Talk:Gatestone Institute

Constant reverting

VR, could you please stop edit-warring while others attempt to hash out these issues using the talk page. You're doubling down and making things worse, with your latest edits putting claims in WP's voice while still presenting the axe-grinding interpretation of the Bloomberg source, meanwhile you're using an activist blog as fact sourcing on an extremely contentious issue. This is failure on a basic policy level. Meanwhile you're restoring disputed BLP claims that are based on ridiculous interpretations of flimsy sourcing. BLP makes clear that these claims are supposed to be removed without discussion until it is clearly established that they are proper. Just stop and wait for consensus (or at least some direction) to emerge from talk page discussions with Ed. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The above comment is not true. Please note that I previously pointed out Factchecker's misleading comments here: Talk:Gatestone_Institute#Summary_by_Factchecker_atyourservice.

The comment "VR, could you please stop edit-warring while others attempt to hash out these issues using the talk page" is false because:

• in the last day or so, Factchecker's edits have been reverted by 3 different users (@Govindaharihari:, @Snooganssnoogans: and me). So if anything, its Factchecker's whose edit warring.
• I am one of the more active users talking on this page. A quick look a this page history will show that.

The rest of his claims have been addressed in other sections (e.g. Talk:Gatestone_Institute#Important_claims_require_multiple_high_quality_reliable_sources).VR _talk 19:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I've never said anything false or misleading, but don't let that stop you from claiming otherwise. When Ed showed up I stopped reverting everything except the axe-grinding lead summary and began to engage Ed on how to work through the content dispute. Meanwhile I reverted Gregcollins on issues that you care about to try to keep the article in a state that didn't drive anybody nuts while the discussions unfolded. You, by contrast, have continued editing without any effort to develop consensus for your edits, and your latest revision was worst of all. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks as though we still do not have consensus for "right-wing" in the lead. Since the lead does say "publishes articles with a mainly conservative perspective", should that not be enough, and the exact (not summary) aspects of their publishing can be discussed in the text. --Bejnar (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well we have sources that call it right-wing, though I'm not sure if those sources also say publishes articles with a mainly conservative perspective".

In any case, do you disagree with the right-wing categorization? If so, why?VR _talk 03:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not object to a discussion of the ideologies expressed in the materials published by the Gladstone Institute, including all of the sources that use the term "right-wing". However, it is an overly simplistic characterization, and probably doesn't belong in the lead. Some of the issues addressed in the published material don't seem to be from a "right wing" perspective. Over-polarisation should be avoided in accordance with the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, see also Wikipedia:Describing points of view. --Bejnar (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course it belongs in the lede as it summarizes the institute's positions. NPOV is what reliable sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The lead is to summarise the article, not partricular sources. Unfortunately, as the article lacks the discussion of the various points of view taken by the authors of the material published by the institute, such a summary is not possible. Expand the article in an NPOV way, then summarise. --Bejnar (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The lead can include things not discussed in detail in the article, for example the city where Gatestone is located, the year it was founded, etc. But we can also include the right-wing stuff in the article body if you wish.VR _talk 02:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Third-party sources tag

The article relies extensively on the sources published by the institute. I removed a couple diff, but many still remain. I tagged the article accordingly. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Number of Articles

On Gatestone's archive page, there's a table of all articles; pasting it into Google Sheets shows a count of 5,687 articles. Of these, three have been cited for factual innaccuracies, while many have been cited by outside media. I think this should be acceptable under the WP:OR exception for basic calculations and plainly evident information, and in any case is important information for any reader wondering about the accuracy of Gatestone overall. Of course I welcome the opinions of more expeienced editors. 20:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woshiwaiguoren (talk • contribs)

This is misleading. Nobody is going to bother to fact-check every Gatestone article, because frankly, who gives a crap about this fringe group? This is akin to saying "Of the thousands of articles posted on InfoWars, reliable sources have found that 5-6 are false" or "Of the thousands of articles posted on the Daily Stormer, the following four articles drew controversy for racist content". Reliable sources are not going to fact-check every article on these sordid websites, so it's extremely misleading to suggest that all articles except those that have been notable enough to have been fact-checked are spotless. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

But isn't it also misleading if the only articles talked about on the page are the three that had notable corrections? Gatestone isn't a crank operation like InfoWars or the Daily Stormer; it gets citations every year, not just from Fox and the New York Post, but from WaPo and Vanity Fair. It does mean something that many more articles have entered into relevant public discussion than have been found inaccurate. Perhaps this can be remedied by adding a new section about its citations in other well-known media. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere is it implied that all of Gatestone's reporting is inaccurate. And yes, it's a crank outfit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

In its current form, the article is indeed misleading. The line near the opening "The organization has been criticized for publishing inaccurate articles" implies that Gatestone has a general record of inaccuracy, but the cited sources throughout simply describe perhaps three of its articles as inaccurate. None ascribes to Gatestone a general record of inaccuracy, but that is what a reader might well take away.Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You were right. I then looked up Gatestone's recent whackiness and found recent RS describing Gatestone as notable for false stories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

To comment on the original question, it would be indeed WP:OR to include findings as described in the first post on this thread. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep it in mind. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

The latest edits by N1of2 are hiding the fact of it being a right-wing group toward the bottom of the lede. I find this objectionable. "Right-wing" is well-sourced, and is one of the GI's primary attributes and should not be sequestered. Jim1138 (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that left leaning outlets (The Guardian, The independent) describe it as "Right wing" should be stated as such, not in the voice of wikipedia. We could include that critique somehow higher in the lede. N1of2 (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@N1of2: The Guardian is a wp:reliable source. Fox news is questionable at best. Suggest you read WP:RSN The Guardian and Fox news search results. Also, please read the above section regarding OR. Jim1138 (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok let's take it one statement at a time to avoid conflating issues. The fact that the article in the Guardian calls Gatestone "right wing" while the one in FoxNews calls it "non-partisan" precludes stating unequivocally in wikipedia's own voice the former as if it is an undisputed fact. N1of2 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Fox News did not call it nonpartisan in the source in question. An op-ed writer for Fox News called it nonpartisan. So you have not demonstrated that reliable sources (if you want to include Fox News in this category) disagree as to whether it's right-wing. This is besides the point, but the op-ed writer is also clearly just copy-pasting Gatestone's self-description. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

N1of2, your edits are completely unacceptable here. Relying on an op-ed by Cal Thomas and the organization's own website is not suitable. We should rely on straight-news accounts in respected newspapers (The Guardian and others) and on academic sources (like the Stanford University Press-published book). When multiple high-quality sources give a descriptor such as this in their own voice, we do too. Using phrases like " critics in The Guardian" or "others have described it as right-wing" is just plain false. These aren't "critics," these are straight news stories.

You are also mistaken to write a sentence that indicates that "nonpartisan" and "right-wing" are somehow incompatible - nonpartisan simply means that it's not formally affiliated with a political party. A group can be both nonpartisan and left-wing or nonpartisan and right-wing. Neutrality^talk 02:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Starting with the basics, the POV tag at the top of the article should be restored. It is unacceptable to edit it out before reaching consensus.N1of2 (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the way this discussion is going, I suspect consensus will not be achieved. Jim1138 (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Why was the following segment removed from the page?

Reports by the Gatestone Institute have been cited in Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Vanity Fair, National Review, and others.

David A (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Why is that notable? Most organizations would be cited somewhere. Jim1138 (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

To maintain NPOV balance, and not make this page into a onesided demonisation of the organisation, just because they have the audacity to criticise Islamism. David A (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Come on, if they were only critical of Islamism then we might not even have this article. They are critical of Islam and Muslims. They lie about them and ally themselves with haters. And I agree that a list of mentions doesn't belong here. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, the few articles I have read from them have seemed to be well-referenced and strictly criticised Islamism/the genocidal branch of Islam, which is what terrifies me. David A (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be included, because it does improve the reader's understanding of the topic of the article, and is verifiable, and therefore would seem to improve Wikipedia. It allows the reader to better place it: it's cited mostly, but not exclusively, by right-wing publications. It does have some relevance and presence in discussion of its targeted issues. I think that, combined with the citations about false stories, it gives an accurate impression of what Gatestone is.Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding such is not normally done; especially in the lede. That sentence and refs should not be added. Gatestone should be able to stand on its own laurels. Mentioning that other news sources mentioned them is BTW: Again, Fox News is not RS; forgot to include Breitbart.com's numerous mentions of Gatestone? Jim1138 (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

We can include discussions of Gatestone in reliable sources, but simply citations? It would look as though the article is trying to make a point without actually saying so or sourcing the point. It doesn't actually help the reader understand Gatestone and being verifiable is never a reason for inclusion, that just makes it possible, while being unverifiable means we can't use it. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim bias

More than NBC claims that Gatestone is anti-Muslim. Also, use of "has described" is wp:weasel and does not belong on the article. Jim1138 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

My revisions say "NBC News and others . . ." About "Has been described" -- it is there now; my revisions took it out. So how is this a reason not to make my revisions? You may have been confused by a self-revert in the middle of my revisions -- I screwed one edit up, and it was easiest to back up and fix from there; this did temporarily re-insert the "has been described" however.Adoring nanny (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

So, Gatestone is complaining that Muslims are claiming Gatestone is anti-Muslim? That sounds rather anti-Muslim. Why does that make any difference anyway? If Gatestone wasn't anti-Muslim, why would Muslims be posting it anyway? "Has described" is still weasel and doesn't belong there. BTW: Your reference didn't work. See ref [26] Jim1138 BTW: If it is a Gatestone link, it is probably self-serving and is not RS. See wp:USINGPRIMARY. Use a secondary source based on this, please. (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We now have Alan Dershowitz[1].Adoring nanny (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Per wp:RSN including, but not limited to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_237#Is_Fox_News_a_WP:RS it would appear that Fox is not RS for politics.

Googling "Gatestone anti-Muslim" returns all sorts of hits. Jim1138 (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138, I glanced at that thread, and I saw a lot more people saying it was RS than not. Is it your position that Wikipedia should describe Gatestone as "Anti-Muslim" in its own voice, and the article should not mention any dissenting opinions?Adoring nanny (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please thread your talk. I moved it above the comment below. There are many sources that state that Gatestone is anti-Muslim. Dissenting opinion is fine as long it isn't self-serving. The RSN conclusion seems to be that Fox News is not RS for politics. Perhaps you should take this up on RSN. Jim1138 (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The conclusion of that discussion was to launch an RfC. I have no idea where said RfC is. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Karysrhea: Please discuss your issues here, not on someone's personal talk page. Regarding your comment at User_talk:Hamtechperson#Gatestone and User_talk:Hamtechperson#gatestone_2. Please see wp:reliable source (RS). Gatestone's website is a primary source, may be self-serving in this case and should not be used here. See wp:USINGPRIMARY. Use of blogs is not RS - see WP:NOTRS, specifically WP:BLOGS. Jim1138 (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I have adjusted the lead so that the anti-Muslim bias allegation appears at the end of the second line (along with the allegations about spreading falsehoods etc), and isn't presented as a statement of fact. I recognise that many users will feel strongly about this, but using opinion/journalistic/non-academic articles to designate an organisation anti-Muslim isn't especially encyclopedic, and just looks like an attempt at well poisoning (even if valid). Endymion.12 (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we adhere to reliable sources and describe things as they truly are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I am obviously aware that we adhere to reliable sources, but that isn't synonymous with stating widely-held opinions as fact. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No op-ed has been cited in support of the 'anti-muslim' description in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV issue

I'm not satisfied that this article is consistent with the NPOV policy. Specifically, the anti-Muslim bias allegation should follow the allegations in the second line. The "content" section should also contain more general description of the website's content, or otherwise be renamed "criticism" or "controversy". Endymion.12 (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The 'anti-Muslim' description is not an allegation, it's a RS description and a blatantly obvious one to anyone familiar with this website. As for the content, does it surprise you that an 'anti-Muslim' organization's publishes... [checks article] anti-Muslim content? Is this website also publishing articles on monetary policy and football? If it does, and there are reliable sources that substantiate it, we can certainly add that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I also regard Gatestone has having a strong anti-Muslim bias, but I recognise that this is merely my perspective, albeit shared with a number of people. In all but exceptional cases descriptions with pejorative connotations should be stated as allegations or criticisms rather than as fact. It's disappointing that you would choose to identify your own perspective with matters "as they truly are", in your words. Please have some self-awareness.

You will be aware that the website also publishes articles on foreign policy and politics from a conservative/neoconservative perspective besides anti-Muslim content and viral falsehoods. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Every single story on their front page right now is about Muslims and immigration, with the exception of a 150-word op-ed calling Portugal 'neo-marxist'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is fine and the only reason people like Endymion.12 are trying to undermine it is that some prominent people in British politics and media have recently been exposed as being linked to it. Being anti-Muslim is GI's raîson d'être. Pushing that fact deeper in the article, so that information is less visible to visitors, is not something we should do just to spare some VIP the shame they deserve.Rafe87 (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rafe87: Please discuss content with reference to sources rather than speculate about the motivations of other users, thanks. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is no longer ongoing, so I'm removing the NPOV tag.Rafe87 (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rafe87: Can you please stop unilaterally removing the template. You don’t get to decide when the discussion has finished. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

What do reliable, independent sources say about this organization? Primary sources are poor for evaluating this kind of thing, because they are partial. Likewise, while it's useful to perform a quick smell-test, WP:OR about what the organization's front page currently says is not enough to go on. If reliable, independent sources define this as anti-Muslim, that's enough. If they instead define it as something else, let's see those sources. If the article reflects sources, the templates should be removed. Grayfell (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I have consolodated some (but not all) of the sources in the article which describe Gatestone as anti-Muslim into a bundle, which will keep the article tidier and make it easier to adjust, as necessary. Grayfell (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you would consider “secondary” sources in this case. Like I said above, WP:NPOV implies that claims about people/organisations which have potentially pejorative connotations, or which might be controversial, ought to be stated as claims/allegations rather than as fact. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell: The Intercept calls GI a "fake news publisher". [2]

Haaretz calls it an "anti-Muslim think tank that spread fake news". [3]

NBC News calls it an "anti-Muslim think tank" as well. [4]

Business Insider charges it with "spread[ing] false information about Muslim[s]". [5]

The right-wing NY Post has described it as a "nonprofit with anti-Muslim views". [6]

The Huffington Post calls it an Anti-Muslim Group [and] Right-Wing 'News' Operation. [7]

There's no dearth of sources confirming that Gatestone is ideologically anti-Muslim and that it's involved in producing and spreading fake news. The only reason some are trying to equivocate now is that, recently, some British VIP such as Daniel Finkelstein have been exposed for being involved with that group.Rafe87 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring my arguments and trying to second guess my motives won’t get you anywhere. See your talk. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t finish the edit summary. This is now the fifth occasion in which you have attempted to unilaterally remove the template while the discussion is ongoing, and you have been reverted by two separate users. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

What specific actions need to be taken for the template to be removed? Templates are not intended to be badges of shame, and the burden is now on you to provide a way to resolve this issue. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

No indeed, they are not badges of shame. The purpose of the template is to draw users attention to an ongoing discussion. We can wait for further input from other users. There is no time limit here. You can read the template description if you like, especially the section on when it ought to be removed. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've read all that many times, and I've also read the sources cited in the article. If you cannot explain what the problem is and how to fix it, why is the template still here? If the point is to facilitate an ongoing discussion, than discuss! What are you waiting for? Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I outlined my opinions and recommendations in my first comment. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You haven't explained why this would be an improvement. Many sources define Gatestone as anti-Islam/anti-Muslim/Islamophobic. Downplaying a defining trait is not more neutral, it's less neutral. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, so what sources support these changes? Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have. I’ve made myself quite clear in my first and second comments, and my comment earlier today, and I’m not under any obligation to endlessly repeat myself. This has been allowed to degenerate into a discussion about whether the template should be removed, which will only make it more difficult to follow the discussion about content. I’m therefore going to wait until more users contribute before making any further comments. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not a request for comment, this is a simple template. As the person who keep restoring the template, you are obligated to justify this action. It appears you think this description (which is well-sourced and you don't, apparently, dispute) should be moved to a later paragraph or similarly downplayed. Other editors disagree, so this is a deadlock. As such the template is, indeed a badge of shame. Continuing to restore the template without providing any actionable solution is filibustering, which disrupts Wikipedia to prove a point. If you are serious about improving the article and about getting consensus from other editors, you will follow up on the discussion, or you will file a neutrally-worded RFC and abide by the results of that consensus.

To reiterate, this appears to be well-sourced as a defining characteristic from multiple reliable outlets. Downplaying this because it's unflattering or has "pejorative connotations" would be non-neutral, because it would be presenting information based on subjective preference instead of the assessment of reliable sources. Saying this is not "consistent with the NPOV policy" is far, far too vague to be actionable, so again, the burden is on you to provide an actionable solution to the problem. Grayfell (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That’s ridiculous. Would you care to refer me to a single guideline or policy which affirms anything you have written above about resolving content disputes? The template signposts an ongoing discussion, and removing it while the discussion is ongoing is inappropriate. I’ve given my view, you have given yours above (with which I disagree, and accompanied by a straw man of my position), and we will now wait for further input. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems (specifically WP:DETAG):

If the person placing the tag has explained their concerns on the talk page, then anyone who disagrees should join the discussion and explain why the tag seems inappropriate. If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed by any editor without a conflict of interest. If there is disagreement, then normal talk page discussion should proceed, per consensus-building.

So we are at the "consensus building" stage, and that "stage" doesn't last indefinitely. Per Template:POV#When to remove:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If you cannot satisfactorily explain what this issue is and how to resolve it, this the template should be removed. I hope you notice that I haven't removed the template myself, but I also do not see any clear consensus for keeping it in place. If all you are doing is waiting for other people to chime in, you should file an RFC, since that's the purpose of that process.

Please, explain how this current wording isn't neutral according to Wikipedia's policies. I am not at all satisfied that you have explained your concerns. This is, according to both the pages I have cited above, and common Wikipedia practice and culture, the way this process works. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I.e., no, you can’t support anything in your previous comment with reference to policies, and User:Rafe87 is wrong to have repeatedly sought to remove the template while the discussion in ongoing. I have explained myself, even if my explanation is not to your satisfaction. This really is my last comment, because this current discussion is irrelevant and is WP:BLUDGEONING the thread. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I just quoted one policy and one guidelines that support my comments. Do you need more? There are plenty more where that came from. If this is your last comment, does that mean you're done restoring the template? Do I need to remove it myself in order to find out? Don't you think that might be bludgeoning the process as well? Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Because several users have attempted to remove the template, which will make it difficult to discuss the issue, I will open a neutrally worded RfC. Endymion.12 (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV RfC

General request for comments about this article, specifically regarding the NPOV policy. 09:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)