Talk:Stop Islamization of America

Why is park51 being controversial censored?

park51 was very controversial, why is this being censored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.142.33.105 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Making sure that all material that appears in a Wikipedia article has a reliable source is not censorship. The cited source does not state that the center was controversial, and inserting your own personal opinion in order to prejudice readers in favor of SIOA's opposition to it is a violation of WP:NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

it was controversial without an iota of a doubt. Just need to see that article for it.(Lihaas (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)).

So was, to choose a random example, the founding of Israel. It doesn't mean we insert that fact into every page that mentions Israel. If it's a fact that is important to mention in connection with SIOA, a reliable source will have made that connection. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That example doesn't sound so random. I support the inclusion of the statement. In short, the fact that it was controversial is what drew SIoA into the whole mess in the first place. Mythpage88 (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If that's true, you should be able to cite a source that says so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Or you could do a quick google search and save us all some time. Mythpage88 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So why don't we mention that Israel's founding was controversial on all articles for anti-Israeli groups/sentiment? Surely that would be a "relevant tidbit." I mean, it's not like we care about WP:SYN or WP:NPOV or anything, so why not go whole hog? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

On anti-Israeli groups I don't see why we shouldn't mention the controversy that drove them to be anti-Israeli. Mythpage88 (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

But if it's causal as you keep claiming, we should be able to provide a source that says so. To do otherwise is to engage in original research about why the group did what it did. See what I'm saying? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you see what I'm saying? The first page of the google results I linked is almost entirely reliable sources. Mythpage88 (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

They are sources about Park51. In an article on SIOA, we need sources about SIOA. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So we need a source about SIOA to say something about Park51? Mythpage88 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In SIOA's article, yes. Otherwise we're implying something that's not in the sources. It's exactly like you said - we give the impression that SIOA became involved because it was controversial. But if sources don't say that, how do we know that? Maybe they got involved because they oppose Islam (which they do, as can easily be sourced), and maybe their involvement is part of what created the controversy! Without sources, we don't know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Where in the citation policy does it say that all citations must directly relate to the subject of the article insofar as much as the entire citation is "about them"? Mythpage88 (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Check out WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If we're using sources that don't mention SIOA to imply that SIOA opposed the center because it was controversial, we're synthesizing to reach our own conclusions. Again: all you need to do is find a source that makes the connection. It shouldn't be hard, and if it is hard, that's a connection that Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" Mythpage88 (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The conclusion that SIOA became involved because it was controversial - exactly as you said earlier. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"It gained attention from its vocal opposition to the controversial construction of Park51." The statement is that the construction is controversial. Try checking your facts next time. Mythpage88 (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's that you just don't want to understand WP:SYN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." So saying that the proposed construction was controversial is a new position? I didn't know that, thanks! Mythpage88 (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a link to a web news with editorial control that links SIOP and says the stuff was controversial. Please try a search instead of arguing over policy, talk pages are for improving the article not your debating skills. Dmcq (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"One such example was..."

One such example of what, Mythpage? Are you really so desperate to revert any edit I make that you'll restore something completely nonsensical? Give it a rest, please; your editing should be about improving the article, not about reverting me under the irrelevant flag of NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"anti-Islamization organization"

Why do you persist, Epeefleche, in adding information that's not in the source? Wikipedia does not exist to promote your organization; we reflect what reliable sources write about it, not its press releases. It has its own site for that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you calling him a member of Stop Islamization of America? Mythpage88 (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly care, but repeatedly removing sourced information in favor of unsourced information is a violation of WP:V either way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You're avoiding my question. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about the article, or are you only interested in talking about me? That's what user talk pages are for. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You called it "his organization". That's a pretty serious accusation there, and frankly it seems like you're just trying to label someone who disagrees with you as biased. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Ros -- please don't edit war. As discussed earlier, it is the norm to first describe what an organization says it is, and then subsequently to discuss criticism of the organization. Not the other way around.

Also -- there is no reason to use the word "claim" as to what the organization says that it is -- it is more appropriate to says that the organizations says "x" (just as we use that language in reverse, to say what the critics of the organization say). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You're free to change the language if you feel it is inappropriate. Be bold. Your complaining about edit warring aside, please see WP:MISSION; it's actually extremely inappropriate to puff up the article subject with its nonsense mission statements and shunt criticism into the bottom section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Cf. WP:CLAIM. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You're free to change the language if you feel it is inappropriate. Be bold. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

redundant refs

edit summary does not explain reverts. I'm trying to update the article according to the sources. SIOA claims it is an anti-Islamic organization, not anti-Muslim. ADL and SPL have not accused it of being explicitly "islamophobic" (which is a controversial accusation by itself) but rather a hate group. ADL and SPL are reliable sources for their own reports. They are not an RS like AI and HRW as far as I know, at least I know the ADL isn't. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that must have edit-conflicted. However, I don't see a problem with it: your claim that the sources don't say it's anti-Muslim is flatly untrue, and we're not bound to take the group's promotional language as an accurate self-description. We could talk about whether ADL and SPLC are reliable sources (out of interest, why do you single out ADL as non-reliable?) but then we'd be heading back to the NYT source which used to be in the lead, which also does not buy into the "anti-Islamization"/"anti-Islamism" propaganda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The refs don't explicitly refer to the organization as islamophobic. CAIR is described as an antisemitic organization by the ADL, yet the lead doesn't describe CAIR as an anti-Jewish organization led by x, y and z. SPL doesn't even provide an actual brief on the organization, they just lump it into a series of hate groups based on NY. So why is the ADL a reliable source when describing SIOA a hate group but not an Islamic organization? ADL is a partisan source and as far as I can tell is only used to support claims made by the organization. SPL is probably in the same league. So I suggest the lead begin with, x is an American anti-Islamic organization (Islam is a religion and Muslims are people) led by blah blah blah. It has been described as a hate group by blah blah blah. Thoughts? Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

SPLC has material on the organization other than the source which someone else added, I believe, but this is probably irrelevant. Would you agree with "anti-Muslim," sourced to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, NPR, Mondoweiss, HuffPo (ie. the sources later in the article), etc.? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If the sources are not repeating claims made by the ADL/SPL and are explicit. Even so, the site should be identified by its original authors. Even movements like Stormfront (website) don't start with "White, racist, antisemitic organization." It is described as such by x critic in the next sentence. And Mondoweiss is probably not an RS. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure why the statement is attributed at that article, since it seems to be uncontroversially accepted. And yes, the sources aren't just reporting on the ADL and SPLC's claims. Mondoweiss has been accepted as RS in other articles but I can see why one might not want to use it. Shall I go ahead and make the change? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident MW isn't even close to being an RS. It is a blog. Can you link to the RSN that states MW is an RS? This is an editorial. Huffpo article only mentions SOIA in passing. The NPR/Huffpo source are all editorials. How is this: This is SOIA is an American anti-Islamic organization (link to criticism of Islam). X y and z have described SOIA as hate group (insert Reza Azlan, SLP, ADL opinions here) and designated a hate group by SPL. No need to say self-describe human rights group, it just sounds weasily. Further criticism (positive and negative) can be moved to the body. The article assumes the position that SOIA is a hate group in the very first sentence, which isn't NPOV. CAIR has been subject to more criticism and the lead doesn't even begin with such a loaded description.

I also suggest we include a response to the hate group listings. Gellar offered a specific response to SPL. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestions for the lead sound like a workable compromise. I believe "anti-Islam" is consistent with the style in other articles rather than "anti-Islamic"; other than that, I shall edit the lead as you suggest! As for Geller's response, do we have a reliable source? The designation was picked up in newspapers; did any reliable sources care about the response to show that we should include it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

All right cool. Talking points memo should be an acceptable source for Gellar's own words. Article links to Gellar's site here. I don't want to see the article become dominated by critism/response from Gellar and SPL, but criticism from civil rights groups shouldn't go unchallenged if the founders of SIOA have made statements in response to the characterizations. I'm rather bent on having the first sentence link to criticism of Islam, and then descriptions of anti-Muslim sentiment, or anti-Muslim hate, be linked to islamophobia. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If we have a reliable source that talks about it being merely criticism of Islam, we can definitely link that in the part of the body where we talk about it, but right now we have a reliable source which is unlikely to be beaten (unless we get a scholarly book or journal article) that talks about it as anti-Islam, so that's what is wikilinked (no piped link). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Only editorials and op-eds have passively described the organization as anti-Islam. ADL is not an RS as demonstrated by its absence at CAIR, and SLP is likely in the same league in terms of partisanship. SOIA claims it is an anti-Islamic organization (religion), and the ADL/SLP have referred to specific events and accused the organization of being anti-Muslim. We cannot give undue weight to partisan sources. The article definitively describes the organization as a hate group in the first sentence, IMO that is not NPOV. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to the New York Times source, not to the ADL/SPLC/opinion pieces no longer cited in the lead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The NYT cite does not support the statement that Stop Islamization of America is anti-Muslim. It merely says Gellar is anti-Muslim. A person and organization, two different topics. I believe the edit should be restored to the more NPOV, criticism of Islam - followed by descriptions of hate groups/etc from civil rights organizations/pressure groups. This is consistent with other articles. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It supports "anti-Islam," which is why the article currently says "anti-Islam." Please look at the current version, not at previous versions with different text and different citations. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something I don't see where the NYT article refers to Stop Islamization of America as "anti-Islam." The organization is only mentioned twice in the article. And anti-Islam is not necessarily Islamophobia. anti-Muslim just so happens to link to Islamophobia. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a redirect you would have to take up elsewhere. If you don't like the NYT source, there are plenty of other sources that describe the group/its people/its activities as "anti-Islam" or indeed "anti-Muslim." You seem very invested in promoting the view that the remarks this group makes about Muslims are merely intellectual criticism, but that is counter to the view of reliable sources, which we must follow. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The NYT does not support the sentence it links to. So either the NYT cite should be move delsewhere or removed completely. My opinion as an editor is not important, the issue here is sourcing and content not being framed in a NPOV manner. Because articles are describing SOIA as anti-Islamic, and not explicitly Islamophobic, it should link to Criticism of Islam, not Islamophobia. Descriptions by ADL/SPL should link to Islamophobia. We wouldn't link an organization critical of Judaism (the religion) to antisemitism, right? This is really only about the lead sentence. thoughts? Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is the potential for confusion, we should use the terminology that the source uses. If you don't think "anti-Islam" should redirect to "Islamophobia," please bring it up in the appropriate venue (probably WP:RFD). We cannot place an editor's personal interpretation over what reliable sources say by using a piped link instead of the actual target. Here are a few of the many other sources describing the organization/its people/its activities as anti-Islam or anti-Muslim: [1] [2] [3] (this is from the Detroit News, but hosted elsewhere because the original link is dead) [Edit: the Detroit News does use "anti-Muslim," but this isn't an exact copy of their piece, which is in LexisNexis) [4] [5] [6] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"I suggest the NYT cite be replaced with a ref that supports the statement that SIOA is in fact an anti-Islam organization. I haven't looked at all your sources but WSJ does not say SIOA is anti-Islamic. I'm assuming at least one does right? Geller may be a founding member but her views does not necessarily mean editors should match them with the platform of SIOA unless a reliable source does so. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

All the sources support the statement that the organization, its members, or its activities are anti-Muslim or anti-Islam, but I'll choose another source at random from the list I just made and use that one. I realize now that the comment you made earlier about not using "anti-Muslim" was based on the erroneous belief that we only had op-eds and other partisan sources, so I will use both. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese, could you expand the "criticism"-section? It now is not saying much more as already said in the lead, making it look a bit unneccesary. I do believe that the ADL-article has more to offer than just a single classification of this group. I can do it myself, but I think that you are the better expert here.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll try to look in that article later. (Also: Criticism ghettoes are generally discouraged, so is there a way that you think the material could be integrated into other sections? There's a brief mention of the SPLC thing in "history" because that made the news when it happened, and if we could manage to fit the other things in that section too, that could be good.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not know if we can integrate it in the article in a natural way. Maybe we can make chapters titled "Analysis by the ADL" or "Analysis by the SPLC." It would be an improvement. After all, at this moment the article mentions three times that the Southern Poverty Law Center labels SIOA as a hate group, without elaborting. That looks suspiciously like POV-pushing. One well-sourced, and even better written paragraph that describes WHY SIOA is a hate group would make the whole article look better. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if we could fully integrate the information better it would eliminate that repetition. (We could also try to integrate "Goals" into "History," maybe something like "founded with the stated goal of...") I'll add some info from the ADL and SPLC, let me know what you think when I've done it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like I was wishing for. Thanks!Jeff5102 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yay! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism-ghetto

Indulge my sometimes poor memory - was there a reason we didn't integrate the criticism ghetto into the article text? (eg. where SPLC is mentioned in the history section, just giving the reasons there; mentioning their ad campaigns in history instead of criticism) Whether you agree with or disagree with SIOA, we can agree that it's not the best article structure. (makes criticism seem more prominent by creating a big section, vs. allows it to be dismissed as just opinion where more positive material is treated as objective) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"Speculation" paragraph

I personally don't have a strong opinion on whether it's in or not, as long as link to articles is in. Just note that same two articles are now linked twice so please fix after you guys discuss it here :-) CarolMooreDC 23:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement of the obvious

Stop Islamization of America is not a far-right group. It's certainly a right-wing group given that it defends individual rights but the term "far-right" has connotations of racism. SIOA is not racist, opposing radical Islamism is not a racial issue, it is an ideological one. Obviously the English Defence League are far-right given the fact that they use violence to get their views across. SIOA however are a peaceful organisation who hold to the view that Europe should not be placed under Sharia Law. How this could be considered an extremist position is beyond me. --2.103.74.55 (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. And more: this article is completely biased. With which proof this Organisation can be considered "ismophobic"? Did they kill muslins? Do they incite their killing? Do they vandalise the property of any individual who opposes their thinking? Do they incite hate groups to defecate in the flags of Muslim nations? http://www.midiasemmascara.org/artigos/globalismo/13429-religiao-do-ultraje-eterno.html

"Far-right" isn't the most appropriate term to characterise intolerant groups, as this political term is completely misused, and its misuse is absolutely unfounded. What it means to be a right-winger? It means defending Capitalism, defending Conservatism, etc. What do the Nazis had of Capitalist or Conservatives? So the term "Far-right" here is being used to describe what? What the articles' author doesn't like? http://www.midiasemmascara.org/artigos/movimento-revolucionario/13653-as-raizes-nazistas-da-causa-palestina.html

Robert Spencer is calumniated throughout the web, and that's quite evident (including Anti-Semite speech, etc. Ex: http://middleeastatemporal.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/4519/). What name could characterise the Wikipedia articles that incite his image as being contentious? Robertophobia? More impartiality is good start. So less victimhood and more truth.--201.6.197.7 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Attack occurred before WTC ads

The articles are speculating--“While correlation does not necessarily imply causation, the question must be asked - ...”--that ads “depicted pictures of the 9/11 attacks with verses from the Quran superimposed” motivated Menendez’ attack in December. These ads actually weren’t put up until January [7]. To say “it is not far-fetched to wonder if Menendez’s hate toward Sen was in some way influenced by these ads” when the WTC ad wasn’t yet displayed makes the Menendez part of the article absurd. Thus I removed the speculation and left the expression of sentiment as well as both the links. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Both sources clearly refer to ads that had already been put up. The fact that they also mention the new ads that were already circulating but that did not yet appear in subways does not make their commentary invalid. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The previous ads made no mention of the World Trade Center attack--only Israel. Menendez, who is has a history of mental illness and violence, only mentions the 9/11 attacks on the WTC. Thus, the two articles you cite tie Menendez to Geller via a future ad that hadn't appeared in the subway contrary to the belief of the two authors. They clearly "jumped the gun." Nevertheless, their general views on the atmosphere created by the ads is indeed noteworthy even if their example is acausal. Thus, the Menendez part is gratuitous and should be removed. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Both sources clearly refer to ads that had already been put up, specifically the "savage" ad which we discuss in the article. Your original research (that Menendez is quoted as referring to the WTC attacks, so this must be connected to the SIOA ads about the WTC...which even by your own argument doesn't make any sense) is irrelevant and nonsensical. If you want to remove the Menendez incident, you have to make a case for it that is based on policy and sources, not based on your own personal preferences while pretending to refer to the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources clearly indicate that they are being speculative when it comes to Menendez: "While correlation does not necessarily imply causation ..." What is Menendez doing in an article about SIOA? The only SIOA ad at the time was about Israel. While the articles want to make a general statement about an anti-Muslim atmosphere, the attitudes of Menendez towards "Muslims and Hindus" involved in 9/11 being inflamed by SOIA is not supported in these articles especially if you take out the error of assuming Menendez might have seen the WTC ad which hadn't yet appeared. The articles are appropriate for conveying the authors' general worries about SIOA contributing to hostility towards Muslims but Menendez isn't a case in point. That's a gratuitous reference that even the authors state is speculative and more so if we understand that authors mistook a proposed ad for an actual ad. Let's take out Menendez completely and leave the author's overall concern. Don't you think the Menendez reference is guilt by association and "free association" at that? Jason from nyc (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You keep repeating the correlation/causation quote, but the same paragraph states that incidents of violence like Sen's murder are "in many ways the natural result of a national culture of anti-Muslim bigotry that has become mainstream in both politics and popular culture." And the other source is even more explicit about a possible connection, saying "In light of SIOA’s recent propaganda in NYC subway stations, it is not far-fetched to wonder if Menendez’s hate toward Sen was in some way influenced by these ads." If you want to qualify the reference, we could perhaps write "...creating an anti-Muslim atmosphere that contributed to the murder..." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Note your wording: “incidents of violence like Sen's murder ...” In other words, Menendez is an example of the kind of violence the authors want to address. Also note the phrase “not far fetched” is mere speculation and given that part of the speculation is based on an ad the author thought was installed prior to the murder this is indeed gross speculation that SIOA’s ads had anything to do with it. Including Menendez is inflammatory and guilt by association.

If you merely want to say “critics find that SIOA’s rhetoric contributes to an anti-Muslim atmosphere,” just say it and leave it at that. But specific cases are speculative and the authors use phrasing that indicates that. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was mistaken in my paraphrase; what's "in many way the natural result..." is Sen's murder specifically. Anyway, you're repeating yourself by now; you're arguing to dismiss reliable sources that directly refer to SIOA in this context, and you haven't made a case for removing the material. Perhaps you can try RSN if you don't think they're reliable for this connection. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to repeat myself since you ignore what I've said. I haven't advocated removing the sources. On the contrary, my edit kept the source including their reference to SIOA. I said we should quote their statements that SIOA contributes to an anti-Muslim atmosphere. It references to Menendez that we should remove. That Menendez' attack was a result of SIOA's ads is speculative and they admit that. Even you "mistakenly" picked up on the doubt about a connection. This is not up to good editorial standards. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Both sources specifically identify Sen's murder and other crimes as a result of the anti-Muslim atmosphere the ads create. You haven't successfully argued for hiding this information as if irrelevant, when it is in fact the main focus of both articles. Again, if you want to make your case to a wider audience, try a board. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Both sources speculate that Sen's subway murder was the result of an ad that was yet to be displayed on the subway. They clearly indicate that they are speculating. Clearly we have not reached a consensus that Menendez' attack is tied to SIOA's efforts. Without consensus mention of Menendez should be removed. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been in the article since December. Absent real issues like inadequate sourcing, it's you who have to justify a change to the stable state. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a recent edit only going back to late December. Given there are fewer than 30 watchers and it’s a recent edit what consensus could there have been? Surely with so few editors one wants time to reflect and achieve a true consensus. The item was newsworthy late Dec and early Jan. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a newsfeed. Surely the haste and crude first passes reports of a news story shouldn’t be solidified in an encyclopedia. The authors preface their speculation with disclaimers and there’s been no confirmation that SIOA’s ads played any role (initial reports assumed the ads were already in place). Clearly we can now reflect and realize these authors expressed an understandable concern but no hard evidence of SIOA’s influence. Let's leave the expressions of concern and not the wild speculations. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The argument that we should give the day-by-day blow-by-blow of every ad campaign SIOA runs, but that any surrounding circumstances are too NEWSy to include, is rather silly. I wouldn't be opposed to condensing the separate paragraphs on the ads into a generalized paragraph about their usual content and effects. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Something like - "SIOA has run several series of anti-Muslim ads on public transportation, claiming Muslims are savage and violent. These ads have been criticized by Jewish and Muslim groups, and identified as creating an anti-Muslim atmosphere that has led to acts of violence against American Muslims." I'm not necessarily sure how to work Eltahawy in? Also, if we do keep the separate paragraphs, we could make the 25% comment clearer (I initially read it as 1 ad in every 4) and correct the quotation of the most recent ad - it's "We" capitalized, ie. God. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all SIOA's critics that claim the ads imply that Muslims are categorically savage and violent and we have Ms. Eltahawy as expressing that common viewpoint along with several organizations--quite a few. There are editorials (in the Wall Street Journal) who see the ads as specifically talking about violent jihadi and the suicide bombers of Hamas--not all Muslims. Thus not all notable journals view the organization and its ad campaign the same way.

To use the notion of contributing to general hostility to a specific murder is what I’m objecting to in general and specifically because the two articles feel obligated to hedge their accusations and deploy specific circumstantial evidence. This was a murder on the subway where the killer cited 9/11 for her hostility towards Hindus and Muslims and it was assumed by the authors that the proposed ads showing the WTC with a quote from the Koran was already displayed and seen by Menendez. The articles main piece of evidence was faulty leaving us only with general “atmosphere” assertions and no specific connection to motivating this mentally challenged (i.e. manic depressive) individual with a long history of violent attacks. Menendez should be completely removed as the articles at the time were written hastily. I’d rather not put more in about Menendez to balance the errors of the initial article since this just bloats the article with a controversy that doesn’t add to the paragraphs of general condemnation. As a matter of fact, it makes the critics appear prejudiced as they are disposed to a conclusion about Geller and jump to conclusions when the story is more complicated and nuanced. Do we need the Menendez story in this article? Jason from nyc (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

PS Perhaps we should get rid of the Eltahawy affair (which I inserted at the time) as it now appears insignificant. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You're making a lot of claims about the sources that don't appear to be based in any facts. Rather than trying to analyze sources yourself, you should follow policy and report what reliable sources say. (Incidentally, as you've no doubt noticed, the ads were circulating in digital and print media long before they appeared in the subway.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I’m making a very simple argument that the main source for a connection between Menendez (a subway rider & killer) and Geller was an ad that the authors assumed was displayed on the subway and they were hesitant to even claim that that was solid proof. I don’t need facts--the authors need facts. The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Or, you could go with what the source actually says, instead of creating your own original arguments: the ads create an anti-Muslim environment that led to such acts of violence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Lede

I am not aware of the discussion Scythian is referring to. As I said, the previous wording had been in place for months; it's not a sudden change against consensus. Link? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The link is to an article in fact called "Islamophobia". It is irrelevant if it was there for months. I question the rational of the person who changed it in the first place. Deflection, maybe? The Scythian 18:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying (anti-Muslim currently goes to a disambiguation page and there was already a piped link to Islamophobia; that's never been the text, though). However, it would be better to argue for your wording on its merits; why do you favor "Islamophobic" over "anti-Muslim"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

New Lead Needed

Shrigley makes a reasonable change that you rejected because they are published statements of SIOA. It’s not unusual to have an organizations self-avowed purpose stated in the lead. If it is widely criticized, that usually accompanies the nominal self-definition given by the organization. Given that the Shrigley edit uses the phrase “describes its goal as ...” and “one of its founders described it ...” it is not being passed off a a factual assessment in violation of self-published sources. It is a fairly standard practice both in Wiki and in print to state the organizations “branding” before refuting it. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that more information about the organization's activities could be in the lede, but since this is an encyclopedia article, rather than a press release, we should prioritize reliable sources over promotional ones. We could use the reliably sourced information we have in the body to summarize what they do. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we need this article?

Looking over this article and comparing it to the article on Pamela Geller, I have to ask is this article needed? The essentials are already covered in the Geller article. It appears to me that this article has become an unintended fork. The authors and contributors no doubt created and maintained the article in good faith but it is mainly about Geller’s activities via SIOA.

I looked at the references in this article and 21 closely identify SIOA with Geller. Three talk about SIOA without emphasizing Geller. And the rest are either dead links or SIOA’s press releases. Sometimes Robert Spencer is mentioned in passing but SIOA actions are generally attributed to Geller and she is quotes as the spokesman.

The Geller article has 65 watchers while SIOA has less than 30. The former is closely watch by a diverse and vigilant group of editors. Frankly it covers the topic better. But more importantly, it is subject to WP:BLP while the SIOA articles allows inflammatory accusations against Geller via a stealth means--i.e. SIOA is not a person.

I question the need for this article and worry about inadvertent abuse by unintentional forking and the lack of protections against slanderous accusations living persons. Let me stress that I don’t believe it is the intension of the editors to do this deliberately. But since there is no real reason to have a separate article on Geller’s activities via SIOA, this article isn’t prudent or worse. We already are involved in editing the Geller article and with a larger consensus. Do we need this article? Jason from nyc (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"Islamophobic"? According to who?

There are three citations next to the word "Islamophobic" in the lead. Only one of the three sources (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) even uses the word, and it's attributed directly to CAIR. That makes it the opinion of a biased third party, not that of the source. We can mention this with attribution, but not in Wikipedia's voice. Federales (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The lede used to read "anti-Islam," which is a synonym. Perhaps you can discuss this with the user who changed it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The user who changed it? That would be you. "Anti-Islam" may or may not be a synonym, it is immaterial; unless there is a RS saying so, we can't put it in Wikipedia. In this case, we do not have a source stating that this organization is "Islamophobic", therefore it is subject to removal. Federales (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no, I've actually reverted away from that phrasing in the past. [8] Like I said - if you don't think "Islamophobic" is an acceptable synonym of "anti-Islam," then either reach out to the user in question, or rephrase it in a way that suits you. Do not remove sourced content because you don't like it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not "sourced content". It's a statement of opinion being quoted by sources, which you are improperly trying to state in Wikipedia's voice. The sources don't say the organization is Islamophobic; the sources say that third parties say so. This requires attribution. Federales (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible for your reading comprehension problems. All three sources describe the organization/its activities as anti-Islamic, anti-Islam, or anti-Muslim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to be uncivil. OK, so if all 3 sources say "Islamophobic", let's see quotes. Show us where the sources say this, as opposed to, let's say "125 religious leaders", or CAIR. I have no objection to using the term "anti-Islamic", which is objective and neutral. But "Islamophobic" is a slur, and is non-neutral. Federales (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeating myself: "All three sources describe the organization/its activities as anti-Islamic, anti-Islam, or anti-Muslim." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I get that, but you are having trouble understanding that the sources don't use the word "Islamophobic" in their own voice. Substituting your preferred "synonym" encroaches into the territory of OR, and is certainly not NPOV. No matter, it's fixed now. Federales (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Q: are you still arguing based on an older version of the article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A: I'm arguing against your misconception that our use of the slur "Islamophobic" is supported by the sources, and/or that it's an interchangeable synonym for "anti-Islamic". It no longer matters, as I am satisfied with your latest edit. Federales (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

The very term "Islamophobic" is biased. One can be anti-Muslim or anti-Islam without being irrationally fearful of it. 67.82.28.236 (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the reliable source books are clear about what Islamophobia means. Even if you can find a book that says the word is biased, we would still have the article here—in that case we would simply say the word was said to be biased by this source. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article rewrite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.

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

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

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

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

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

Time for protection?

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

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

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

Problem citations in the lead

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

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

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

• ^ Empty citation‎ (help)

Why was this re-added?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged for Violation of Wikipedia Policy regarding NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update on Breivik

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

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

Included Response from Pamela Geller to CAIR Remark About Smoke Screen

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

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

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

Included Statement of Support from Wall Street Journal

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

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

Breivik's confession

I just removed this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too much detail in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goals before History

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

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

Beirich on Geller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

after the killings but before it was known

I just removed this:

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

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

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

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

Saletan article

I just removed this:

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

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

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

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

Geller's denial

I just removed this:

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

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

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

Conor Friedersdorf

I just removed this:

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

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

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

Nathan Lean

I just removed this:

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

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

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

On calling out Geller and Spencer specifically

This thing about calling out Geller and Spencer specifically is getting way off-topic. Could we compromise and agree on language reading something like this? "SIOA was cited by Breivik along with a laundry-list of other groups including Al Qaeda[9] and Naziism[10] for inspiration." That should satisfy those who want to mention Geller and Spencer and those who believe the same are being libeled. -- Frotz(talk) 23:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"mentioned the advertisements creating"

I just removed this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

spraypaint

I just removed this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duplicate refs

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

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

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

Request to remove "Islamophobia" from the lede

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

"Islamophobia" is an English word, which has a defined meaning. I've quoted it twice above. Are you making the argument that SIOA doesn't satisfy this definition? If so, can you make it explicitly so that others can understand what you mean? If it's your position that before we can use a specific modifier to describe a noun we have to have a reliable source that explicitly uses that modifier to describe that noun, maybe you can point at some Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports that view. It's very hard to respond to you when you keep repeating the (rejected) assertion that calling SIOA Islamophobic is not supported by the sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm hatting this discussion. I think Livingengine is aware by now that the description is extremely well supported, and his own personal disagreement is an issue he needs to deal with on his own time, not by wasting the time of productive users. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

It's actually in the Oxford English Dictionary, so it's a little implausible to argue that it's "undefined" or "ill-defined." Being in the OED is pretty much the zenith of reality for words in English. Are you claiming that the OED is a "liberal resource"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, that was an interesting read. However, the ICLA cannot unilaterally assume the right to define Islamophobia in contradiction with various respected entities such as the Runnymede Trust, UNESCO and the United Nations. Rather, the ICLA's definition joins those other ones to help set the boundaries for the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that the views of any of these organizations are salient to the meaning of the word. None of them employ linguists and their attempts at definition are all shot through with multiple instances of the etymological fallacy and other day-dreaming. Words obtain meaning from their general usage by native speakers of a language, which is then picked-out and articulated by professional linguists and collected into dictionaries. If we have to figure out what words mean by reading essays by advocacy groups on any side of an issue we're going to be in serious trouble. I would prefer that we just stick to dictionaries, since they don't have axes to grind but are purely descriptive regarding the actual meaning-as-determined-by-use of words.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite its misleading name, the Int'l Civil Liberties Alliance is actually an anti-Muslim group, so their view on what Islamophobia is is not especially useful to us. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Binksternet in that one organization "cannot unilaterally assume the right to define Islamophobia" which further validates my belief that it becomes the responsibility of Wiki editors, especially considering there are many other respected entities world-wide in addition to the ones he mentioned who have an opposite view and support the ICLA's position. So the obvious question is who makes the choice of what position to portray? The obvious answer is the Wiki editor, but wait - it's not supposed to be a matter of choice. The latter is what creates POV, and results in imbalance as is the case with SIOA. The imbalance and POV is apparent in the comment made by User:Roscelese wherein she automatically excluded ICLA for being what she considers "anti-Muslim". What if editors decided that every organization who supported Islam or Muslims were anti-Semitic? It's ludicrous. I also agree with User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah in that I see no problem using Oxford as a reliable source. The problem is not Oxford, rather it is the misapplication of the definition by Wiki editors who are violating NPOV, be it intentionally, or inadvertently, it matters not. I'm sure we've all been a little guilty of losing our way from time to time especially when it involves a controversial subject where two very strong POVs are in conflict. Editors are only human, and we all have opinions. Our ability to disengage, and assume a neutral position is what sets Wiki editors apart. That's why corroboration is such a valuable tool. Oxford defines Islamophobia as a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially when feared as a political force. The definition is ambiguous at best because of its application of two very different emotions - hate, and fear. The ambiguity further validates my belief that the term is ill-defined. An editor's POV creates the misapplication. For example, the SIOA article focuses on "hate", and omits reliable resources that clearly demonstrate justifiable fear, or grave concern. The lack of balance in SIOA is quite obvious. It portrays the "hate group opinion" of the SPLC…"SIOA was named a hate group in June 2011 by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)." User:Binksternet made an excellent point when he said one group cannot unilaterally assume the right to define. In that same context, a Wiki editor cannot unilaterally assume the right to choose one opinion/ideology/religion over another. It is our responsibility to present a balance that can only come from NPOV, and doing so often requires editors to dig a little deeper than the obvious. Don't forget, the criteria for Wiki content must be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented. It is not a multiple choice criteria. Wiki readers will not be able to distinguish the difference between hate and fear when hate clearly dominates the SIOA article. With the latter in mind, how can anyone claim the article is balanced, or neutral? There are plenty of reliable sources to substantiate SIOA as being pro-Israel, anti-terrorism, anti-Islamlist extremism, and that they are driven by the "fear" of losing human rights, and religious liberty to Sharia, the sociopolitical dictate of Islam. Their position does not target all of Islam, or all Muslims, rather they are focused only on radicalism. SIOA is defined in the article as "an American Islamophobic organization" which is clearly POV, not to mention presumptuous. It is the goal of political pundits, partisan organizations, and liberal media to influence public opinion, so I'm not the least bit surprised that some editors believe the general consensus supports their view when in fact their view was formed by biased opinions. Again, corroboration is key which leads to my next line of questioning. Why wasn't the Dec 3, 2013 article on Front Page Magazine included in SIOA to balance the paragraph about the UK banning? Why wasn't the Jan 2012 Reuters' article, International Freedom Organizations Unite to Create Stop Islamization of Nations (SION), included? Reuters contains no reference to "hate", or "fear mongering", and succinctly and accurately portrays SIOA and SIOE as "the foremost organizations in America and Europe dedicated to defending human rights, religious liberty, freedom of conscience and the freedom of speech against Islamic supremacist intimidation and attempts to bring elements of Sharia to the West." That view has been totally omitted. It is not the job of Wiki editors to inject POV by choosing only those resources that agree with their own philosophies or ideologies. There is without a doubt a serious condition of POV in the SIOA article. Further, I oppose the creation of a series on Islamophobia for all the reasons I've mentioned above with regards to POV issues, and the term itself being ill-defined. It is our responsibility and moral obligation as editors to make sure our articles are NPOV. I thank you kindly for your time and consideration. Ms. Atsme (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"I don't believe in Islamophobia" or "I think Islamophobia is justified" are never going to be policy-compliant reasons for removing cited material. ICLA isn't Islamophobic because it supports Jews or Israel, it's Islamophobic because its sole purpose appears to be opposing Muslims. Your Reuters "article" is a press release from an affiliate of SIOA. Front Page is another fringe anti-Muslim source. The fact that these are the only sources you can come up with that don't support the depiction of SIOA as anti-Muslim only reinforces that depiction. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Where's the "unlike" button?

Atsme, have you completely forgotten that SIOA foments hatred against Muslims? The group is identified as doing so by many of the reliable sources. Your concern with the word "Islamophobia" might be best applied to an edge case, where someone made rational arguments. In the case of SIOA, they make irrational calls to fear and hate. SIOA is the poster child of Islamophobia. Take your concerns to an article where the word is less apt. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Wikipedia article is not about Breivik, nor Breirich.

Breivik has nothing to do with SIOA.

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

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

And this -

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

And, this -

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

And, this -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life is sad, life is a bust

All you can do is do what you must

You do what you must do and you do it well

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit in 2010 Section

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

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

Vague Meaningless Words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semiprotected

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