Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism

Islamophobia banner

There is a consensus that the Islamophobia banner does not present a NPOV violation. You can see this consensus at Talk:Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism/Archive_1#RFC:_Does_the_use_of_the_Islamophobia_template_in_this_article_violate_wikipedias_policy_on_NPOV.3F Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Greg Barrett source

This source is clearly coming from advocacy book the publishing house is not scholarly and the author is not expert on the topic.Can someone can explain why it should stay in the article as it give undue weight that IPT somehow connected to Islamophobia.--Shrike (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor that put that in is not currently active on wikipedia. They were wanting to cover CAP's position but use a secondary source. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The information seems to be in Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance as well, which looks like a better source. We can replace it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a page number?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's formatted for ebook on Google Books so it's hard to find a proper page number, but here's a link [1] - that's the footnotes, but there's also a page where it comes up. I'm able to find more hits when naming Emerson rather than IPT, since it seems to be sort of a one-man op. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

My brain isn't working right now? You wouldn't want to swap the source would you?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's see what Shrike thinks, since it was s/he who was unhappy with the Orbis source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Shrike, the entire article has major problems because of the unreliable sources, not to mention issues with WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH. An experienced editor can see the violations immediately by looking at the infobox. The IPT article is nothing more than a stub in dire need of improvement, or deletion if there aren't enough reliable sources to make it Wiki worthy. Roscelese further validated the need to merge and delete this article in her statement above...I'm able to find more hits when naming Emerson rather than IPT, since it seems to be sort of a one-man op. There simply aren't any reliable sources to validate anything in the IPT article.

In my recent request to merge parts of this article with Steven Emerson, the ANRFC reviewer, Sunrise, made an important closing statement: Note that this close does not evaluate whether the articles are compliant with policy (e.g. WP:NOR); it would be a good idea for the editors here to resolve these issues, but they would only have become relevant to the merger question if so much of the article was noncompliant that nearly all of it had to be deleted, and arguments to this effect have not been presented. On the topic of canvassing, in my opinion the messages were indeed non-neutral, but none of the editors joined the discussion here so it did not affect the outcome. Sunrise (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC) See it here [2]

Concerned editors cannot ignore the fact that there was no legal non-profit entity known as The Investigative Project on Terrorism in 1995. The name is a misnomer, and the misinformation is being perpetuated by inaccurate information on Emerson's own self-published site, [3] wherein it states IPT is a non-profit research group founded by Steven Emerson in 1995. I have cited secondary sources that substantiate the nonprofit's non-existence in 1995, and the controversy surrounding that claim. The actual legal name of the non-profit research group is The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, which was neither founded nor legally organized until 2006. As editors, it is our job to maintain accuracy and cite reliable secondary sources which I have done. The IPT article is riddled with violations, and they must be corrected. During the years prior to Emerson organizing The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, there was simply Steven Emerson, a CNN reporter, and self-proclaimed terrorism expert. He organized a think-tank referred to as the "Investigative Project", which he also ran. I have cited two different published secondary sources to validate the information, so no original research was involved. I began a corrected version of the article for the sake of accuracy to replace the current embarrassment titled IPT. See it here: User:Atsme/Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism_Foundation. Soon after I announced my intent to improve the article, two bad faith redirects were initiated, including Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism_Foundation and The_Investigative_Project, both of which are in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Bottomline, if the IPT article cannot be improved in a collaborative attempt, it should be deleted. Atsme☯^Consult 21:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't want to try to canvass more editors here before you start? Do you really want to have this conversation be transparent? The last person you canvassed you attempted to have them discuss this article in your sandbox. Bad faith redirects? They are all other known names for the organization in this article. MAybe you don't understand what bad faith means. You see your efforts to canvass other users as good faith. You see your attempt to merge and delete this article while privately planning to later recreate it as good faith. You see your effort to avoid the normal tranparency of editing wikipedia as good faith. Yes I don't think you understand what the two mean. Have you considered using the wikipedia help desk? OR the teahouse? I can get you a link.

Why lie exactly? Tell us about your noble effort to improve this article? OR rather your effort to white wash the article. Your effort dating back to March. Why merge and delete and then move to recreate and under a different title? Oh yes, The Islamophobia banner. You want to remove it but you don't know how to get a consensus to do so. Nice Straw grasping by the way. But this isn't a one man operation. Lorenzo Vidino was the deputy director of the investigative project in 2007. As you should distinctly recall Pete Hoekstra is with them. In "Blood from Stones: The Secret Financial Network of Terror" Douglas Farah also points out that it isn't a one man show. You should drop that straw and move on to your next one.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:Collaboration, and stop spewing nonsense. Atsme☯^Consult 15:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Atsme, I've often been in your position of unsuccessfully trying to delete an article because it seemed non-notable or because it seemed largely to overlap with another article. But since the consensus was not to merge this article, we all must work with the article as it stands, rather than refusing to discuss the issues because the discussion didn't go the way we wanted it to. Please don't attempt to derail a discussion of sources. Serialjoepsycho, if you wish to continue engaging, I suggest doing so in a new section or on a user talk page, so that we can continue discussing sources for the CAP report here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, I'm not necessarily trying to delete this article provided it can be improved. I requested collaboration in hopes of improving it. As it stands now, IPT is riddled with violations of WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH which I inadvertently failed to address in the now closed request to merge and delete. I simply want to fix the problems by following the advice of the ANRFC reviewer, Sunrise, who I quoted above with diffs from Emerson Talk as follows: Note that this close does not evaluate whether the articles are compliant with policy (e.g. WP:NOR); it would be a good idea for the editors here to resolve these issues, but they would only have become relevant to the merger question if so much of the article was noncompliant that nearly all of it had to be deleted, and arguments to this effect have not been presented. On the topic of canvassing, in my opinion the messages were indeed non-neutral, but none of the editors joined the discussion here so it did not affect the outcome. Sunrise (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC) I have not moved forward regarding the violations because I'd much rather correct the problems. I actually began a corrected article on July 2nd which can be seen in the raw here: User:Atsme/Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism_Foundation, and encourage collaboration because of the ongoing issues of neutrality, and lack of reliable sources. The IPT article as it currently stands is noncompliant because of the WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH violations that are staring us in the face. I also wanted to mention the reviewer overlooked User:Binksternet as another editor who approved the merge and acknowledged the incorrect name of the article, the exclusion of which I believe may have weighed-in on her denial of my request, but that was a result of my inexperience in the merge and delete process. Binksternet's actual comment can be found in the IPT Talk Archive 1, and I've included it here for your convenience: I'm in favor of moving this article to Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation as you suggest, and having the Emerson biography corrected to reflect accurate secondary sources (rather than self-serving primary sources) but I'm not so hot on the idea that all of Emerson's former activities should be fully removed from this article. We should tell the reader what came before, and how it is related. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Roscelese, this article has been an absolute struggle to improve which begs the question, why? When I first began trying to improve it, I collaborated with User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, and we struggled back and forth. The Talk page discussions reflect far more effort than what was invested in the article itself. Alf also mentioned what you and other experienced main article editors so wisely realize - the majority of sources point back to Emerson. The article is clearly noncompliant because of the named policy violations, and if we cannot fix them, what are the options? Atsme☯^Consult 14:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well look at what we have here. This is where you attribute binksternet approving the merger. But then they didn't approve the merger. They approved the name change. Except there's that whole pesky policy wp:commonname. While your Investigative project on terrorism foundation might be it's proper name it's not it's common name. The policy is already clear. This article is named properly. Move on or provide appropriate policy based argument. Your mentioning Sunrise's comments and you are saying that you are trying to follow their advice. But then the advice is the editors involved resolve the issues that were not resolved. Sunrise did not suggest that you go again and canvass other users here. Which is the first thing you did when you came back to give this article attention. You asked that user also to come to your sandbox to talk about the changes to this article which would avoid the natural transparency of wikipedia. You haven't moved forward regarding the "violations"? You went to AN/I twice and to BLPN. You've canvassed other editors and tried to merge/delete and then recreate. What does not moving forward mean exactly? Hell BLP/N was opened before and while you took it to AN/I. You saying you haven't moved forward seems to be a bit of a lie. While you collaborated with Alf I was also one of the other editors involved. Roscelese was involved as well. It's also probably going to be hard to collaborate with you having an issue with talk page use. Honestly the big issue seems to be that your not getting your way. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

^^^Exactly why nothing is getting done to improve this article. It's rather shameful that you are trying to take credit for any of the editing on the main page of this article. You have provided little if any constructive input in recent months. In fact, one of the edits you adamantly defended had to be changed after I took it to the BLP noticeboard because it violated WP:BLP and WP:POV. Your actual main page edits amount to a total of 41 bytes compared to my 17,521 bytes, and Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's 7,838. If you feel the need to engage other editors, take your disruptive behavior to one of the noticeboards, and stop disrupting those of us who are trying to improve this article. Atsme☯^Consult 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that's abit of a joke. The BLPN change was made by me after discussion with another editor. This type of thing happens in the normal consensus process. The other editor made a relevant point and it was changed accordingly. A point which you didn't make and a change that you protested later. But I'm glad to see you're ok with it now. Would you like to talk about something relevant? I could mention the change recently removed by Djrun. You know how he removed content that you put in in March. But why? That's not actually relevant.Shameful? Well that would be true if I actually claimed to have been the one to make the final edit but then that didn't happen. I took part in the discussion on the talk page and was involved in the consensus. This topic was opened for the Greg Barrett source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly delusional. ^ This article needs editors, not self appointed talk page critics who have nothing positive to contribute, and whose only focus is to divert attention away from the real issues. Sad. Hopefully experienced editors will ignore your rhetoric, and help me fix the problems.Atsme☯^Consult 21:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Delusional or Talk page critics? lol. This unsurprisingly doesn't amount to anything more than a joke. Rhetoric? Your whole response was rhetoric.This conversation is over. On the off chance any "experienced editor" wants to bother with this tiresome affair I'll be happy to link you to the relevant material. From some of her Racist comments that relate to this matter. I'll link you to her previous attempts at canvassing. The matter speaks for itself. I'll link you to the whole torrid affair.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Go elsewhere if your only purpose here is to provoke an argument. Your foolish attempts to denigrate me, and dredge up past discussions are harmful to the project. The only time you're even heard from is when another editor attempts to improve this article, and then you jump in and create disruption. You are not the steward of this article, so stop acting like it, especially considering the only mentionable edits you've ever contributed are on this Talk page. You are in no position to be criticizing my edits considering the text I added equals 58.7% of the total text, and your's is barely 0.1%. Furthermore, you are not in a position to be giving other editors advice about what is or isn't "relevant". You have been more of a hinderance than a help to this project, and now you have the audacity to lay claim to it as the know-all link master? You need to step aside so real editors can get some work done. You obviously don't have anything useful to contribute, or you would have done it by now. I'm talking about real edits, not your rhetorical, nonsensical Talk page gibberish that has been extremely disruptive, and a major slow down to this project's progress. If you want to improve the article, start by correcting your own WP:NOR and WP:SYNC violations, and deleting the bad faith redirects. I won't get my hopes up because I don't expect a 4 yr. editor with over 48% of his edits on Talk pages and less than 14% to articles will understand what it takes to turn a starter class article into a GA, much less one that is worthy of inclusion in WP. I remain optimistic that a few good editors will show up one day, and collaborate with me in a good faith attempt to edit an accurate version of IPTF that is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. In the interim, I am moving forward with my work to correct all the misinformation, and the WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH policy violations. My invitation remains open to all editors who are interested in collaborating in a good faith attempt to improve this abortion of an article. Atsme☯^Consult 04:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)