as a primary characteristic, and I don't see anything put forward in the above discussion in terms of sourcing for an alternative view. Without that, there is no evidence of an NPOV issue. Formerip (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yes - clear case of poisoning the well. No indication that the essence of the organization would be 'islamophobia' or that it would even be a widely accepted view to label it as such. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• No We have reliable sources as alf laylah wa laylah points out, so not a judgement call. The AP stylebook is simply wrong and we shouldn't be following it. If we do, we also need to get rid of any mention of "ethnic cleansing", another term it says it won't use, and our article Homophobia, a term it also specifically says it won't use. Francophobia is another common example of the use of 'phobia'. Shall we make sure our articles don't use that word either? I also see no NPOV issue here - unless perhaps if it's removed. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• No. Reliable sources say so. Also, using the AP stylebook as a standard is utterly bogus -- not as obviously bogus as User:Atsme's first run using an etymological fallacy, but still bogus -- since The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual is, explicitly, a newspaper stylebook: "More people write for the Associated Press than for any single newspaper in the world, and the AP's style defines clear newspaper writing", to quote the back cover of my copy. Should Wikipedia also follow their advice on writing keyword slug lines? --Calton | Talk 14:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• No, came here via RfC, so no preexisting position. Also saw a lot of discussion following this RfC on the article--which bodes poorly for me helping to find a consensus. The answer to the question, as asked, is that No I do not think this violates the NPOV policy. As an aside, the AP style guide (which seems to be the primary argument for deleting the template from this page) cannot help us answer the question as phrased on this page at all. (If, big if, the AP decided they were no longer going to refer to IPT as Islamophobic, that could be useful to consider--but that hasn't happened, so it isn't relevant). . AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If yes should this article also be delisted from the template

If using the template here violates NPOV then having it linked there would seem to violate NPOV. Should this article be delisted from that template. Please give a simple Yes or No and a brief explanantion of why.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes and then delete the template. It's a magnet for editors with an axe to grind. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• No There are reliable secondary sources which discuss this organization in the context of Islamophobia. IPT is therefore related to the subject of Islamophobia. It's therefore plausible that readers will want to navigate between this article and others which are related to the subject or vice-versa. Thus it is appropriate for this organization to be listed in the template.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yes There are reliable secondary sources which commend this organization as beneficial in combating terrorism that are not included as secondary sources. The linked articles in the template are not related to the primary article, such as the Srebrenica massacre which was ruled as genocide, and totally unrelated to the subject organization in the primary article. To include it in a series on Islamophobia violates WP:NDESC and WP:POV. Atsme (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• No The organisation is clearly related to any discussion of Islamophobia. It's a useful navigation template and removing this article would diminish its usefulness.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:21, 10 March 2014

• Yes - the article should be delisted. No indication that the organization combatting terrorism is really biogted against Muslims. No poisoning the well please. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• No - The organisation is clearly related to any discussion of Islamophobia. However I do question if an Adjustment should be made so that it doesn't specifically seem that they are an Islamophobic group.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the template is a POV violation here, and it's hard to see how anyone who actually understands Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy can argue otherwise. NPOV says Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; the template effectively labels the organization as Islamophobic (and no amount of "it doesn't really exactly say or mean that" will give the average reader a different impression). Such emotional labelling (putting a psychological-disease frame on a political view) is quite obviously the opposite of neutral. I vaguely see how those running the template may not have intended this effect, by the way, but the effect is there nonetheless, and it's hard to see how it can be avoided without removing the article from the template. (By the by, such topic navigation templates are increasingly overused, and one side-effect is this sort of problem, which is in some ways worse than with categories, which are at least placed at the bottom of the page, not at or near the top.) Podiaebba (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Please discuss this here. The template can be seen here: Template:Islamophobia.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• To compare I looked at Template:Antisemitism and how as well as where it was used. This doesn't seem dissimilar with that. I also currently don't see a reason this violates wp:npov.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I looked at Template:Antisemitism and how as well as where it was used. This doesn't seem dissimilar with that. - well then you're not really looking very closely. The things labelled antisemitic there are labelled explicitly, and that's OK because those things are widely accepted as being antisemitic (and not just labelled such by political opponents). It's actually a good contrast with this template. Podiaebba (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Chris troutman: The AP Stylebook is not wikipedia Policy. It offers no basis on whether or not an article is NPOV. If you wouldn't mind could you weigh in more on why this violates the wp:npov policy or other relevent Wikipedia policies?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Obviously I am aware that the AP Stylebook is not wp policy. Did my comment seem to indicate that it was? Associated Press's argument about not using the "-phobia" labels makes sense to me. No one has a fear of gay people or Muslims. People don't like gay people or Muslims. "Phobia" is not the opposite of "philia". Furthermore, WP:NPOV doesn't actually define neutral point of view, it simply says articles should be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is whatever the consensus agrees is neutral. I (as part of the aggregate) says it's not neutral because it ascribes a label (islamaphobic) which I think is pejorative. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, according to the article linked to by Atsme regarding the AP stylebook issue, the quoted AP deputy stylebook editor is dead wrong when he says "...a phobia is a psychiatric or medical term for a severe mental disorder. Those terms have been used quite a bit in the past, and we don't feel that's quite accurate,...It's ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don't have" The Oxford English Dictionary defines the suffix in its combined form thus: "-phobia, comb. form Forming nouns with the sense ‘fear of ——’, ‘aversion to ——’." There's nothing at all about mental illness, and the 300 years of attested usage given there make this perfectly clear, from "penphobia" in 1803, to "cyclophobia" as an aversion to bicycles at the height of their 19th faddishness to "Big C-phobia" about cancer in 1997. Like so many others, some random guy from AP has fallen prey to the etymologic fallacy as well as the fallacy of thinking that two distinct words mean the same thing just because they're spelled the same way. The guy from the AP is not a linguist, and is in no sense a RS for the meanings of words. The OED is a reliable source. AP's decision, especially given the shoddy reasoning on which it seems to be based, should have no weight in our discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Alf.laylah.wa.laylah:Well first let me say the second question is contingent on the first question I think. To move on... While your argument is persuasive in If yes should this article also be delisted from the template I think it begs the question if it should be left in the template as is. As is it makes it seem as if this organization is Islamophobic. Perhaps that should in someway be changed.

Perhaps it should be changed regardless. Again as written it makes it seem as if this organization is Islamophobic. Is there anyway to change it? This is not a confirmed Islamophobic organization. From what I can tell in the article it is only alleged.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the second question is contingent, despite the fact that you've framed the RfC that way. There are many examples of templates on pages that are not themselves linked to in the template. As for the rest of what you've said, especially your distinction between "confirmed" and "alleged," I have no idea what you mean.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah:Contingent as in if the consensus holds no to the first question then there is no obvious reason to remove this link from the template. Confirmed as in Hitler was a confirmed antisemtitc. Alleged as in OJ Simpson allegedly killed his wife. As the template is set up it seems alot like it is being said that IPT is an Islamophobic group. The information in the article doesn't exactly make the case that they are. It only makes the case that they may be. That is the way seems. Should the template represent that?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme:: WP:NDESC is about article titles. It's not relevant to this discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Consider for a moment applying WP:NDESC. His argument ignores part of WP:NDESC which makes clear WP:POVNAME supercedes it. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is not enough to just say something violates a wikipedia policy. There are no mind readers here. If you think it violates a policy clearly state why you think that. It's not helpful if your viewpoint can't be verified.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: I understand, but I couldn't find any guidelines on template titles. WP:POVNAME redirects to WP:ArticleTitles. I surmised that since the actual Template has a title, and is its own little article with links to sub-articles, I made a judgment call and went with WP:NDESC. It certainly seemed to fit. If it doesn't, then I just further validated my point about using the Islamophobia title - re: judgment call. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Atsme (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: If you are going to go with WP:NDESC fine. But that wouldn't be applicable because WP:POVNAME supercedes it. This is an acceptable title under WP:POVNAME. This is the most common name for this type of descrimination. There is no way to avoid the name. There are no commonly used alternatives.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Close date motion

I move that we close this in roughly 15 days in the event that no other closure is made before then. Should we close this RFC on 3/24/2014 in the event that it isn't closed for any other reason? Support or OpposeSerialjoepsycho (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC) SupportSerialjoepsycho (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC) I have no objection with the understanding that this issue shall be resolved once and for all by final determination of the WP:Mediation_Committee. The results of this event shall serve to establish arguments for review by the Committee, including my argument that the Islamophobia template is contentious, and either violates, or does not meet the criteria established in the following policies: WP:LABEL, WP:WEASEL, WP:POVNAMING, WP:PROPAGANDA, WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:RNPOV. Atsme ☯ talk 20:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Oppose deciding this now. Unless a quite obvious consensus develops, which I doubt will happen, I think it will be best to let it run the standard 30 days and then let an uninvolved administrator close it as is usually done.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC) I'd like to redact that request. However in the event that this becomes inactive in such time I'd like to revisit it. And Atsme you can move it to mediation when ever you wish. Here are the Prerequisites for mediation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

To be clear: the primary problem is that the template strongly creates the impression that Wikipedia endorses the view that the organization in question is Islamophobic. This is certainly a violation of NPOV. However, even hypothetically editing the template in some way to make it clear that this is not Wikipedia's position could be problematic, as it may still be giving undue prominence to the view that the organization is Islamophobic - there is not, after all, another navigation template promoting the opposite view (and nor would we want one). Podiaebba (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If you think that the template itself violates NPOV, you should know that there were three attempts to delete it. one specifically on the basis it was NPOV, all of which obviously failed. It's a navigation template, linking related subjects. Are you actually denying that this is a related organisation? That no one interested in Islamophobia might be interested in this article? Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The question proposed is if it is NPOV being on that template. Where this article and that template connect. If the over all template is NPOV would be a question for somewhere else. It is not necessary to just to look at removal if there is anyway we can bring it in to compliance with NPOV. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, the existence of an "Islamophobia" template doesn't violate NPOV in itself. The problem is that templates cannot ignore NPOV, and that includes not ignoring how the implied placement of articles linked by the template may violate NPOV for those articles. In this case, it is very, very hard for an Islamophobia template to avoid violating NPOV on articles which aren't really obviously about Islamophobia, but instead alleged examples of Islamophobia, but not very widely accepted examples. Someone compared it to "anti-semitism", where there are a couple of examples, but those are AFAIR either self-confessed or very very widely accepted examples, and not, eg, anyone ever accused of it. As to your question: yes, I absolutely deny that it is an organisation "related" to Islamohobia as it isn't one that (AFAIK) discusses or campaigns or does anything on the topic of Islamophobia. It is alleged by some to be an example of it, and that is a totally different thing. " no one interested in Islamophobia might be interested in this article?" - do you hear yourself? what sort of standard is that for including things in navigation templates? And is "what [I think] someone might be interested in" supposed to trump WP:NPOV? Podiaebba (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What some editors seem to have a problem comprehending is the fact that the label is a judgment call. The argument presented by Podiaebba proves so. The template alone sends the message that the site is Islamophobic by the mere presence of the label. Doing doing so is not only contentious labeling, it is against WP policy. #1 - Editors are the ones making such a determination by being judgmental of the site based on "according to" statements, and #2 - it is already quite clear that an organization whose mission is to fight terrorism is not Isamophobic, yet the template implies it is.

It is the responsibility of those alleging "Islamophobia" to provide proof. Providing evidence of potential terrorist activity is not what makes an organization Islamophobic. Atsme ☯ talk 01:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Pete Hoekstra

Obviously there's no problem talking about Pete Hoekstra to some extent in here, but this diff is outrageous. The edit summary claims to be adding material about Hoekstra. What really happened is that a lot of material was removed that was sourced. This was done without discussion. Furthermore, the added material about Hoekstra is only tangentially related to IPT, duplicates material in his article, and was in a different place from where Hoekstra was already mentioned. What's the point? Obviously more info about Hoekstra is OK, but this kind of weird, incompetent subterfuge is not. If the removed, sourced material is objectionable, bring it here, to the talk page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Excuse me, but you just screwed up my edits when you did the revert, and disrupted my chain of thought. Now there's a rogue paragraph about Hoekstra at the bottom of the page that I had deleted, and information is suddenly missing. Worse yet the info I had copied to my cache to paste back into the article was accidentally overwritten because of this distraction. I've never done that to you, or any other editor, so why are you harassing me? I certainly wasn't aware that I needed your permission to edit, so if you will please provide a link to that WP policy, I'll be happy to abide by it. I don't remember you discussing any of your proposed edits with anyone else before you made them, including Podiaebba who actually gave life to this article, and is the likely steward. I was in the process of editing and arranging the sections so the article would be presented in a neutral fashion, not POV like what you're doing. My next edit was going to present a report by M. Zuhdi Jasser in Accuracy In Media that counters all the Fear Inc. information you've included, so if you will please just let me do my work, and stop harassing me. Atsme (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme:At this point this is getting rediculous. You are not being harrassed. While making that edit you deleted:

According to a report issued in 2011 by the Center for American Progress (CAP), the IPT was one of ten foundations constituting what it called "the Islamophobia network in America." CAP's conclusions were based on an investigation into organizations funded by a number of umbrella foundations, which gave about $7 million per year to various anti-Islamic groups, including the IPT, between 2001 and 2009.

I'm sure you did that by accident. Are you aware of your Sandbox area to experiment in? Consider using it so you don't accidently make anymore disruptive edits. You wouldn't want anyone to mistake you for a Tendentious editor.

Here is what was reverted:

In January 2014, Former Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Holland, Michigan became a Shillman Senior Fellow for IPT. Hoekstra will specialize in national security, international relations, global terrorism and cyber security. Hoekstra served in the U.S. Congress for 18 years (1993-2011), and was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 2008 until he retired from office in 2011. He managed congressional oversight on modernization to confront the threats of the 21st century global war on terror, including restructuring the intelligence community with landmark legislation following the 9-11 Commission report.

However I have to ask how this is relevent:

Hoekstra served in the U.S. Congress for 18 years (1993-2011), and was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 2008 until he retired from office in 2011. He managed congressional oversight on modernization to confront the threats of the 21st century global war on terror, including restructuring the intelligence community with landmark legislation following the 9-11 Commission report.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: No, I have not used the Sandbox. Does it utilze a copy-paste procedure? To answer your question about relevance of Hoekstra's background - WP:Structure, WP:Weight, WP:Balance. It's obvious the man's background as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and the resulting landmark legislation that restructured the intelligence community following the 9-11 Commission report brings quite a bit of weight to an organization whose mission is to fight terrorism. Mention of the man's credentials has as much relevance as mention of the CAP report, and their alleged claims of Islamophobia. I will be adding another paragraph regarding the inaccuracies and bias of the CAP report (FEAR, INC.) in accordance with WP guidelines. Atsme ☯ talk 12:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme:The Sandbox is a text editing area exactly like this one. You can go there and completely finish your thought process, save, and post it there. When you are done you can post it here. However be very careful not to accidently delete stuff even if you choose to use the sandbox..

The CAP report represents a significant minority viewpoint. That's if it in a minority opinion. It may be a majority opinion. I'm not sure but it does represent a significant minority viewpoint.

It's not enough to post wikipedia policy. You do have to explain why the policy is relevent. It would help if you would also hot link the policy you reference. For example WP:Balance.

You should limit what ever you do in that regard to criticisms of the CAP report. The criticisms also need to be relevent to this article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho:You are correct in that the deletion was done inadvertently on my part. I had the revision saved in cache which included the deleted article and another article I found that would bring neutrality, but then it dawned on me the CAP article was in violation of WP:Neutrality. While I was still in the process of finding policy references, and still proofing a reliable source I found for the opposing view, the revision I saved was reverted within 45 minutes with no discussion on the Talk page. See time/date stamps. One of my prior edits was actually reverted within 6 minutes which is a clear indication that my edits are being hawked and reverted - WP:Harassment.

I will agree to providing hot links and explanations as soon as the other editors agree to do the same beginning with a valid explanation for why the CAP report should be included in light of the explanations I've provided below. The only validation for the discriminatory Islamophobia label is CAP's self-published FEAR, INC report which is biased, and self-promoting. As you stated, it is a "viewpoint" which falls under WP:POV criteria. As such, it should either be avoided, or at least adhere to the following criteria: WP:Neutrality: Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. The established criteria of neutrality has not been met. WP:Balance: Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, 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.

Further, naming IPT as one of ten foundations in an Islamophobia network is nothing more than an allegation in CAP's self-published report entitled Fear Inc. I've already explained and hot-linked the reasons the report is inaccurate and misleading, including the fact it is written by biased writers with links to organizations that have conflicting interests, and who are trying to promote their own agenda. That is hardly what I'd call a reliable enough source to condemn an organization with an Islamophobia label, much less include the report in this article.

The CAP report falls under both WP:EXCEPTION: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, and Red flag: challenged claims supported purely by primary or self-published sources. That criteria has clearly not been met. If we cannot reach a general consensus with a clear majority from a substantial number of editors approving the use of the subject discriminatory template, arbitration will be next. Atsme ☯ talk 19:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme:I don't see the harrassment. However you can always take it to wp:ani.

WP:EXCEPTION is an essay not policy or a guideline. The CAP report was written by CAP. CAP's is a significant minority viewpoint. CAP's report isn't the source used. The source used is neither a primary source or a self published source.

IPT was not named as as one of ten foundations in an Islamophobia network. "According to a report issued in 2011 by the Center for American Progress (CAP), the IPT was one of ten foundations constituting what it called "the Islamophobia network in America." That clearly atributes that view to CAP and not as fact. That is written from a NPOV. This article is unbalanced. Balance it by adding to it.

There is no need to wait to go to arbitration. How to end an RFC. wp:dispute take this to another form of dispute resolution and tell me and I will close this. Before you jump to arbitration you will want to try other means of dispute resolution.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Unhijacked Pete Hoekstra section

Since the previous section on Hoekstra isn't about content anymore, I'm starting a new one. Let me point out that this material that Atsme wants to add:

In January 2014, Former Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Holland, Michigan became a Shillman Senior Fellow for IPT. Hoekstra will specialize in national security, international relations, global terrorism and cyber security. Hoekstra served in the U.S. Congress for 18 years (1993-2011), and was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 2008 until he retired from office in 2011. He managed congressional oversight on modernization to confront the threats of the 21st century global war on terror, including restructuring the intelligence community with landmark legislation following the 9-11 Commission report.<ref name=Hoekstra>{{cite news|publisher=Holland Sentinel|date=16 January 2014 | title=Former 2nd District Congressman Pete Hoekstra will join research nonprofit Investigative Project on Terrorism | url=http://www.hollandsentinel.com/article/20140116/NEWS/140119267}}</ref>

sourced to here, which is essentially a superficial rewrite of this source, which is now cited in the article and directly attributed to an IPT news release sent out on PR Wire, not, in fact, published by NBC as the citation now says. I'm not claiming that we should therefore doubt it, but just that we should be cautious about giving Hoekstra undue weight, given that both sources proposed for the material are self-sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What is a Shillman Senoir Fellow?

My question is more relevnce. This is about IPT. Why the mini bio on him when it links to a full bio? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The NBC26 isn't reliable. That much is clear by the content warnin g at the top of the page. That however isn't to make any statement about the Holland Sentinel.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Holland Sentinel article is a close paraphrase of the actual press release reproduced verbatim by the NBC26 source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If this is simply a matter of needing a reliable resource that will end your arguments, here they are: [Washington Post], and [HPSCI Report]. Of course, they will be properly sourced in the article. Pick which one you like best. Either one will further validate the legitimacy of IPT, and its staff, and also serves to denounces the contentious claim of Islamophobia. Be advised, the CAP paragraph will be removed until such time as the article can reflect neutrality and balance. Its removal is justified according to policies WP:Balance, WP:Neutrality, WP:EXCEPTION, and WP:Red flag. Atsme ☯ talk 21:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

For what statements are these sources purportedly reliable sourcing? You notice, perhaps, that, although hosted by the Washington Post, the first is a transcript of some presidential remarks and thus primary. It also doesn't mention IPT at all. The second is from the Congressional Record, and thus primary. It also doesn't mention IPT at all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Those from Holland Sentinel would fall under: WP:NEWSORG. Based Your opinion I would put the original source at worldnow.com. How do you think that policy though effects this source? I would consider the worldnow source at least a primary source though.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Both of you have been editors far longer than I have, and you still don't understand WP:SOURCE? I am within the guidelines. If this harassment continues, I will request Arbitration. Atsme ☯ talk 23:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme:What harrassment? I would ask that this point that you cease making baseless accusations and take anything further to WP:ANI. WP:NEWSORG is a part of WP:RS.Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Each single story must only count as being one source. Meaning his NBC source is the same as the original worldnow source. Also if he is correct (I haven't checked) then your Holland Sentinel is the same source. Same policy: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The question I don't think is if the information is bad just the source. I welcome you to take it to arbitration. Don't wait. Do it now. Take it where ever you wish. I'll close the RFC I opened solely for your benifit.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: @Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: I prefer not to go through arbitration. It's all too complicated. I'd rather spend that time learning how to make quote boxes, and make the page pretty and balanced. I've learned a great deal from both of you with regards to the technical aspects, and I don't want us to be constantly disputing. Atsme ☯ talk 08:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not revert the edit. If you feel something needs to be improved, then we can discuss it here. Atsme ☯ talk 07:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Content disputes are a part of wikipedia. Your perspective, my perspective, your evidence, my evidence, then meritous inclusion. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

boxes

I would like to add some quote boxes here and there to balance the page a little better, and also add a little color. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Oh, and Serialjoepsycho, I did a copy paste back and forth from the page to the Sandbox. Hope I didn't lose anything in the process. Atsme ☯ talk 08:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hoekstra's testimony

I removed this entire section:

==Joint Subcommittee Hearing on "Iran's Support for Terrorism Worldwide"== On 4 March 2014, Pete Hoekstra testified at the Joint Subcommittee hearing titled "Iran's Support for Terrorism Worldwide" which was sponsored by the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. A portion of his testimony focused on the "increasing sophistication of Iran's cyber program, and capability to conduct cyber warfare."<ref name=testimony>{{cite report|title=Statement Of Pete Hoekstra |date=4 March 2014| url=http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA13/20140304/101832/HHRG-113-FA13-Wstate-HoekstraP-20140304.pdf}}</ref> According to news columnist, Abha Shankar, the hearing "highlighted Iran's role as the world's foremost sponsor of terror and emphasized that negotiations to roll back the Islamic Republic's nuclear program should not ignore its support for global terror through its elite Quds Force and proxy Hezbollah."<ref name=hearing>{{cite web|publisher=Breitbart News|date=04 March 2014 | url=http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/03/04/IPT-Senior-Fellow-Testifies-at-Hearing-on-Iranian-Terror|title=IPT Senior Fellow Testifies At Hearing On Iranian Terror}}</ref>

Because there's no indication that any of this material is relevant to IPT. The content of Hoekstra's testimony is sourced to primary sources, which would be fine and dandy if there were any discussion of the testimony in reliable sources. The fact that breitbart.com reported on the hearing does not give it any kind of weight at all and lends no credibility that it ought to be discussed in this article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: I included it because (1) Hoekstra was there as IPT's representative to give testimony at that very important hearing; and (2) It definitely belongs in the article because that's what IPT does - they are counterterrorism experts. They track the movements of known terrorists, terrorist organizations, etc. and provide that information to the U.S. Foreign Affairs Committee which in turn coordinates the information and shares with the Dept. of Homeland Security, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, etc. How else do you think this country has been able to counter planned attacks? That's how the system works - input from organizations like IPT. Read the report so you'll know exactly what this organization does, and then you'll realize the Islamophobia template absolutely does not belong here.

Also, the BS about their income, and how they handle the funds is totally irrelevant, and a ridiculous attempt to hang an Islamophobia label for the reasons cited in the paragraph you removed. I think the CAP report belongs in there, and so do the opposing views and why. The claims made in that report were important enough to be included, and so are the responses of the accused, and other critics.

Everything IPT has been doing is legal, and extremely important to protecting against terrorism. If they were doing anything illegal, especially with the income, the IRS would have been all over them. This is exactly why I was saying that 99% of the critics of counterterrorism are either connected, or sympathetic to the cause of terrorist organizations. Also, there was a defamation lawsuit filed by Steven, but I have not included it here because the case is still pending in District Court.

Please add those paragraphs back to the article. Atsme ☯ talk 17:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If his appearance as an IPT rep was important, why aren't there reliable sources which discuss it? If there are reliable sources which say Hoekstra, on behalf of the IPT, testified in front of congress, then by all means, lets have it. If there's only the congressional record and breitbart, then I'd have to say that means that the fact that Hoekstra testified is completely irrelevant to anything about IPT.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

One reason is probably because it didn't rate as high on the media's priority list as would a scandal, or what the Kardashians are doing this week. Another reason is that it is not customary for every Joint Subcommittee hearing to make the news. C-Span usually covers both Senate and House hearings including special committee/subcommittee hearings when permissible. There are occasions when intelligence related hearings are not made public. There is also a very disturbing trend in U.S. mainstream media to downplay references to Islam and terrorism. It really doesn't matter anyway because I referenced the actual testimony which is available in .pdf format, and considered acceptable WP:SOURCE. It is testimony presented under oath to a committee of lawmakers (the Legislative Body of government) which requires a [Truth In Testimony Disclosure Form]. If you prefer, we could use the [Holland Sentinel] <---on the list of [1]] Reliable Sources: The National Press Club]. Also, both Breitbart and HS reports can be corroborated with video of the actual hearing, which can be seen here. If you visit that link, there is a list of the three witnesses who provided testimony at the hearing. I also included as a link to that video at the bottom of the article. Atsme ☯ talk 20:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No one is questioning the fact of his appearance. I am questioning whether anyone should care. One way we judge whether anyone should care is through coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources. The Holland Sentinel certainly is one. The rest of them are not. The house.gov doc because it's primary and brietbart.com because it's not reliable. So we have one discussion of this appearance that only mentions but does not discuss IPT. I don't see how it rates more than a passing mention in this article based on the astounding lack of coverage and the absolutely minimal relationship of minimal coverage to IPT itself.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to argue that the testimony is of any great significance to this article if there's no meaningful independent coverage mentioning the link with the subject of this article. Especially as speeches and events are ephemeral anyway and rarely of lasting significance. Podiaebba (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Podiaebba Welcome to the discussion! The only reason I included Hoekstra's testimony as one of three witnesses was because it represents the crux of what IPT does, gives weight to the organization's purpose; i.e., data center, counterterrorism, etc. Testifying at Joint Subcommittee hearing is not something to write off as insignificant. It should also neutralize the Islamophobia label because this organization is clearly not Islamophobic. Its staff consists of professional counterterrorism experts. Atsme ☯ talk 22:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. But then the brief mention needs to focus more clearly on the significance to this article, which is Hoekstra being there as IPT representative (assuming that he was). And there needs to be a reliable source for that, as otherwise it may be reading too much into Hoekstra's appearance in terms of relevance here (he's a former Congressman after all). NB the IPT link isn't mentioned in the Hoekstra article that I can see - an expansion there on its significance would be helpful. Podiaebba (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The source mentions that he works there but makes no connection between his job and his testimony, and doesn't discuss his job at all. As far as I can see that one newspaper is the only place the story ran.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah:, not sure if you realize it, or not but you've managed to edit out enough information from this article to take it back to Wikipedia:Stub status. I disagree with the reasons you removed the paragraphs, but have no problem fixing the link issues. I'll work on improving the paragraphs to address the issues Podiaebba mentioned.

1. 1 Part of Hoekstra's job with IPT is to attend Congressional hearings. Why do you think IPT employed him in the first place? They wanted someone with experience in global terrorism, and presenting reports to Congress. Hoekstra was the perfect match. The cover page of the sourced document proves it is an IPT report. At least read the cover page. Reports cannot speak at hearings - someone has to present them. In this case, Hoekstra happened to be that person. See it here. That's what IPT does - they collect data on terrorists, and provide their findings to the proper authorities.

Alf, if you keep deleting information that is relevant to this organization, the article will never be anything more than a stub article, which is not supposed to be the goal here. Also, you reverted back to an imbalanced article with your treatment under Funding. I am not in full agreement with the changes you've made, or that all of the paragraphs you've removed should have been removed. A Wiki reader should be able to look at this article, and quickly surmise the mission of IPT is not to spread Islamophobia which is the balance you've given it. The information provided at the Congressional hearing corroborates its mission statement as a "comprehensive data center on radical Islamic terrorist groups". I will update my original edits to more closely conform to the suggestions. Atsme ☯ talk 00:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms of CAP report

I removed this:

On 16 November 2011, a report was issued by M. Zuhdi Jasser discrediting the CAP report "as a fallacy and in many ways harmful to the communities it pretends to serve."<ref name=Jasser>{{cite report|title=Roadblock To American Progress|publisher=Accuracy In Media|author=M. Zuhdi Jasser | url=http://www.aim.org/guest-column/the-center-for-american-progress-fear-inc-report-a-roadblock-to-american-progress|date=16 November 2011}}</ref> According to Jasser, the CAP report, “Fear, Inc.”, is "clearly the latest volley in the ping pong games between virulently partisan organizations on the left and the right that exploit American Muslims as the ball." Jasser also stated that the term Islamophobia is "a mechanism that has been employed by a number of organizations, such as CAP, to shut down conversation, free speech, and introspection and to reinforce a concept of victimization of Muslims." His report further states that as a devout Muslim he was deeply offended that CAP would presume to instruct him on his allegiance to his faith, and summarized by stating the report was created "with a set of biases and conclusions that were predetermined." He further condemned their accusation that "a devout American Muslim can be Islamophobic" was arrogant and laughable.<ref name=Jasser/> Mark Tapson, a columnist for FrontPage Magazine alleged that the report is packed with ugly terminology designed "to demonize these falsely labeled “Islamophobes”.<ref name=Tapson>{{cite web|title=Smear, Inc.|author=Mark Tapson | publisher=Front Page Magazine|url=http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/mark-tapson/smear-inc-silencing-the-critics-of-islamic-supremacism|date=14 September 2011}}</ref>According to Daniel Pipes who is the former director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and founder of the Middle East Forum, the CAP report not only got the larger picture wrong, but could not even get the details correct.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Center for American Progress Gets the Financials Wrong|publisher=Lions Den | author=Daniel Pipes | date=2 Sept 2011|url=http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/09/the-center-for-american-progress-gets}}</ref>

Originally I was just going to move it into the "Funding" section under the CAP report material, but as I was checking the sources I realized that much of this material is problematic, both intrinsically and in relation to this article. I'm not opposed to doing to doing something with it in this article, but it's not clear what. Level three subsections follow.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

M. Zuhdi Jasser

On 16 November 2011, a report was issued by M. Zuhdi Jasser discrediting the CAP report "as a fallacy and in many ways harmful to the communities it pretends to serve."<ref name=Jasser>{{cite report|title=Roadblock To American Progress|publisher=Accuracy In Media|author=M. Zuhdi Jasser | url=http://www.aim.org/guest-column/the-center-for-american-progress-fear-inc-report-a-roadblock-to-american-progress|date=16 November 2011}}</ref> According to Jasser, the CAP report, “Fear, Inc.”, is "clearly the latest volley in the ping pong games between virulently partisan organizations on the left and the right that exploit American Muslims as the ball." Jasser also stated that the term Islamophobia is "a mechanism that has been employed by a number of organizations, such as CAP, to shut down conversation, free speech, and introspection and to reinforce a concept of victimization of Muslims." His report further states that as a devout Muslim he was deeply offended that CAP would presume to instruct him on his allegiance to his faith, and summarized by stating the report was created "with a set of biases and conclusions that were predetermined." He further condemned their accusation that "a devout American Muslim can be Islamophobic" was arrogant and laughable.<ref name=Jasser/>

Problems with this:

1. Jasser did not "discredit" the report, he criticized it.
2. He didn't critize the report as a fallacy, he said that treating it as factual research was a fallacy.
3. This source is not a "report" by Jasser, it's a blog post by Jasser. Given the amount of material quoted from Jasser, it's really misleading to refer to his blog post as a "report."
4. Jasser founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and it's CAP's attack on his organization that he's criticizing. There's nothing in his blog post about IPT. This makes him an involved party in the dispute, and that needs to be noted here if we're going to use any of this.
5. Jasser is quoted at such length here without any indication of the relative weight of his opinions.

My main problem with this material is that it's not IPT responding to the CAP report's material on IPT, it's some other guy responding to the CAP report's material on some other organization, and yet it's presented as if it's a general criticism of the report and as if it has anything to do with the specific things that the report says on IPT.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Emerson did respond indirectly to the report. He published the Frontpage Magazine article by Tapan at the website. The reason I included Jasser's response, as well as the other responses is because #1 it is relevant criticism of the CAP report, #2 WP:Balance to the criticisms in the CAP report which are not soley aimed at IPT, and #3 IPT was lump summed in the CAP Report as being part of an Islamophobic network which opens the door to allow more than just IPT's response.

I truly believe that once you understand the true nature of anti-terrorism organizations that are being labeled as Islamophobic, you will discover they are not blanket anti-Islam, which is why I strongly believe the blanket "Islamophobia" template is reverse discrimination. In fact, I joined the WP:Discrimination The work of counterterrorism organizations is not the result of fear or hatred toward all Muslims - quite the contrary. The concern is over extremism, and the radicalization process that includes converting prison inmates to Islam, and training them to be Jihadists. It's about the 30+ Jihadist training camps that are scattered throughout the U.S. Atsme ☯ talk 19:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you think you might respond to the actual points I made? This talk page isn't the place for your theories about Jihadist training camps on U.S. soil and whatnot. Also, in this section we're not talking about the template. There's a section above for that. Please try to stay focused.

We don't include "indirect" responses that are inferred by editors. Either Emerson responded or he did not respond. IPT itself issued a response to the Tennessean article, so we include it here for balance. IPT did not respond to the CAP report as far as I can tell. If they did, we should include it. Do you have any case for including Jasser's opinions on the specific relationship of the CAP report and his organization, which is not IPT, as a response to the CAP report's claims about IPT?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

#Jasser did not "discredit" the report, he criticized it. - "treating it as factual research was a fallacy" is discrediting, but I don't oppose to a rephrase.

#He didn't critize the report as a fallacy, he said that treating it as factual research was a fallacy. - play on words. It's also perfectly acceptable to paraphrase. Again, I don't oppose to a rephrase.

#This source is not a "report" by Jasser, it's a blog post by Jasser. Given the amount of material quoted from Jasser, it's really misleading to refer to his blog post as a "report." So call it a blog - matters not.

#Jasser founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and it's CAP's attack on his organization that he's criticizing. There's nothing in his blog post about IPT. This makes him an involved party in the dispute, and that needs to be noted here if we're going to use any of this. He is listed in the CAP report, so that automatically makes him an involved party.

#Jasser is quoted at such length here without any indication of the relative weight of his opinions. Somewhere along the way, and I don't know when exactly, but the original paragraph on CAP was reduced to a blurb, so you're correct in that the opposing views are no longer relevant to the article. Atsme ☯ talk 22:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Tapson

Mark Tapson, a columnist for FrontPage Magazine alleged that the report is packed with ugly terminology designed "to demonize these falsely labeled “Islamophobes”.<ref name=Tapson>{{cite web|title=Smear, Inc.|author=Mark Tapson | publisher=Front Page Magazine|url=http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/mark-tapson/smear-inc-silencing-the-critics-of-islamic-supremacism|date=14 September 2011}}</ref>

Tapson says a bunch of nasty stuff about the "ugly terminology" of the report. Does he say that the statements of fact in the report about funding are untrue? No. In fact, in one small section of his article, he admits that they are true. So who cares if he doesn't like the words, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

FrontPage is a fringe source. NPOV doesn't require that we include unrelated material from ludicrously bad sources for the sake of "balance." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Pipes

According to Daniel Pipes who is the former director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and founder of the Middle East Forum, the CAP report not only got the larger picture wrong, but could not even get the details correct.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Center for American Progress Gets the Financials Wrong|publisher=Lions Den | author=Daniel Pipes | date=2 Sept 2011|url=http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/09/the-center-for-american-progress-gets}}</ref>

This seems like the most promising of the bunch, but I'm still dubious. When Pipes says that CAP couldn't get the details correct, he's talking specifically about one table in the report. He claims that out of six factual claims in the table, two are correct and four are wrong. His methodology? He asked the people named in the table if the statements were correct. This is hardly compelling, and it's admittedly not a comprehensive and independent study. Most of this article is about how CAP also accepts money from foundations. I don't see what we can get out of this material. It's not about IPT, it doesn't discuss the CAP report's conclusions in relation to IPT, it's published on the guy's blog, and the material that was inserted into the article misrepresents it seriously.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Pipes is a fanatic and his self-published works, or other works published in unreliable sources, shouldn't be used. NPOV doesn't require that we include unrelated material from ludicrously bad sources for the sake of "balance." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well there's that ^ but I think the most persuasive reason is that it has nothing to do with IPT. The article isn't about CAP or it's report. CAP's a notable minority point of view on IPT. Pipes POV on CAP may or may not be notable but it relates to CAP and not IPT.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The general problem

If IPT had responded to the CAP report, this would be an easy thing. We would include their response. If secondary sources had discussed IPT's response, so much the better. None of this seems to have happened. Instead, we have the other targets of the report complaining about the report and our article quoting them, eliding the fact that they're mostly talking about their own organizations and that none of them mention IPT, and somehow giving the impression that their opinions are related to IPT. This doesn't seem OK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a typical sort of problem for dealing with small organisations of this sort of level of prominence (low) and controversialness (high). It can be very hard to draw a balance between ignoring things and giving too much detail about debates involving not very significant sources, not very widely reported. Podiaebba (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've actually been surprised at how very little information there is about IPT itself in reliable sources. I'd expected there to be quite a bit more given how much it's mentioned. The sources are all about Emerson with passing mentions of IPT and people who work for IPT with passing mentions saying that they work for them. If this were a software company I'd be sorely tempted to send it to AfD, but obviously that's not going to end well. I guess we soldier on. Do you have thoughts about the Boston marathon material? I think it needs to be trimmed, but I haven't had the heart to look into it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Boston Marathon material

I didn't remove this, because it's arguably about IPT as an example of their work:

==Boston Marathon Bombing== According to a Fox News report published 19 April 2013, IPT founder Steven Emerson spent a week investigating the online postings of bombing suspects, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger brother, Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev. Fox News anchor, Megyn Kelley, spoke with Emerson about the possible motives of the alleged bombing suspects. Emerson had also reviewed videos that both brothers had uploaded to their YouTube channels in the United States and in Russia, but only watched about half of the 22 videos on the U.S. channel. According to Emerson, the content of the videos which feature Osama bin Laden "calls to kill Americans, Jews, Christians and exhortations to establish a world-wide caliphate." Emerson said the messages are not directed just at Chechens. "They are directed primarily against all non-Muslims and are very similar to the Al Qaeda videos we've seen in years past." The two brothers clearly wanted "to express a message that they totally sympathize with the jihadist cause. These were jihadists, they were not just Chechen separatists."<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Fox News|title=Boston Marathon suspects Islamic terrorists, not Chechen separatists|date=19 April 2013|url=http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/19/boston-terror-suspects-islamic-terrorists-not-chechen-separatists}}</ref>

But it does seem like undue weight to this one example of IPT's work. Is this what they do? They spend a week watching youtube videos and speculating on TV about people's motives? I don't know, it just seems silly that we have such a lengthy description of this one project of IPT that lasted a week and there's more information on that than about any other aspect of the organization. The more I look for sources the more I think this whole IPT thing is a front for Steven Emerson and ought to be redirected to him. Anyway, thoughts on the relative weight that this Boston marathon material ought to have in the article?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest the creation of a section for their work that they have done. The more notable. This would be notable. I'd summarise this abit.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I patterned after the Choudary format; i.e., listing separate events. Choudary's are organizations, so I thought something similar would work for IPT's notable events. I like your suggestion better. It will easily accommodate future updates in an organized manner. Atsme ☯ talk 17:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that they don't do anything. Really, I've looked and looked for sources, but they're all about Emerson, not IPT. I agree that it needs to be summarized. Do you have a proposal? Atsme, will you please keep your theories about Choudary to the Choudary talk page. This is a different article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd look then to see if this can be connected to IPT.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

After all there is Emersons involment and IPT's involvement. Just because Emerson was involved doesn't mean IPT was.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/the_perils_of_steve_emersons_expertise/ mentions other things about Mr Emerson during the time of The Boston Marathon Bombing.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that salon is the best source and perhaps a better source can be found. Just pointing out this may also be relevent.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

A model for how I think we should try to deal with criticism of the CAP report

Let's look at this paragraph on the Tennessean criticisms of IPT:

The ''[[Nashville Tennessean]]'' has reported that Emerson transfers money from the non-profit IPT back to the for-profit SAE.<ref name=nashville>{{cite journal|author=John Sugg|title=What people in Nashville now know about Steven Emerson|journal=Washington Report on Middle East Affairs|date=Jan.-Feb. 2011|pages=25ff|url=http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA246256987&v=2.1&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=89b9aae87cebce3b042dc4334c2da18c}}{{paywall}}</ref> The ''Tennessean'' quoted [[Charity Navigator]] president Ken Berger's comment on this fact: "Basically, you have a nonprofit acting as a front organization, and all that money going to a for-profit. It's wrong. This is off the charts."<ref name=nashville/> IPT subsequently published a detailed response to the article, stating that "[a]t issue in the Tennessean story is the relationship between the IPT Foundation, a tax-exempt charity, and SAE Productions, a for-profit company run by IPT Executive Director Steven Emerson. The foundation accepts private donations and contracts with SAE to manage operations. The Tennessean article pays only lip service to the legitimate security issues that dictated this structure and that the IRS has reviewed and approved it."<ref>{{cite web|title=Note to Readers on Tennessean Story|publisher=IPT|url=http://www.investigativeproject.org/2278/note-to-readers-on-tennessean-story|date=October 25, 2010|accessdate=March 5, 2014}}</ref>

We have criticism of IPT in the Tennessean. But we don't quote the Tennessean itself, we quote another source discussing the Tennessean's criticisms. This shows that the criticisms are taken seriously by independent sources. Then we quote IPT's response to the criticisms, which is only reasonable to do.

Now, we do the same first thing with the CAP report. I managed to remove all citations directly to the CAP report and only include secondary independent sources that discuss the CAP report criticisms. This shows that the CAP report criticisms are taken seriously by reliable sources that aren't involved in the controversy. We should absolutely have some response to the CAP report criticisms, but the trouble is that IPT doesn't seem to have responded. All we have are criticisms by various people and organizations mentioned in the report responding to what it said about them. It strikes me as a violation of WP:SYNTH for us to present those views as if they had to do with IPT. Did IPT not find the CAP report worth responding to as they did the Tennessean article? If they did not, why should we slap together a response on their behalf?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Following guidelines, added to article, removed stub template, and Islamophobia template

I have added quite a bit more relevant information to the article following WP guidelines. If you find an issue with source formatting, please correct it. The additions to this article are within WP POLICY. The Islamophobia template was removed as noted in the edit pages, but specifically because it no longer meets WP guidelines per WP:OVERLINK, WP:RELEVANCE, and WP:NPOV. Atsme ☯ talk 20:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:VAGUEWAVE— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There is currently an RFC going on about that template. Your removal is disruptive editing.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: You might want to read what you wrote about the RFC. I have requested mediation. There is obviously a misunderstanding regarding the activities of IPT, and what the organization does. The template does not follow WP guidelines WP:OVERLINK, WP:RELEVANCE, WP:NPOV, not to mention it is discriminatory, contentious, and WP:PROPAGANDA because it promotes Islam. It actually requires immediate deletion. Again, I have requested mediation. Let them decide. Atsme ☯ talk 14:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Indictments blah blah blah section

The material in this section Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism#Indictments_and_Trial_Evidence is (a) only tenuously related to IPT, and (b) not discussed in relation to IPT in actual reliable sources. I think it must be severely trimmed and it's not at all clear to me that any of it should remain. If IPT played such a key role in these events, why is there not more discussion of it in reliable sources?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The title seems questionable. Did IPT have them indicted? I'll look at the sources later.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: that is your POV, and I disagree with it. My sources meet the guidelines for WP:RS. I welcome constructive editing, but it has become quite clear that you are not collaborating to make this a better article. Over time, you have consistently trimmed away everything I've added to make this a better article, and keep returning it to stub form. You have not added anything positive. You have consistently criticized and reverted my edits, and have added only negative paragraphs about the organization's LEGAL funding. I have requested mediation. Atsme ☯ talk 13:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: you obviously don't understand the process of indictment. I did not say IPT indicted them - that is ridiculous. Only a Grand Jury can indict, and they indict based on the evidence presented. IPT provides the evidence. That is what they do - collect and provide important data. What do you think IPT does exactly? Atsme ☯ talk 13:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, citing ninety-leven WP:ALLCAPS things is not discussion. The material in that section is not about IPT for the most part. Will you please engage in conversation about the material? There are ongoing discussion above which you have decided to ignore, also. Please continue to participate in those as well. Look, I'll start subsections:— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

December 2001, CBS: 48 Hours

A lady interviewed Steven Emerson. Then we have a full paragraph about stuff about Al-Arian. What does any of this have to do with IPT? The director was interviewed? If this was important we'd have secondary sources saying things like "Emerson, the director, is interviewed all the time about IPT's reports." The quotebox from the report is an egregious BLP violation.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation Trials

This material is more directly about IPT, but it doesn't seem like it's reliably sourced to me. What I recommend here is that we isolate the specific statements of fact about IPT and consider the sources supporting them. The one that's most directly about IPT, the MEQ, looks generally like a bogus front for Daniel Pipes, but probably it's reliable enough for attributed statements of opinion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

September 2010 ISP Appointment of Muslim Chaplain

The only IPT connection here is sourced to Right Side News. It also appears to be a reprint of an IPT press release, although perhaps not. It's possible that some material about IPT directly can be extracted from this, but it will take discussion. Let's have some per WP:STOPSLATHERINGGUIDELINELINKSYOUDONTUNDERSTANDANDTALKABOUTITONTHETALKPAGEFFS.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Congressional Testimony section

This is ridiculous. It's not writing, it's a list of external links to IPT reports. It belongs in the external links section.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors need a better understanding of what IPT does....

The comments I read as reasons for deleting the paragraphs I added are ludicrous at best. Some editors obviously don't understand that IPT is a research group, and comprehensive data center on radical Islamic terrorist groups. It is a source - I repeat, source of critical evidence to a wide variety of government offices, law enforcement agencies, the U.S. Congress, and public policy forums. When I listed Congressional Testimony, it was because IPT provides testimony and evidence to congressional committees and subcommittees - they provide critical evidence about terrorist groups and activity - evidence the government is unable to provide because of restrictions. IPT provides the evidence, then the congressional committees study it, and then act on it if they feel it is warranted. Congress is the legislative body of the U.S. government - they make the laws, and see that those laws are enforced. They submit the evidence they've accumulated, and hand it over to the proper agencies who then obtain search warrants, and whatever else they need to assure indictment by a Grand Jury if a crime has been committed. What you are trying to do to IPT would be like me limiting the Roku Streaming Player article to nothing more than a photo, a brief description that it does live streaming and has an on and off button, and then add a template titled APPLEPHOBIA with links to all the Apple products that have been copied, or abused by the competition. Think about it. Atsme ☯ talk 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)