Jump to content

Talk:Frank Gaffney/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

POV

At the bottom of the article:

To this day, Gaffney is despised by many clear thinking people in the United States, as he continues his tirade against progressive, logical and moral values. His pitting of citizen against citizen, to many, is the cornerstone of his diatribe against modernity.

I need not explain how grossly POV this is, and am removing it. (I think Norquist's "sick, little bigot" comment handles it gracefully :) ) Caidence 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The article kind of reads like a hatchet job in general. It comes off like his biggest accomplishment is angering political folks, include the authors of the article! It's full of unsourced statements and unimportant facts (He once misquoted a famous figure, not a very notable feat). It violates many Wikipedia guidelines and policies as it is now; I'll snip it a bit. Calbaer 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the article with the misquote seems not to exist on washingtontimes.com or archive.org, and the only evidence I can find for it existing is Greenwald's article. Greenwald is known in right-wing circles for engaging in online trickery, so if he's the only source for it, it should probably be removed. I'll put a summary here for anyone who's interested in reviving it; a paragraph is a bit much for an article that seems to have been ignored by everyone except Greenwald (unless Greenwald's misquoting):
He has been criticized for using a statement misattributed [1] to Abraham Lincoln regarding "congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military" being "hanged," echoing that "If there's one thing that really should be a hanging offense," it is such behavior. [2]
It looks like Greenwald may have his dates wrong (talking about a "column in today's ... Times" on a Wednesday, when Gaffney's articles seem to run Tuesdays). Perhaps Greenwald's date stamp isn't what he intended, which makes it even harder to find the article in question. Anyway, the "controversial" statement should be left out until we can find the article itself and some evidence that others aside from Greenwald cared about it. Otherwise, it's nonnotable. Calbaer 02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The original Washington Times article Greenwald was referencing appears to be no longer online. However, a subsequent Gaffney Times column which starts with a correction for that inaccurate quote is still online. So FWIW, Greenwald's charge was accurate. Crust (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it not inappropriate to add that FG was involved a documentary for PBS's America at a Crossroads series, Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center. Asteriks 11:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording

About 2/3 of the way down:

In a front-page story in The Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove dismissed Gaffney's assertions regarding President Bush stating "there's no there there".

Did Rove say that "there's no there there" about Gaffney, or did Gaffney say that about Bush? If the former, then it's unclear what "assertions" are under discussion. Lincmad 23:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation

Why is he categorised as a Jewish Politician when our article does not state that he is either Jewish by ethnicity or religion and neither does it mention that he ever stood for elected office?

I understood that we had to be very cautious and insist on impeccable citations where biographies of living persons were concerned - or does this not apply to categories? Alice.S 05:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You are in direct violation of WP:STALK. I'd also note this is not 'your' article. You do not 'own' articles. WP:BLP requires editors to source alll criticism of living individuals. BLP does not apply unless you are trying to imply that being a Jewish politician is a bad thing. That would be... antisemitic. I'm assuming you were unaware of the finer points of BLP. For future reference, BLP does indeed apply to all aspects of articles from start to finish. Perspicacite 05:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So will you be removing the (unsupported by citation or our article) categorisation of Frank Gaffney as a "Jewish American politician", Perspicacite? Alice.S 06:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying being Jewish is a bad thing? Are you going to provide any links suggesting his ethnicity/religion are otherwise? Perspicacite 07:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. No, I am not implying that being Jewish by religion or ethnicity is bad.
  2. No, it is not for me to establish a negative. The way I understand WP to work is that you need citations to add (and maintain) the category - not for me to question the categorisation.

Finally - I'm not a combative sort of person so I will leave it to your own good conscience (or that of others) to make the appropriate deletion or add appropriate cited text to the article.

PS: As for stalking you, it is you that have drawn attention to yourself by personalizing this discussion sub-section and you that has exhibited careless behaviour with reverting good faith edits and inaccurate/misleading edit summaries and I wished to correct inaccuracies in the text and categorisation of our encyclopedia. That is sanctioned behaviour. However, I have no wish to cause you stress so I am happy to propose this modus vivendi: I will happily not edit articles where you have already edited (once this is pointed out to me) if you will extend the same courtesy? Alice.S 07:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Please bear in mind that your definition of stalking (I am not aware of editing either this article or any other article (with the exception of Tokelau) you have edited, Perspicacite) is different from that at WP:STALK#Wikistalking:"Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption.

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them."Alice.S 08:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP specificially mentions the categorisation of people by religious belief:
Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:
  • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
  • The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
Per policy, the category should not be included at present, looking at the lack of meating those criteria. One Night In Hackney303 12:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War Cheerleader?

Is he one of the Neocon idiots who wanted to take the focus off the real terrorist threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan and put it on Iraq, thereby bankrupting the country and sending thousands of brave young sons and daughters into harm's way? All while pink-handed Neocon fossils like himself sit in air-conditioned offices? What a chickenhawk. HelloFloreda (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing about Gaffney is that he is a Neocon to highest order. He's totally uninterested in pursuing peace, and has always demonstrated an unwavering desire to resort to conflict as a first option, never as a last option. If that wasn't enough, he accuses patriotic Americans who want to rectify the errors of the Iraq War as being traitors. He's an acrimonious, bellicose, cowardly Neocon hack. Ericster08 (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

COI tag

I went ahead and removed the COI tag since I don't see an apparant conflict of interest with the article. Any objections? Themfromspace (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

His recent claims (from 2008 onward) regarding Barack Obama reek of conspiracy theory. I'm going to put in the appropriate cats. Difluoroethene (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)←added actual editor([3]) – 99.170.117.163 (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Where ever

you are looking at consiracy nutters who claim that Obama is no real American and should never have become president, you will find some Jews or Zionist behind that crap- how comes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:59:E68:1101:5040:D23A:B298:61E9 (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

9/7/15 revisions to Gaffney page

Frank Gaffney is a controversial figure with many supporters and opponents. These changes are an attempt to add balance to the Gaffney article while leaving the harsh criticism of him in place. These changes also update the Gaffney page and correct some small errors. Most of the first half describes what his think tank does and recent activities. Criticism of him follows with very minor changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeke1999 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Grover Norquist section

I made some changes to this section because several statements are unsourced or the sources provided do not verify them. I left the lead sentence that Gaffney claimed Norquist is a "secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood" but noted there is no source confirming that Gaffney has said this. Two sources are misleading -- one is about an action by CPAC but quotes Norquist and not a CPAC source. I noted the sources of these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeke1999 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of Rollback Feature

I undid Lavabaron's rollback of changes on this piece by several editors. Another editor undid his rollback this week and said Lavabaron may be abusing the rollback feature. I agree Lavabaron removed new, sourced material such as CSP hosting rallies with presidential candidates. Also, some of the text Lavabaron restored was unsourced or inaccurate. For example, Lavabaron previously added a sentence that CSP is a pro-Israel think tank. This is not on CSP's website and Lavabaron did not provide a source for this claim. Lavabaron should add his criticism to this piece without removing sourced material he or she disagrees with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeke1999 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The rollback feature has not been used on this page. LavaBaron (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Unvandalized Version Restored

The unvandalized version of this BLP has been restored. The COI editor has inserted several unsourced claims, such as Gaffney was "born into a Jewish family" which are unsupported by sources (in that case, this - [4]). As there are too many BLP violations to attempt to salvage the massive rewrite piecemeal, I have restored the pre-COI editor rewrite version. LavaBaron (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure who the COI editor is to whom LAVABARON is referring. I didn't agree with the "born into a Jewish family" edit either, but the editor who made it included a source I could not verify. This is the one change LAVABARON made to this page that I agree with.

LAVABARON's reverts were the real vandalization. He or she removed weeks of edits made by several editors to add balance to this piece. This editor also removed material on Gaffney's other projects as well as material that countered some of the criticism of Gaffney. I've discussed this elsewhere on this page.

The Gaffney article has become an attack page. It uses biased sources to promote one set of POV criticisms of Gaffney. It includes pejorative language in the first sentence to defame him. I'm tired of fighting over this piece. I hope other editors and Wikipedia admin will take this up.Zeke1999 (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theorist"

SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2
This consensus seems clear and appears to have already been enacted in the article text. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Based on the sources cited in the lede, and subsequently in the body, how can Frank Gaffney be identified?

  1. - Statement of Fact: "Frank Gaffney is an American conspiracy theorist."
  2. - Statement of Allegation: "Frank Gaffney is an American who has been called a conspiracy theorist by (X,Y,Z, etc.)"
  3. - Statement of Qualified Allegation: "Frank Gaffney is reviled by the Left, which regularly condemns him as a conspiracy theorist."
  4. - None of Above: Frank Gaffney should not be identified as a conspiracy theorist in any manner whatsoever in this article.

Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option 1, Statement of Fact - The sheer breadth and quality of RS directly calling Gaffney a "conspiracy theorist," or characterizing his views as "conspiracy theory," surpasses that cited even for Alex Jones (radio host) whom we identify "conspiracy theorist" as a statement of fact. The term "conspiracy theorist" is not a scarlet letter, it is simply a method for a new reader to this subject to easily and quickly contextualize the content of the article. Having met the RS standards for BLP, this is a question of readability; statements of allegation are difficult to construct in an easily decipherable manner.LavaBaron (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Various academic sources discussing "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" acknowledge that the terms are often used pejoratively (i.e. it certainly can be a scarlet letter), so in-text attribution is the best bet. There is no need to lead the reader in that this, too, is easily decipherable. I agree with Cwobeel that in-text attribution can wait until the body. - Location (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 in that he has been described as such by enough independent sources to use the term in the article, and, given the weight given the topic, probably even in the lede. I would only use Option 1 in a BLP if the individual involved had clearly self-identified as such, and I don't see evidence for that yet. Having said all that, it would probably also be a good idea to expand the lede to at least two paragraphs, maybe more, to provide a better summary of all the relevant content. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, John Carter. In response to your suggestion - since it's not part of the RfC question - I've WP:BOLD expanded the lede. I've not touched the conspiracy theorist part pending the outcome of the RfC (though it seems likely to need an eventual revision to Option 2 based on the current !vote trend). LavaBaron (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Excellent points. Using the pseudoscience precedent to frame the article on Gaffney seems like the best of all worlds from an encyclopedia-building perspective. I've changed my !vote accordingly. LavaBaron (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 5 - Text before edit war: "Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., (born April 5, 1953) is a former U.S. government official and founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, a Washington DC national security think tank. Gaffney is a highly polarizing figure because of his strong positions against radical Islam and the July 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran. He is popular with Conservative groups and is a featured weekly contributor on Lars Larson’s and Greg Garrison’s syndicated radio shows. Gaffney also is a frequent guest on many other syndicated programs, including Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Janet Parshall, and Jim Bohannon. In addition, he appears often on such national and international television networks as Fox News, CNN and BBC. Over the years, Gaffney's Op-Ed articles have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angeles Times, National Review, Newsday, American Legion Magazine, and Commentary.[1] Gaffney is the 2003 recipient of the "Louis Brandeis Award" from the Zionist Organization of America.[2][3] Gaffney's controversial views -- especially on radical Islam -- have caused him to be reviled by the Left, which regularly condemns him as a conspiracy theorist and Islamophobe." I recommend this language because it adds balance and provides a better understanding of Gaffney. It also notes his recent work against the nuclear agreement with Iran. Zeke1999 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting perspective, however, this was originally expunged from the article as the various claims - such as that he is "reviled by the Left" and is "popular with Conservative groups" - are completely unsourced (and in many cases contradict later statements that are, in fact, sourced) and violate basic BLP. Also, saying someone is "reviled by the Left" is not a phrase one would typically find in an encyclopedia. That phrase would work great on Breitbart, but maybe not an encyclopedia. Thanks for your input in any case, Zeke1999! LavaBaron (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, such phrases as "the Left" and "Conservative groups" (why are they capitalized by the way?) isn't particularly useful, as it seems to assume that they are homogeneous groups of some kind, presumably meaning across national boundaries, and sources for that haven't, apparently, been produced either. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Excellent points about presumptions of homogenity, particularly since Gaffney's group has been denounced by Reason Magazine and American Conservative Magazine, and Gaffney himself by officers of the American Conservative Union, so saying "reviled by the Left" and "popular with Conservatives" appears to be a combination of fantasy and OR (though, I suspect, the retort will be that Reason, American Conservative and the ACU have all been infiltrated by Muslim secret agents or something like that). LavaBaron (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support "Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. (born April 5, 1953) is an American who is founder and president of the Center for Security Policy and proponent of conspiracy theories." as per TheRedPenOfDoom. Edward321 (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Summoned here by bot. This RfC is defective as it fails to provide sufficient alternatives, and the "none of the above" alternative (no mention whatsoever) is absurd. It can be mentioned in the lead but not as prominently as in the other alternatives, perhaps something like "since leaving the Defense Department, Gaffney has been accused of promulgating conspiracy theories." Also the entire conspiracy section seems disproportionate. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 1ish and 2ish as per Red Pen Of Doom. We should not beat about the bush. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Either 1 or the 1ish and 2ish middle ground mentioned above. The fact that he's advocating conspiracy theories (and that the things he's advocating are conspiracy theories) is well-sourced, and it seems to be what he's mostly known for today. --Aquillion (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 1 but there is no need to specify by whom; that can be covered in the article's body. Though a great deal more informative than the label 'Consp Theorist', would be some identification of his CTs (if poss.). Conspiracy theory is one of those highly elastic terms covering everything from 'Who really burned down the Reichstag?' via 'Was Oswald acting alone?' to 'Little green men are controlling Jimmy Wales and via him the whole universe'. On its own the term is pejorative rather than informative. Pincrete (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1. The guy advocates a number of major conspiracy theories, plus some especially wackadoodle claims that seem to be all his own. I never thought I would encounter somebody whose attacks on Grover Norquist seem bizarre and unjustified, but really... this is a no-brainer. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 1-ish / 2-ish I support the TRPoD formulation, expanded somewhat: Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. (born April 5, 1953) is a former United States government official who is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy and a proponent of conspiracy theories." Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 1-ish / 2-ish per Cullen328 above. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Expanded discussion

  • Obviously he is. But for NPOV, we ought to say that he has been referred to as such in the lede, and use inline attribution in the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - For purposes of RfC neutrality and comprehensiveness, I have updated the options to include a fourth ("Frank Gaffney is reviled by the Left, which regularly condemns him as a conspiracy theorist.") that was recently edit warred into the article by anonymous IP editor 99.170.117.163 (possibly in conjunction with Zeke1999 - see sock investigation here). LavaBaron (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The clause "edit warred into the article by anonymous IP editor" (this one) is incorrect ("recently" or not), as it was never "edit warred" by the IP, period. The IP (I) made three minor edits (style related MOS:U.S., MOS:JR, and adjusted three wikilinks into two pointing to more pertinent pages), as noted here (three combined edits). Sometime later (about three days), I returned and realized LavaBaron had "rolled back ..." the article to his earlier edit in August. After reviewing diffs and seeing nothing explicitly questionable that had been added (after Aug), no mention by LavaBaron of having done so on this talk page, etc., I decided to undo. After that undo, I have made no other edits to the article, a single undo is not an edit war. Please refrain from making erroneous statements about me or using phrases which could potentially cause negative connotations about my character which is not appreciated. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Caution: Disruptive edits by editor

Editor Lavabaron has been engaged in an edit war on the [Center for Security Policy] page and has extended it to here. His mass reverts to both sites were reverted twice. I have asked for a 3rd party opinion on his edits and his behavior which has included making false COI, sock puppetry, and SPA charges and complaints on fringe theories, BLP and Duck pages. I do not want to get into an edit war with this person who has POV problems with Gaffney and CSP. I therefore am asking for another 3rd party review of his edits concerning this page. I ask other editors to keep this in mind if you weigh in on the above discussion. For more information about this dispute, see [[5]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeke1999 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of disruptive, this doesn't really have anything to do with the RfC, Zeke1999. In any case, I believe Berean Hunter (among others), are currently looking into Zeke1999 here and so forth, at the suggestion of Cirt. As always, though, you provide an interesting perspective, Zeke1999 - thanks for your input! LavaBaron (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion request

This isn't how WP:3O is supposed to work, espescially with a whole RFC on the subject already. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A third opinion has been requested. The third opinion process is for lightweight resolution of content disputes. I don't see a content issue. If there is a content issue, it isn't stated concisely enough that I can answer it. I do see conduct allegations, but the third opinion process isn't for conduct issues. If there are conduct issues, first read the boomerang essay and then take the issue to WP:ANI, or to Arbitration Enforcement under the American politics ruling. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Robert- Thank you for your note. I've been thinking about this and came with two content issues that I would appreciate your help with. (1) Is the characterization of Gaffney as "an American conspiracy theorist" fair and accurate? and (2) How to address significant differences in this article's content. I welcome input from other editors on these issues.

1. Is the characterization of Gaffney as "an American conspiracy theorist" fair and accurate?

The first is the most important issue. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist is a serious charge and could hurt his reputation. The article should only say this if there is clear and compelling evidence that this charge is accurate. If there is significant evidence to the contrary, this charge should not be made or made with qualifications.

I do not propose the fact that the conspiracy theory charge has been leveled be dropped from this piece. Clearly this charge has been made. The question is whether Gaffney is "widely considered" to be a conspiracy theorist.

I believe there is strong evidence that Gaffney is not widely considered a conspiracy theorist. Here are my reasons.

(1) Option 5 above is text I previously added to this piece on Gaffney's close association with GOP presidential candidates, congressional Republicans and substantial media appearances. I believe these persons and entities would have nothing to do with Gaffney if he was widely considered to be a conspiracy theorist.

For example, in June 2014, Gaffney appeared on CNN's Crossfire to discuss the Bergdahl issue. See this link: [Gaffney CNN Crossfire panel] There's no mention of Gaffney being a conspiracy theorist. He was invited on the program as a conservative national security expert. CNN would not have had someone widely considered to be a conspiracy theorist on this show and certainly not to discuss this issue.

A more recent example. Gaffney appeared in a Fox News interview with Alan Colmes, a liberal TV personality, on Sept 22. See this link: [Gaffney and Colmes] Colmes said nothing about Gaffney being a conspiracy theorist even though they were debating Ben Carson's controversial comment that a Muslim should not be president. It did seem clear that Colmes thinks Gaffney is an anti-Muslim activist. I doubt Colmes would have done this show if he thought Gaffney was widely considered to be a conspiracy theorist.

(2) My second reason is stronger-- Gaffney's radio show. Gaffney does this show five days a week and interviews congressmen, former US officials, ambassadors, and national security experts. See this link: [Gaffney Radio show] Alan Dershowitz, a liberal Harvard professor has been on the show. This link includes the names of dozens of members of Congress. It is impossible to believe that so many congressmen and experts would do a radio show with a host who is a notorious conspiracy theorist. These people see Gaffney as a conservative foreign policy expert.

I think these reason are conclusive enough (or at least raise enough doubt) to not call Gaffney a conspiracy theorist and to portray this issue differently.

So what about the sources LAVABARON has produced to support the language he wants to include in the first sentence of this piece that Gaffney is "an American conspiracy theorist"?

I previously said LAVABARON's sources were all from he left. I want to amend this to say they are mostly from the left, some need clarification, and some -- if included -- should be accompanied by related exculpatory information.

It is unfortunate that politics in the US has become so coarse and that many are engaging in name calling and attacks on people's character. Gaffney has made some very hardline statements about radical Islam. Many on the left who disagree with him have responded with harsh criticism. This includes the Southern Poverty Law Center, Georgetown's Bridge Initiative, Talking Points Memo, Salon, anti-war.com the Huffington Post, Steve Benen of MSNBC, CNN's Peter Bergen and Jonathan Kay. These sources cited by LAVABARON are all similar but they don't just raise the conspiracy theory issue, many also mention Islamophobia, an issue I have tried to mention in this article.

Some of the harshest attacks on Gaffney have been made by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Too many anti-Gaffney quotes are attributed to this source. I also think it is unfair to include its gratuitous charge that Gaffney "went off the rails" in this piece at all, never mind at the start of the article.

LAVABARON has listed three sources that appear to be objective but are not. For example, this editor lists a piece from The Hill as a source without noting the names of the authors and the fact that they are with the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Center for a New Community. Another source cited by LAVABARON to substantiate the conspiracy theorist charge cited in his edits to the CSP page is the Washington Post. This is closer to being true but this piece was written by Dana Milbank, a liberal Post writer, and did not represent the views of the Post.

Reason magazine and the American Conservative magazine clearly are sources cited by LAVABARON that clearly are not liberal. However, their inclusion does not prove his or her claim that a wide variety of sources support his conspiracy theorist claim. Reason may be libertarian magazine as LAVABARON has claimed, but the issue raised in this piece is the Obama birther argument. Gaffney engaged in this years ago as did many American politicians. Some may have been engaged in conspiracy theorizing. Others were trying to derail Obama's presidential bid.

The American Conservative is an odd source. This magazine was founder by far fight TV personality Pat Buchanan. Its interesting that the author of this piece, Philip Giraldi, is also cited as the author of a separate piece cited by LAVABARON on the liberal website Anti-War.com.

I believe the issues I have raised about the above pieces makes it unreasonable use them to claim Gaffney is widely regarded as a conspiracy theorist.

So what about the charges of Gaffney being thrown out of CPAC? If this is included, it should be explained accurately and fully.

First, the sources about the CPAC episode are from biased sources: Talking Points Memo and Slate. This includes the comment by CPAC officials David Keene.

However, there is more to this story. LAVABARON deleted these paragraphs from this article in July:

"Gaffney said a press release by the American Muslim Council credited Ali Tulbah, a Bush-White House aide, for getting them access to the administration. Norquist banned Gaffney from the weekly "Wednesday Meeting" of the Leave Us Alone Coalition that Norquist hosted. Norquist later wrote an open letter, implying that Gaffney's account amounted to "racial prejudice, religious bigotry [and] ethnic hatred." In 2011, Gaffney accused Norquist of "helping the Muslim Brotherhood spread its influence" in the U.S. government.[12] David Keene, President of the American Conservative Union, later commented on the Gaffney-Norquist dispute, saying, "I, for one, don't see it. If you read the transcript [of the panel], you can see if Frank was right or wrong, but there was nothing racist or bigoted about it."[13]

In a front-page story in The Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove dismissed Gaffney's assertions regarding Bush, stating "there's no there there."[14] In an article appearing in the January 2007 edition of Vanity Fair about neoconservatives who pushed for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Gaffney said of Bush, "He doesn't in fact seem to be a man of principle who's steadfastly pursuing what he thinks is the right course. He talks about it, but the policy doesn't track with the rhetoric, and that's what creates the incoherence that causes us problems around the world and at home."[15]"

This information is part of this story. To omit it is to tell only one side. This text above comes from a conservative magazine (National Review) and Vanity Fair and is just as credible as the negative accounts in Talking Points, Slate and Huffington Post. To be fair, both sides of this dispute should be included. Here's a link to this diff: [[6]]

I also attempted to add text to this piece that LAVABARON repeatedly removed on how according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Gaffney was invited back to CPAC in 2015. I added this sentence: " (It is unclear how serious the 2014 CPAC-Gaffney spat was since according to an article posted in March 2015 to the Southern Poverty Law Center website, Gaffney was invited back to CPAC in 2015. The article also noted the Center for Security Policy had a booth at the 2015 CPAC and Clare Lopez, one of Gaffney's vice presidents, spoke at two CPAC panels.[36])"

Finally, there is information that the issues Gaffney raised that allegedly got him kicked out of CPAC are now being investigated by the NRA. According to [The Blaze], Grover Norquist suspended his NRA membership in light of the same allegations (ties to the Muslim Brotherhood) that reportedly got Gaffney suspended from CPAC. This happened after Glenn Beck joined Gaffney's complaint against Norquist. I concede there are various accounts about this and the Blaze is a conservative source. But the Blaze is certainly as credible as Talking Points Memo and the other liberal sources cited by LAVABARON.

My bottom line about the CPAC issue is that if this is included, the article needs to tell the whole story, not just parts that make Gaffney look bad.

To summarize my first point, there clearly are many who do not regard Gaffney as a conspiracy theorist. Most of the sources cited against him are from the left. The CPAC issue needs to be fully and fairly explained. Because this is a biography of a living person, the language needs to be measured and conservative on issues like this. In light of these arguments and concerns raised by LAVABARON, I propose the 1st two paragraphs read like this:

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., (born April 5, 1953) is a former U.S. government official and founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, a Washington DC national security think tank. Gaffney is a highly polarizing figure because of his strong positions against radical Islam and the July 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran. He is popular with Conservative groups and is a featured weekly contributor on Lars Larson’s and Greg Garrison’s syndicated radio shows. Gaffney also is a frequent guest on many other syndicated programs, including Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Janet Parshall, and Jim Bohannon. In addition, he appears often on such national and international television networks as Fox News, CNN and BBC. Over the years, Gaffney's Op-Ed articles have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angeles Times, National Review, Newsday, American Legion Magazine, and Commentary.[1] Gaffney is the 2003 recipient of the "Louis Brandeis Award" from the Zionist Organization of America.[2][3]

Gaffney's controversial views -- especially on radical Islam -- have caused him to be heavily criticized, mostly by the Left, which regularly condemns him as a conspiracy theorist and Islamophobe."


2. How to address significant differences in this article's content

I'll be brief. Huge deletions were made to this piece and the Center for Security Policy piece. A lot of these edits -- especially on the CSP piece -- seemed gratuitous. Some were dropped because LAVABARON didn't like the sourcing. I would have happily added better sourcing if given the chance. I'd like to suggest both pieces be restored to their Sept 23 versions and that we begin a section-by section discussion on revisions in the talk section.

I appreciate you looking into this, Robert. Zeke1999 (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

seriously, no one is going to read this. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
On the one hand, the characterization of Gaffney as a conspiracy theorist is sourced to multiple sources. On the other hand, if you think that presenting that conclusion in the voice of Wikipedia in the lede is inappropriate, I suggest that you publish a neutrally worded Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since June

What has gone on here since June? This article is so POV it can't be taken seriously. The article lede presents activist criticism as though it were accepted fact. At least pretend to adhere to NPOV. Can I go ahead and rewrite the entire thing? Also, where is the content relating to his actual background? He was Assistant Secretary of Defense... that is why he is notable. Baramop (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions under the American politics case. Tendentious editing can be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. You probably cannot "go ahead and rewrite the entire thing." LavaBaron (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Why not? You did. Rhoark (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Because an overwhelming consensus of the community has determined we will identify Frank Gaffney as a conspiracy theorist and/or proponent of conspiracy theories in the lede of the article. LavaBaron (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
NPOV is not a suggestion. It's Wikipedia policy. This article does not conform to a NPOV. It is so POV it still reads as a parody even after a basic cleanup. Baramop (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Your edits are outside a recent consensus and have been reverted. LavaBaron (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not our job to spread shit causing fear

BBC Report

Following the controversy over Donald Trump's use of a poll released by the Center for Security Policy, I stumbled upon a BBC article[1] which appears to have copy and pasted from Wikipedia. This is a sad sign of the poor state of reporting today a BBC chooses to plagiarize instead of do his own work. Might I suggest that anyone choosing to update Mr. Gaffney, or the Center's page - following the Trump thing - do so with caution regarding their sourcing. Perhaps this article (Not the BBC generally) should be barred from being used as a source? Thoughts? I will be reposting this comment on the Center's talk page as well The Armchair General (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's the bit about " install Shariah as a parallel legal and political system" both the BBC and our article got that text from the CSP website.[7] Doug Weller talk 08:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, our article says "Terri A. Johnson, executive director of the Center for New Community, and J. Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, have characterized the group as "an extremist think tank"" The BBC article says "The CSP has been criticised across the political spectrum - by high-profile Republicans as well as Democrats - and by organisations which monitor extremist groups. Terri Johnson, executive director of the Center for New Community and J Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, called it "an extremist think-tank" led by an "anti-Muslim conspiracist".
But there aren't a lot of ways to say that. Sure, maybe the author looked at our article and then the sources, but it's accurate and I see no reason why it shouldn't be used as a source, and I'm not clear why you think it shouldn't be. It's not as though it was copying original research in our article. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
There are many ways to have cited the original source material. I'm not sure what the best answer is. I'm just concerned that if this article is used as a source then it will be circular reporting. There are plenty of other article's on the web that people can use to criticize this person/organization... This shouldn't be one of them. My main, overarching, point is to caution people to inspect their sources that don't do this sort of thing, in order to make sure that situation of circular reporting doesn't arise. The Armchair General (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35037943

Special attention to preserve consensus

The text of this page, which was recently painstakingly supported after weeks of battle by a sound consensus, has been sanitized again by yet another newly minted editor as per the CSP's modus operandi. I have reverted these edits. A recent Frank Gaffney survey was referenced by Donald Trump in his heavily publicized yesterday speech calling for rounding-up Muslims and so this page may receive another influx of attention. Persons involved in the previous consensus decision (e.g. Cwobeel, Orangemike, TheRedPenofDoom, John_Carter, et al.) may want to pay special attention to it in the coming days to assist in reverting a predicted, incoming new round of sanitizing by newly registered editors and IP accounts geolocating to Arlington, Va., often editing in tight coordination with back-to-back timestamps. LavaBaron (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edits constitute vandalism. You removed sourced, unbiased content in favor of a POV parody. There was never any consensus for what you have done and you do not own this page. I am going to ask that you be blocked from editing Wikipedia given your demonstrated intention to violate Wikipedia policies. Baramop (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, I saw your last attempt to falsely accuse someone who disagreed with you of sockpuppetry was determined to be false. Perhaps you could try to constructively edit Wikipedia instead of engaging in petty vandalism. Baramop (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be the same talking points that have been trotted out before by the various new editors and IP editors who have been blocked as socks on these articles. This is probably more a question for administrative action at this point, given the recent consensus for the wording of the lede so I'll leave it there. LavaBaron (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Baramop's version is superior in completeness, BLP, NPOV, and due weight. Revert warring against it will need something much better than alluding to an alleged prior consensus. Rhoark (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not "alleged" consensus. It's a closed consensus discussion like two threads up. We decided by almost unanimity we won't add the editorial insertion "by the left" to the charge of conspiracy-theorizing by Gaffney given the breadth of sources involved. LavaBaron (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
That explains two words. How about the rest of it? Rhoark (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I missed your question, Rhoark. The Baramop account has now been indefinitely blocked, so I guess it's a moot point in any case. LavaBaron (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I made a partial restore, keeping some of the details of his various theories. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Cwobeel. LavaBaron (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron is consciously not engaged in constructive editing. There is no content dispute here. This is vandalism masquerading as POV. A temporary block is in order. Baramop (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your request for my blocking should be filed at WP:ANI, not an article Talk page. Let's try to keep this discussion focused on content. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

no consensus to merge. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think that Center for Security Policy can be easily merged here. After all, these two subjects are inseparable, and the center seems to be just Gaffney. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Threaded discussion

Maybe the merge should be done the other way around? Is Gaffney notable beyond his involvement in CSP? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Prior to founding CSP, he was Assistant Secretary of Defense and coauthored a book. Looking at the list of fellow office holders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_Secretary_of_Defense_for_Global_Strategic_Affairs#Office_Holders), 7 of 11 have pages, although this doesn't necessarily mean they'd fail notability [EDIT: meant to say, "this doesn't necessarily mean the others would fail notability"]. Looking at the External Links on the page, C-SPAN has had him on as the founder of the CSP 90% of the time, but also as "Hudson Institute Senior Fellow" and "DoD Deputy Assistant Secretary". Mracidglee (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Assistant Secretary of Defense is four levels below cabinet secretary rank (Secretary -> Deputy Secretary -> Under Secretary -> Asst. Secretary), so is not really a point of notability by itself. Plus, he only held the position for seven months and was technically only an acting Asst Secretary since he never passed a Senate confirmation vote. However, I'd agree with you that he probably has notability based on the number of appearances he's made on C-SPAN and the number of times he's been referenced in the MSM. LavaBaron (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

conspiracy much??

i don't really have time for a close analysis right now but it seems that there may be some original research violations (of the original synthesis type) in the link between gaffney and some of these conspiracy theories. the first three links for the lead for instance do not directly say that he is a conspiracy theorist - though that with the splc does, many times. but splc may not be an appropriate source in this context (can others advise??) and so on. what's the word? Happy monsoon day 21:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Happymonsoonday1 there was a recent, broadly established consensus, via RfC, that we should describe Gaffney as a "proponent of conspiracy theories." This was a belabored and painful process that required the indefinite blocking of three accounts to resolve. If you would like to change this description, it may be wise to do so via a new RfC instead of WP:BOLD editing. LavaBaron (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
i wouldn't want to waste anyone's time. let me look into this rfc and let you know my thinking. the main problem to me was the synthetic manner in which the judgement was arrived at, which possibly violates wikipedia's no original research policy. Happy monsoon day 20:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I have to say that that RfC strikes me as quite objectionable. The question was clearly posed in the "So how long have you been beating your wife?" style. It essentially established a false dichotomy in which respondents were corralled to either dismiss Gaffney as a nut or say that there was nothing wrong with him. Whether he is wacky or not, the tone should be neutral. [Godwin warning!] even AH himself gets a halfway decent first line: "Adolf Hitler was a German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party..." We don't find out about his mischief until the second line. The biggest issue though is that not a single one of those 8 references directly describes him that way. Thoughts?Happy monsoon day 22:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you're incorrect. LavaBaron (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@Happy monsoon day, if the source doesn't specifically say that he is a proponent of conspiracy theories, it should be removed. --Malerooster (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It does, so we're okay. LavaBaron (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't go before nationality and occupation unless its the reason for the subject's notability, see WP:BLPLEAD. --Malerooster (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It is. LavaBaron (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Then it needs to be rewritten following BLPLEAD format. --Malerooster (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Commenting on wikipedia by Mr. Gaffney

On May 9th 2016, Mr Gaffney commented on the Washington Journal C-Span program, that wikipedia should be dismissed as any reliable source of information. I would like to include exerts of his interview into the article. Any comments? the relevant section is at the 36min mark of the program. http://www.c-span.org/video/?408734-3/washington-journal-frank-gaffney-foreign-policy-campaign-2016--Wikipietime (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Only if it gets picked up by major media. It's pretty trivial, of course he'd say that. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron, I have to say I agree with Doug Weller. That he mentioned WP in an interwiev is not reason enough to have it in the article. Also, putting it under CT is problematic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Good point, I forgot we had this conversation. LavaBaron (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The RfC shouldn't be simply ignored. He's well known for 2 major reasons - the policy center and his advocacy of conspiracy theories, both need to be highlighed in the lead.

I don't think that the Cruz mention belongs in the lead, however. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. If we do mention his career in the Reagan administration, which in fact I would be happy about, it would have to have the whole context. Twice member of the Reagan administration, forced out and started to attack it. Obviously not worded like that of course. But his career in the administration from start to finish, succinctly put so as not to just duplicate content. Sources aren't needed if they are in the main article. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Another take on the "conspiracy theorist" argument

The sources for the claim that Gaffney is a conspiracy theorist are mostly opinion pieces by leftists attacking Republicans, and hitting Gaffney in the process. Here's one of the sources: "The Iran Deal Opponents Are Going to Fight to the Bitter End," published in The Nation (which self-identifies as left-wing). The op-ed blasts Republicans and pro-Israel Jews as "neocon apparatchiks." Then we have: "The Republicans' Muslim 'problem'" - another opinion hit piece on Republicans. Moving on: "GOP Presidential Candidates Will Appear Alongside Disgraced Conspiracy Theorist John Guandolo." (That source link is broken, by the way. I'm too inexperienced to fix it.) And, finally: "Bachmann, Gaffney, and the GOP's Anti-Muslim Culture of Conspiracy."

Look, if you're fine with letting editors source the claim that Gaffney is a conspiracy theorist with opinion pieces arguing that half of America's political spectrum is composed of conspiracy theorists - that's your call, but it doesn't seem to me to be very NPOV or "extremely well sourced."

Ultimately, the main problem with this Wikipedia article on Gaffney, however, is that it mostly cribs the Southern Poverty Law Center as its main source - and also relies on sources that themselves source SPLC. The SPLC has been described as a far-left fear-mongering group by such bastions of the "furthest right" as The Nation and Harper's Magazine. The Harper's piece was written by Ken Silverstein, who supports Obama's policies, but also sometimes criticizes them FROM the left. Silverstein, who, according to Wikipedia has written for such far right media outlets as "Mother Jones, Washington Monthly, The Nation, Slate, and Salon," accused SPLC of being "essentially a fraud [that] has a habit of casually labeling organizations as “hate groups.” Silverstein wrote: "In doing so, the SPLC shuts down debate [and] stifles free speech." I would add that it also inspires acts of far-left political violence - as referenced on Wikipedia. It's highly unfortunate that the SPLC's hysteric attack on Frank Gaffney is being used as the main source for criticism of him on Wikipedia. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Ocdgrammarian

You mean it was allegedly the inspiration for one act of violence against an employee of an anti-gay group. Calling that "far-left political violence" seems bizarre. How do you arrive at that conclusion? And are you arguing that Gaffney is not a proponent of conspiracy theories, eg the 'birther' theory, or that these are not conspiracy theories, or that we just need better sources? Doug Weller talk 14:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Doug: When something like this seems bizarre to you, it helps flipping the ideology. Let's take something that happened on the other side of the culture war around that time: the murder of gynecologist George Tiller. What if describe that murder as "one act of violence against an employee of an anti-baby group." That would seem bizarre, or at the very least intellectually dishonest, right? Calling it far-right political violence would be much more appropriate. With all due respect, I'm just trying to make you see your biases. You did a lot of question begging with that statement. There was a lot of hay made - legitimately, in my opinion, about Bill O'Reiley "allegedly" inspiring Tiller's murderer by repeatedly calling him "Tiller - the Baby Killer" on air. We don't know if he did, but we know from the leftist attempted murderer's own confession that he targeted the Family Research Council because SPLC repeatedly called the organization gay haters. He told the guard he was trying to murder that he committed the "one act of violence," as you euphemistically term it because, "I don't like your politics." In any case, "allegedly" is not the correct legal term for facts that have been confessed to in a court of law, and which were the basis of a life sentence handed out by that court of law. You don't get put in jail for life for an "alleged" crime. And that crime cannot be fairly described as you did, again euphemistically, by the phrase "one act of violence against an employee." That "one act of violence" was an attempted massacre of Family Research Council leaders, which was stopped by the heroics of that employee. Even saying "anti-gay" is begging the question. The FRC claims it's not anti-gay, but rather pro-traditional gay marriage, much like Planned Parenthood deserves to be taken at its word when it says that it's not anti-baby, just pro-family planning. This all goes back to the words you choose to describe things in a biased way. Gaffney says some controversial. The article could have treated that history in a much more productive and less biased way. This includes the ridiculous SPLC-cribbed "big part of the article," which I would have liked to fixed if LavaBaron hadn't turned me off my shortly-lived desire to contribute to Wikipedia with his hostile aspersions. But, the atmosphere is just too unpleasant here, so I'll get back to the occasional grammar edit in the sciency part of Wikipedia. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Ocdgrammarian
"is a proponent of conspiracy theories." or something like it needs to be in the lead, since "Conspiracy theories" is a big part of the article, partly because his accomplishment of having some reasonably not-left people openly disagree with his statements. When I read the CT section, it seems well-written, well sourced and supportive of the lead by a very broad margin. Gaffney is without a doubt a proponent of conspiracy theories, as well as founder, ex-acting Assistant Secretary etc. Per WP:LEADCITE I´d be ok with removing the cites from lead and let the CT section speak for itself. But of course, it may not be that easy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
BTW, would starting the lead with "Frank J. Gaffney Jr. (born April 5, 1953) is an american political commentator. He is..." be an improvement? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so. Technically all conspiracy theorists are political commentators. Gaffney specifically comments on conspiracy theories. We could, technically, call Alex Jones a political commentator but it would be confusing to the reader. LavaBaron (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. And I see at Alex Jones that we don´t ALWAYS have nationality (or whatever) in the first sentence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The previous socks have been arguing the same thing, that the "conspiracy theory" claims are sourced to opinion pieces. Unfortunately, however, that's incorrect. LavaBaron (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, some of the "conspiracy theory" claims are from opinion pieces as well as groups generally considered 'left wing.' Might I suggest that some of those citations be removes? There would probably still be plenty of RS material if some of those disputed ones are removed. Also, the SPLC is a bit overused as a source. Also, I think adding "political commentator" to the lead is also appropriate, he was a columnist for the Washington Times for over 2 decades, a columnist for Breitbart News, and regularly appears on news programs. The Armchair General (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Most are from straight news sources. And some of them are from outlets generally considered 'right wing' (e.g. American Conservative Magazine and Reason). LavaBaron (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The piece from Reason is off of their blog. Blog posts are generally considered to be [opinion pieces] and don't necessarily represent the views of the organization as a whole.The Armchair General (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
As per our policies at WP:RS, that's not at all correct: Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. WP:RS against blogs concerns Ted in Topeka's Blogspot where he pounds out his daily thoughts on life. But you are free to open a new RFC. Unfortunately, however, a new RFC is the only way this is going to be changed. Just like last time. There's no shortcut. LavaBaron (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Please don't confuse my comments as an argument to remove 'conspiracy theory' all together. I'm simply saying that some of these sources are bush-league and that we can do better. In regards to the Reason piece. I cited a source that describes the blog as 'opinion' piece based. There is often very limited, if any, oversight on these "blogs," with corrective actions taken, only if something egregious is written. Additionally, Reason prides itself for having a blog that's snarky and rude. It was modeled from a website called Suck... Not what I would call professional. -- However, it is in accordance with Wikipedia policies at WP:RS, so I guess will petition there for the policy to be changed.The Armchair General (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Career

Would it be possible to add something WP-acceptable about WHY he was "notably excluded" and "ultimately forced out"? It reads like he wasn´t appriciated, but nothing about why. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The circumstances surrounding his rapid termination from government have not been put into a RS and, having some knowledge about them, I doubt you will ever see them put into a RS, unfortunately. That said, he held a very minor post in government. In the 1980s, a "Deputy Assistant Secretary" was five levels below cabinet-grade officer and was the lowest Plum Book-criteria office in existence.
Speaking in general terms, without specific reference to Mr Gaffney, these are very, very junior positions used to test if party loyalists have the intellect, competence, and etiquette to be groomed for a higher policy office in the current administration, and in subsequent administrations of the same party. Those that aren't are shown the door fairly quickly. An example of someone who passed muster is David S. Cohen (attorney) (whose WP:BIO I wrote); he started in an equivalent-rank position to Gaffney but, instead of "being shown the door", was quickly advanced to his current position over a period of 36 months. LavaBaron (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the informative answer (Plum Book was new to me). Reading that part again, I can read it something like "someone had to do it, so he got the acting-job, but since it was known higher up that he wasn´t likely/certain to keep it, he wasn´t let in on all the good stuff", which would be pretty unremarkable. I can also see a hint of a possible answer in the CT section. Then again, maybe you're a government operative trying to throw me off scent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I want to agree with most of LB's points, but personally, as someone who has once worked in government, I object to the statement that a DAS (even in the 80's) was a very, very junior position. It was low on the list of positions needing presidential appointment (and Senate confirmation), but it was in no way a 'junior position.' The position alone is notable and in my opinion deserves to be mentioned in the lead, without needing an explanation as to the circumstances leading to his departure. If an RS come's out at some point in time in the future regarding those circumstances, it should be added into the body of the article in the "Career" section The Armchair General (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
"He has worked in the US government, where he rose to the post of Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs."?
BTW, is he the reason that the MDA doesn´t have the same logo nowadays? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that way of phrasing his background is good. Also, no he is not the reason the MDA doesn't have the same logo.The Armchair General (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång - would you object to a minor edit to replace "rose to" with "held the"? LavaBaron (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron I´m fine with either, I choose "rose" since I think it says "he made it this high but not further" a little clearer. It can be read as a little laudatory though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, as DAS one might have 3-4 people one directly supervised; depending on the function one might not supervise anyone at all. But, you're right, by saying "junior position" I may have taken some liberty. To achieve any Executive Schedule post does not imply one is "junior" in the sense one is like an intern, however, there is no lower level one can occupy than that of Deputy Assistant, so if one had to identify what is objectively the most junior executive branch appointment that could be made, a DAS would be it. LavaBaron (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be rude and I apologize if my objection came out that way. You are right that there is no lower level of executive appointment, but you did kinda make it appear like the DAS position was not too much higher than an intern. "He worked in the US government, where he held the post of Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs." ?? The Armchair General (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
There's no need to apologize; you did not come across as rude. Sorry if my response may have made it sound like I thought you did (I was actually replying to Armchair General, anyway, whose points in correcting me are valid and well-taken). Thanks for all your work on improving this article. LavaBaron (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
In reality, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense is the highest presidential appointment in the Pentagon that does not require Senate confirmation. I know from my own experience as having been invited to accept an appointment to that position. The position is low on the presidential Plum List, but it's still on the Plum List. In the Pentagon's Order of Precedence list, the position ranks above that of 3-star generals and admirals. As for duration, quick removals from office are often the norm in Washington. A look at the calendar of Gaffney's interim position as acting deputy assistant secretary and his sudden removal shows that it coincided with a major political shift within the Reagan Administration's Pentagon leadership, and that Defense Secretary Carlucci, who was much more moderate than Defense Secretary Weinberger, wanted the harder-line Weinberger proteges out of the Department of Defense. Carlucci purged DoD of a many of the hard-line political appointees who had preceded him. That appears to be why Gaffney did not stay. Indeed, Weinberger kept his association with Gaffney afterward, and accepted an award from the Center for Security Policy. The wording in this BLP is not properly weighted in that it inaccurately implies that Gaffney was minor or marginal. Hope this helps improve the context. I can try to find substantiating info if it would be useful. Professor Mike (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should Gaffney be described as a "conspiracy theorist" instead of "proponent of conspiracy theories"?

Consensus: "conspiracy theorist" may be used in the lede.
A previous RFC was unanimous (except for a now-blocked user) on some sort of conspiracy language. The current RFC adds new sources further supporting "conspiracy theorist", and a clear majority see no need for a manufactured or unusual "proponent of" qualifier. Alsee (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We previously, by RFC consensus, determined it was appropriate to describe Frank Gaffney as a "proponent of conspiracy theories." I believe enough new RS using the unambiguous term "conspiracy theorist" have, since then, been published, that we can now adopt the less cumbersome phrasing of "conspiracy theorist". I propose to describe Gaffney, in the lede, as "an American conspiracy theorist", sourced as follows:

  • International Business Times (type: straight news) [[8]] - "Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, has been criticized as a conspiracy theorist who regularly espouses harmful anti-Islam and anti-Muslim views."
  • Houston Chronicle (type: straight news) [9] - "Ted Cruz appoints anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist as security adviser" (referencing Gaffney)
  • CNN (type: straight news) [10] - "Trump cites anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist in immigration ban proposal" (referencing Gaffney)
  • Haaretz (type: straight news) [11] - "Cruz Picks 'Notorious Islamophobe' and Conspiracy Theorist for National Security Team" (referencing Gaffney)
  • American Conservative Magazine (type: opinion editorial) [12] "Frank Gaffney and his co-thinkers are on the same level of morally reprobate paranoid delusions when it comes to the global conspiracy to impose sharia law on America as the anti-Catholic conspiracy mongering of the Ku Klux Klan."
  • Reason (type: opinion editorial) [13] "There's more in Gaffney's column but none of it's going to get attention as long as he hitches his wagon to conspiracy theories."
  • Daily Beast (type: opinion editorial) [14] "For years, Ted Cruz has publicly associated himself with former Reagan official Frank Gaffney, a crackpot conspiracy theorist who has never seen a Muslim he didn’t think was secretly trying to infiltrate the government."
  • Mother Jones (type: advocacy news) [15] "He's appeared on the radio show of Frank Gaffney, the conspiracy theorist who's a foreign policy adviser to Ted Cruz."
  • Anti-Defamation League (type: advocacy group) [16] "Gaffney has promulgated a number of anti-Muslim conspiracy theories over the years."
  • USC Annenberg Center (type: academic analysis) [17] "That Gaffney believes there is some sort of “code” that needs breaking to get at the imagined evil intent of a theological construct is illustrative of his conspiratorial mind."

As per good manners, I am pinging everyone who opined in the previous RfC: User:Cwobeel, User:Location, User:John Carter, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Zeke1999, User:Edward321, User:JzG, User:Aquillion, User:Cullen328, User:Orangemike, User:Pincrete, User:Coretheapple, User:Beeblebrox
If adopted, the lede would read as follows: "Frank J. Gaffney Jr. (born April 5, 1953) is an American conspiracy theorist. The founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, he has worked in the U.S. government and written for several publications."
LavaBaron (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Support

  • Support - this is the most widely used way of identifying him; we should adopt common phrasing instead of manufacturing terminology LavaBaron (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Aren't they basically saying the same thing? I think saying it as plainly as possible will best suit our readers, which is my main concern. An encyclopedia should provide facts; I didn't know anything about Gaffney before reading this article and after checking the sources, this seems to paint him as accurately as possible. Valeince (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's interesting that none of the sources used to support calling Gaffney a conspiracy theorist lead directly to his statements. The sources are entirely second-hand or third-hand claims about his positions by opinion columnists and activist groups. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
Most people do not consider Haaretz, the Houston Chronicle, the International Business Times, and CNN to be "activist groups", and, as noted, all of these are (A) in straight news reports (not opinion columns), and, (B) use the term "conspiracy theorist" sans quotes and as a direct assertion by the outlets themselves, however, based on your previously iterated beliefs about "leftists" infiltrating media and universities, we may have to agree to disagree. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess "most people" don't include the Wikipedia editors who wrote the Haaretz article, which says this about Haaretz: "It is known for its strongly left-wing and liberal stances on domestic and foreign issues." I would ask politely again to tone down the straw man personal attacks on my supposed beliefs. Cheers. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
Straw man? Look it up. Activist (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed I believe that is reasonable, yes. Support Damotclese (talk)
    • Support I'm responding to a solicitation for comments, received today, so I've had to read a lot on this page to catch up. To dismiss his opinion by characterizing Dave Weigel, as below, as a "leftist" is without any merit at all. Also, he got canned from the WaPost because of what snarky comments on what he believed to be a private message board about some conservatives, but in his other comments he skewered progressives and centrists as well. He's a libertarian, neither right nor left. He was hired back at the Post last year where he remains after a spell at Bloomberg Politics and other venues. His opinion about Gaffney is rather widely shared amongst non-fringe commentators. Activist (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support-ish The original argument for using "proponent of conspiracy theories" appears to have been by analogy to Wikipedia's use of "proponent of pseudoscience" and similar phrases. But the latter is justified on the grounds of "pseudoscientist" not being in wide usage, even among people who pull no punches in denouncing pseudoscience. In contrast, Gaffney actually appears to have been described as a "conspiracy theorist" by many sources. Caveat—this should not be taken as taking any position on "is a conspiracy theorist" vs. "has been described as a conspiracy theorist", or any other issues relating to this article beyond the narrow issue in the original RfC. Having an opinion on that would take more time reading sources than I'm willing to devote right now. Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as the obvious plain-English rendering. Anything else is WP:WEASELish. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose I'll start from the beginning of the references. The International Business Times, Houston Chronicle, CNN, and Haaretz article's all utilize the same main source (The SPLC) as reference towards there assertions. In this way User:Ocdgrammarian had a point in an early section of the talk page. They all probably got their information from the same generic press release's. The American Conservative Magazine, Reason, and Daily Beast pieces are all opinion editorials and as such, are not necessarily the views of the entire publication and/or editorial staff. Mother Jones is an advocacy news outlet and should not hold any weight. (If MJ were to hold weight, than I move to allow Breitbart News pieces on Gaffney the same courtesy). I don't have a problem with the other sources. I'll place a suggestion for a new lead in the discussion section.The Armchair General (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)*
  • Oppose The sources for the lede's assertion are opinion pieces that mainly accuse all Republican leaders - not just Gaffney - of being conspiracy theorists. The CNN article source literally has "opinion" in the hyperlink. (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/21/opinions/bergen-muslim-religious-tolerance/) The Daily Beast article is also an opinion piece by a contributing columnist, not a reporter. The Reason article, which LavaBaron falsely identifies as written by a conservative, was written by Dave Weigel, a leftist columnist who had to resign from the Washington Post in 2010 after his nasty biased comments about conservatives posted on the JournoList were leaked. The Gaffney article is already biased as it is, and when I pointed that out, LavaBaron became extremely hostile and pushed his own conspiracy theory of me being a paid operative from Frank Gaffney's office on my talk page. I never took the conservative critique of Wikipedia editors' political bias seriously, but this experience has really opened up my eyes. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Ocdgrammarian
No, the CNN piece doesn't "literally" have opinion in the Hyperlink - or anywhere ... http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslims-center-for-security-policy-frank-gaffney/. To help advance your theory, it appears you chose to select a different CNN piece than the one cited. Why did you choose to do that? As for your concerns the media is run by "leftists", I'm not sure what to tell you. While it's correct I did note that in the SPI investigation that's open involving you, I'm not sure why you'd want to bring it up here in a RfC? Let's keep it focused on the question. LavaBaron (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
A sockpuppet investigation on me? Why the passive voice - you mean the investigation you opened on me because I disagreed with you. I'm talking about the CNN piece that is used as a source in the current lede: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/21/opinions/bergen-muslim-religious-tolerance/. As for media left-wing bias, read this, and then maybe you can tell me something: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664 Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
Your belief that there is a vast conspiracy by the "leftist media" is something that can be discussed on a message board or chat room, not this RfC. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Your straw man arguments about my beliefs notwithstanding, your choice of left-leaning opinion columnists as sources for your attempt to define Gaffney as a "conspiracy theorist" is directly relevant to this RcF and deserves to be called out. As evidenced by your spurious sock puppet complaint against me, you don't exactly have a good record of arguing in good faith. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
Maybe just dial it back to about a 7. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I would recommend the same for you. Filing a sockpuppet investigation against me just because I disagreed with you is not very civil. Thanks. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
  • This, and the previous "oppose" comment, are arguments for dropping the "proponent of conspiracy theories" label entirely. But if people here think the consensus on the previous RfC was mostly well-founded (not sure about that, just got called here by RfC), I see no reason not to go for the less-cumbersome wording. Chris Hallquist (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose No need for change, the only significant difference is that a proponent 'peddles' theories, whereas a theorist actually thinks them up. Does it make that much difference? Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I suggest this as a lead paragraph: "Frank J. Gaffney Jr. (born April 5, 1953) is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy and political commentator, who has written for several publications. He has worked in the US government, where he rose to the post of former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. He is often described as a proponent of conspiracy theories." I feel like this lead will cover every editors concerns and keep the article NPOV.The Armchair General (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

How is this an apology? I think you're wrong and I apologize, but I have to say, I think you may have grown a little too biased towards hating Gaffney and his group, and a little less interested in maintaining accuracy and NPOV The Armchair General (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
While I'll certainly engage in introspection as to whether I have become "too biased", I would note that the community has endorsed all of my suggested edits thus far, and the community has soundly rejected all of yours. This occurred most recently here, where you oddly declared the BBC was plagiarizing Wikipedia, a description other editors found to be "inane" [sic] and "implausible" and rejected, not just by consensus, but by unanimous acclamation. Perhaps you should join me in introspection? LavaBaron (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
My suggested lead at the top cover's all notable reasons why he even has a Wikipedia article and doesn't whitewash the conspiracy theories. I tried to write it so it would be accurate and NPOV. Highlighting that the community has rejected past edits and then pointing to my claim that the BBC plagiarized as odd is kinda a d-bag move dude. Especially since even you noted that the [[ "sentences are structurally similar". And then gave me a barnstar for fastidious fact-checking of a controversial article! Why do I get the feeling that you'll only be satisfied if the lead reads: Frank J. Gaffney Jr. (born April 5, 1953): American conspiracy theorist, Spy for Israel, and probably eats baby's.? -- I'd like to see if @Doug Weller: would weigh in on my comments to see if I'm completely off base here, or not. The Armchair General (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The fact I gave you a barnstar was, frankly, so you wouldn't feel too down on yourself given the extremely hostile community reaction to your - ahem, "interesting" - theory that the BBC was plagiarizing WP to impugn Gaffney. If you took it as anything more than a pat on the shoulder, then I'm sorry for misleading you. So there's no ambiguity, though, it was really quite an odd claim. LavaBaron (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Wow. The condescension in this last post was uncalled for and is nothing more than an appeal to ridicule. I read that article and noticed sentences that familiar. A little too familiar for my comfort. I contended was that the BBC plagiarized not because the reporter wanted to "impugn Gaffney," but more likely that they were probably lazy, under deadline, and had no time/interest in conducting their own research. You're statements seem to disregard the long history of reporters plagiarizing Wikipedia. I get the feeling that you might be lashing out because I disagreed with you. The Armchair General (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Never doubt unanimous acclamation by The Community, or you must be made to face "introspection". Ocdgrammarian (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
  • Support This reads like an impartial lede - much more journalistic and much less tendentious. The kede accurately reports that Gaffney has been described as a proponent of conspiracy theories. I would also add that Gafney has been so described primarily by those left of center. It is certainly better than having the article adopt the POV of the left. After being accused of being a Frank Gaffney sock just because I pointed this out, I completely agree with The Armchair General. This is no longer about positive contributions to Wikipedia. It's about hate for Gaffney. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Ocdgrammarian
  • Oppose we don't do 'impartial' we do WP:NPOV. And we certainly don't do journalism, we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a magazine. There are 2 key things about him, the CSP and conspiracy theories. The other stuff isn't as important, and "rose to" is certainly journalistic and not encyclopedic. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, it reads much more ENCYCLOPEDIC and much less tendentious to say he has been described as a proponent of conspiracy theories. The current lede is not WP:NPOV. There is clear editorial bias - especially when editors like LavaBaron file SPIs on people that disagree with them about the wording. The significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic are not represented proportionally - they are primarily from the left-wing point of view. This is natural when you have a "why do you beat your wife" accusation like "conspiracy theorist" made by antagonistic sources like the SPLC. Other antagonistic sources will cover it and multiply it, friendly sources will ignore it, and neutral sources like CNN will report it as a POV. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
  • Support/Oppose. This shouldn't be this complicated. If we have a reliable source saying Gaffney is a writer, a conspiracy theorist, or the man on the moon, it can go in the lede. If the sources calling Gaffney a conspiracy theorist aren't reliable, then the claim is unsourced and it has to go. Using language like "often described as" is, in the case of the word "often," not sourced and is an effort to placate editors who refuse to accept terminology used in a reliable source. So let's go through them. These claims are according to The Armchair General.
  • "The International Business Times, Houston Chronicle, CNN, and Haaretz article's all utilize the same main source (The SPLC) as reference towards there assertions." Do we have anything besides the opinions of people here that the SPLC can't be used as a reliable source?
  • "The American Conservative Magazine, Reason, and Daily Beast pieces are all opinion editorials and as such, are not necessarily the views of the entire publication and/or editorial staff." I buy this. Opinions aren't particularly reliable.
  • "Mother Jones is an advocacy news outlet and should not hold any weight." Do we have anything besides The Armchair General's extremely contentious opinion that Mother Jones isn't a reliable source?
  • "(If MJ were to hold weight, than I move to allow Breitbart News pieces on Gaffney the same courtesy)." Of course, this won't happen.
I also oppose removing a reference to his time as the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs under Reagan since that's a major office. I can't say for certain, but if that were the only notable thing he ever did, it should still get him an article. RunnyAmiga (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi RunnyAmiga, please note that my criticism of SPLC is not that it's not RS, it's that it's being used ad nauseam. My assertion that Mother Jones was an "advocacy news" outlet was actually taken from LavaBaron's description of the news outlet. As an "advocacy" news outlet, that means it reports with a particular bias and should not be seen as NPOV. I wasn't serious about allowing Breitbart. I simply wanted to show some perspective because Breitbart is also an advocacy news outlet, it's just from other side of the political spectrum. My suggestion that Conspiracy theorist be in the second line of the lede is because being a conspiracy theorist is, not on it's own, noteworthy enough to justify having a wikipedia article. His time as an administration official, his heading of a nationally known organization, his syndicated political columns, and his nationally syndicated radio show are all his noteworthy achievements that justify him even having a wikipedia article. His conspiracy theories are notable, that's why the deserve to stay on the page. However, on their own, being a conspiracy theorist does not justify having an article. That's why it deserves second billing in the lede. The Armchair General (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post Script: Independent of my RFC close above, I would like to note that the TEN refs stacked in the lede is one of the worst cases of WP:Overcite I have seen. Consider whether any of the sources should be move to the body of the article, and reducing the lede to the best 1 or 2 refs. The lede is a summary of the article, and it has the implicit support of the body of the article and the sources therein. Alsee (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

editor assistance request

Resolved

User:Ocdgrammarian has inserted content from Frank Gaffney's company's website [18]. I don't believe Frank Gaffney's company's website is RS for a bio about Gaffney and reverted, however, due to current 1RR restrictions on this page cannot revert him further after he re-reverted my revert. Can someone else handle this? Thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Update - he's now changed it to a RS, however, it does not support the statement "Keene left his chairman position at the American Conservative Union later in 2011". In fact, the word "Keene" doesn't even appear in the new source. [19] LavaBaron (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok man, I've added a Wikipedia source for the Keene statement. Let's dial it down to 7. Thank you. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
First, Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. Second, David Keene's ex-wife's (or his cousin's neighbor's best friend, or whomever) criminal record has nothing to do with this biography of Frank Gaffney. Third, your "source" still doesn't support the content you've inserted. LavaBaron (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Got it. Scare quotes noted. Changed RS to one you'll like. Learning a lot about Wikipedia editing process and editors. Since it's a 2011 article noting that Keene is an ex-chairman, I hope that's enough to convince you that he really did leave in 2011 and that the assertion is not part of the Gaffney office conspiracy. Keene's personal vendetta against Gaffney is pretty relevant to the part of this biography of Gaffney where Keene bans Gaffney in 2011 from his organization's conference and then Gaffney is back a few years later. What happened in those intervening years, the reader might be asking. Oh, Keene left shortly after his wife was charged with embezzling money from Keene's organization? Interesting to some, perhaps not all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdgrammarian (talk •

contribs) 23:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Resolved - RunnyAmiga has reverted Ocdgrammarian's edits. LavaBaron (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the source to an RS (NBC). I would appreciate admin help.

For what it's worth, I believe that User:LavaBaron is trying to start an edit war and engage in personal attacks. He went into personal attacks on my talk page, accusing me of being a Gaffney employee in some conspiracy theory of his: "If, like your previous userids . . ." . . . ". . .as I've previously communicated to your other personalities." . . . "In the meantime, many of us would appreciate it if you could let Frank know, next time you see him in the office, that simply shotgunning this same line that hasn't worked the last 20 times, repeatedly, in hope it will work the 21st time, is tedious for all of us." He then threatened me with and ultimately filed an SPI on me just because I disagreed with him. I've previously kept my contributions on Wikipedia mostly to grammar edits on science and history articles I like to read, and I am not used to either Wikipedia customs or how to deal with hostility and personal attacks from other editors. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian.

You can file a report of edit warring against me at the 3RR noticeboard. Don't hesitate to let me know if you need any assistance. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Where do I file a report of a spurious SPI? Thanks, learning a lot Ocdgrammarian (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
You can file that at WP:AN. No problem, you're welcome. Best -LavaBaron (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ocdgrammarian and LavaBaron: Ocdgrammarian: Even with a source, what does Keene's departure from the ACU have to do with Gaffney? And before you answer, you might want to have a look at WP:SYNTH. You can't say Gaffney was able to return to CPAC because of the Keene controversy unless you have a source explicitly stating that.
And it is strange how well your edits match up to edits of confirmed sockpuppets. There's a ton of evidence that, while circumstantial, is really not making you look good and believe me, unless you defend yourself instead of attack others, there's enough there to get you blocked. It's easy to mock LavaBaron's claim that you're working in some capacity for Gaffney but obviously, that doesn't mean you're not working in some capacity for Gaffney. So I'll ask: are you? RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
It's strange how well the US Missile Defense logo matches up with the Islamic Crescent. Unless Obama's supporters defend him instead of attacking Gaffney, there's enough there to prove a dastardly conspiracy. As for your threats of blocking and demands that I defend myself, a certain lady who happens to be a Soviet Union refugee like me wrote it best: “Mr. Rearden, this is hardly the way to defend yourself.” “I said that I would not defend myself.” “But this is unheard of! Do you realise the gravity of the charge against you?” “I do not care to consider it.” “Do you realise the possible consequences of your stand?” “Fully.” “It is the opinion of this court that the facts presented by the prosecution seem to warrant no leniency. The penalty which this court has the power to impose on you is extremely severe.” “Go ahead.” “I beg your pardon?” “Impose it.” Ocdgrammarian (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
Oh boy, we gotta loose one. LavaBaron (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
Fair enough, but I'll put this to you point blank: You're saying that it's in this article's best interests to not have your input. If you don't want to defend yourself, that's fine. But Hank Rearden knew the consequences of that approach, and you don't seem to. RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm saying that it's in this article's best interests not to haveLavaBaron's input because he is trying to maintain its current POV state while engaging in personal attacks and filing SPI investigations on people who disagree with him. I'm also saying that I'm not going to defend myself against unfounded charges of being a sockpuppet outside of the IP review that Wikipedia does. I don't know much about it, it seems from the Wiki page on it that such charges are usually found to be spurious. Delusions of grandeur notwithstanding, the consequences of this approach is that some insignificant action might be done against me on a website. Like Hank Rearden, I know a farcical threat when I see it. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
User:Ocdgrammarian what IP review to do we do? Doug Weller talk 12:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Not sure I understand you. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
User:Ocdgrammarian Oops, sorry, stuff snuck in. You wrote "being a sockpuppet outside of the IP review that Wikipedia does." I think I know what you mean but I'm not sure. Doug Weller talk 20:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller: I mean the SPI help page where it says, "If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding." As opposed to the method where the same objectionable things are done to different people, they predictably react with the same arguments against the objectionable things and, ergo, sockpuppets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdgrammarian (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

removed per SYNTH and OR

This section [20], sourced in part to primary sources (such as affidavits on a U.S. court system website), is used to concoct a connection between Gaffney and the Holy Land Foundation case and have been removed per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Even if we accept the primary sources, none of them actually mention the name "Gaffney" or the name of his company (like, literally, not even once in any of them). As per RunnyAmiga's previous explanation, there must be an explicit connection to a subject for inclusion in a BLP. We can't hobble together a patchwork of sources to arrive at our own conclusion. LavaBaron (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

− LavaBaron made multiple reversions. I'm not exactly clear on the WP:1RR, but I believe he broke the restriction by making multiple reverts in the article within minutes. Correct me if I'm wrong. These reversions were vandalism and under false pretenses. He claims that they were sourced to primary sources - in fact, only one primary source was used, as opposed to four secondary sources within three sentences. See here. [21] The section was used to add context to the SPLC claim that Gaffney based his beliefs on a "discredited" document. Even the SPLC original source traces that document to the Holy land Foundation trial. As the section shows, there are multiple POV on how credible the document is. Please help - LavaBaron is way out of line. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian

Ocdgrammarian - if you need immediate assistance you can also go to the new contributors' chatroom here: Wikipedia:New_contributors'_help_chat. As you've communicated a sense of urgency in your post, you might get faster feedback at the chatroom than continuing to put up Help templates. Just a friendly suggestion. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
After you filed that SPI, there's nothing friendly about it, LavaBaron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdgrammarian (talk • contribs) 12:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Ocdgrammarian A revert is the removal of someone's edit, and that's normally interpreted not as imply removing material but actually reverting an edit, as you did with this edit " 23:45, 22 July 2016? Ocdgrammarian (talk | contribs | block)? . . (25,335 bytes) (+284)? . . (Undid revision 731093830 by LavaBaron". It appears that you made a 2nd revert in the last 24 hours as well with this edit " 09:40, 23 July 2016? Ocdgrammarian (talk | contribs | block)? . . (29,526 bytes) (+43)? . . (Reinserted relevant information deleted by POV edit," which means that any uninvolved Admin could block you now or anyone at all could take you to WP:AE. It isn't clear to me whether LavaBaron made any actual reverts although if you added the J.M. Berger material that he removed that would have been a revert. Also, a series of reverts with no intervening edits by anyone else would count as one revert. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it, I didn't revert, I moved a quote that the guy removed to a more appropriate place where it is in context. How does that count? I definitely did not add the J.M. Berger stuff back. This is pretty confusing. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
I didn't say you added it back, I said that if you added it that would count as a revert - in the context of Lavabaron, not you. If you added that material, which shouldn't have been in the article as he explained on your talk page, that would be a revert. And to repeat something else he said, obvious WP:BLP violations don't count as reverts, but I'd advise you to be very careful there as I don't think you have the experience to know is a clear BLP violation. I may have copied the wrong url for what I think is your second revert, I meant this. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I still don't understand it, but I've undone my edit in the diff you pointed out. I guess it is an unfortunate part of Wikipedia that experienced editors can take advantage of procedural tricks to get away with introducing their own biases into articles. I'm done with this crap for now, this is a pretty unpleasant place to spend the weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdgrammarian (talk • contribs) 13:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

We're dealing with a similar issue at Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016, which I've detailed here. Those who have been active on this one may be interested in providing input or analysis. LavaBaron (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart radio opines on election

Listen to Breitbart News Daily - Frank Gaffney - September 7, 2016 by Breitbart #np on #SoundCloud https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-news-daily-frank-gaffney-september-7-2016 Wikipietime (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Gaffney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy listing in Belief section

I'm worried that the belief section, as currently written, relies heavily on synthesis. Can we -- keeping in mind that this is a BLP -- allow this list to stand as is? It seems to me that we can only report that such-and-such a source called Gaffney out for XYZ conspiracy.[[PPX]] (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Good point, agreed. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
Looking at this again, it does seem that some of the sources are high quality secondary sources. Some, though, are more in a gray zone and may require us to edit the article. [[PPX]] (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I see no evidence of synthesis at any level in this section and oppose the current suggestion to make any amendment, edit, or modification to it. LavaBaron (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Weeeeell, you have to admit that (for example) cite [54] doesn´t say conspiracy theories. It´s implied, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Correct, cite [54] says "bizarre theories." If the proposal is to have a section labeled "Frank Gaffney's conspiracy theories" and another section labeled "Frank Gaffney's bizarre theories" where we put cite [54], I won't object. Our onus is to preserve knowledge. How it is sectioned isn't a big deal to me as long as it's preserved. LavaBaron (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Much on WP can be improved. It´s not a very long list, is it all 6 of the points you see as problematic or specific ones? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I saw the first and third bullets as the weak links, with subpar or primary sources. But there are other sources that cover them. I will add them in. There is still too much synthesis to my liking in claiming that these are each conspiracy theories when the sources don't always use that term. But I see that this issue has already been discussed at length above and I will stick to the existing consensus. [[PPX]] (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Tablet Magazine's Lee Smith's criticism of SPLC in context of its attacks on Gaffney

Lee Smith is an expert in Terrorism & Radical Ideologies, Middle East & North Africa, and Democracy Movements, according to his bio at the Hudson Institute, where he is employed as an Senior Fellow. Contra Perplexed566, who removed his quote about Gaffney from the article claiming lack of notability and expertise, Smith is both notable and qualified to discuss who is an Islamophobe or not. I am noting also that Perplexed566 has been accused of biased editing multiple times on his talk page. I have reverted his edit because I consider it vandalism (Smith's expertise is obvious to anyone who bothered to look him up), which doesn't fall under 1RR, but am willing to discuss. I would also note that many of the sources used in this article can be said to be not notable and not expert. It's a spurious argument. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian

Personal attacks such as yours simply aren't acceptable. The issue here for me is whether it is significant enough to pass WP:UNDUE, not if it's a reliable source. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Perplexed566 used the word 'notability' but I think that's the same thing, ie not notability in the sense of having their own article. It clearly is not vandalism. Doug Weller talk 21:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, not only have you violated 1RR, you've replaced deleted material without consensus. "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit". Doug Weller talk 21:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) with Doug Weller. Can you stop posting, already, Doug?? Ocdgrammarian, it's not vandalism, and it's not for you to decide that something you disagree with is vandalism. Is Doug Weller, an arbitrator who also reverted you, a vandal too in your opinion? Please self-revert before you're blocked for breaking the 1RR restriction, and look up the definition of vandalism while you're about it. Bishonen | talk 21:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC).
Lee Smith is an expert whose opinion is significant enough to be featured in a variety of media outlets. The article is already heavily skewed toward biased left sources like SPLC, will you not tolerate a single opinion that goes against the echo chamber? Ocdgrammarian (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
Sounds familiar ...
  • "he has been widely accused of promoting conspiracy theories by groups on the political left" [22]
  • "Gaffney's controversial views -- especially on radical Islam -- have caused him to be reviled by the Left." [23]
LavaBaron (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Ocdgrammarian was topic banned from this and related pages, which includes this page. Doug Weller talk 11:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
My concern meant to say that Smith is not an expert in the subject matter. He is arguably an expert on the Middle East, but that would not make him an expert on what constitutes bigotry. I get it that he's sympathetic to Gaffney when most are critical, and that a desire for objectivity may prompt editors to look for quotes to refute or contextualize criticism, but that sense of fairness in-and-of-itself can't blind us to applying Wikipedia's policy that requires Primary Sources to be used rarely and only with care.
In other words, just because Wikipedia allows editors the discretion to sometimes use primary sources doesn't mean that we must; rather we are instructed to discuss whether the use of the primary source is appropriate.
And that concern dovetails with Doug Weller's argument that it is Undue Weight to stack up the report by SPLC (a source that is clearly an expert on bigotry) against a random op-ed by Smith. [[PPX]] (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a very valid point. I suggest, in light of it, we may want to cull the "wider acceptance" section be deleting everything from the first word through to "creepy." I was the one who added it, however, in fairness to Frank we may want to police how much we inject in terms of analysis sourced to individuals as opposed to media reporting on more general perspectives. I'd be curious to hear what others say. LavaBaron (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I think so, especially given that this is a BLP. We could then look to see whether any of these are experts or whether their opinions were covered by secondary sources. If the answer is yes to either of those items, then we can put it back in. [[PPX]] (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Perplexed566 - I'm a bit tied down at the moment but, since it seems, no one else objects, if you wanted to make these changes I would suspect they would not meet with very much opposition. LavaBaron (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I too am tied down and don't have the time to comb through it now. Given the lack of consensus for including this (at least as shown so far on this talk page) and the need to be careful on a BLP, I've taken it out. Here is the diff.
Removal should not be read as my opposition to the re-inclusion of this content by another editor who has read the conversation above and believes that these comments are significant enough that they should be included. [[PPX]] (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Citation clutter

Per WP:LEAD and WP:LEADCITE, the lead summarizes the article and does not require any citations of its own since everything in the article will have its own citations. I propose to remove all the citations after "proponent of conspiracy theories" since this seems well sourced later in the article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn´t require, but "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Personally, I´m ok with removing them, but I think they were put there to limit editwarring in the lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Kendall-K1 - while you're technically correct, we had to add this "cite fest" as a result of intense (and still ongoing) attempts to remove the phrase "conspiracy theorist" from the lede. This picks back up every 3-4 months so, unless you can commit to patrolling this article for the next 3-4 years, I would ask you keep it. LavaBaron (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible to sort of "collapse" a string of cites like that? It may be the least bad solution to have them there, but it is an eyesore. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
BTW, here´s another cite for "conspiracy theorist": [24] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The citations can be "bundled" per WP:CITEBUNDLE. There is an essay on why citekill is bad and what to do about it at WP:CITEKILL. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump advisor

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/frank-gaffney-donald-trump-transition-team-adviser-national-security-muslim-brotherhood-anti-islam-statements-conspiracy-theory-barack-obama/

New section warranted? Wikipietime (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/politics/trump-transition.html?referer=http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/frank-gaffney-donald-trump-transition-team-adviser-national-security-muslim-brotherhood-anti-islam-statements-conspiracy-theory-barack-obama/ Wikipietime (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Gaffney has denied this. If it actually happens, then it's worth a couple of sentences but not a section. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Reword Lede?

This RfC was closed because consensus was reached that this article should describe Gaffney as a "conspiracy theorist", as opposed to a "proponent of conspiracy theory". It has been demonstrated that there are reliable sources supporting this wording, and no strong argument has been put forth as to why this wording might be inappropriate. Moreover, of the eight editors to have taken part in the survey, seven of them support the use of "conspiracy theorist". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A RfC previously established that, based on a preponderance of sources, Gaffney should be described in the lede as a "proponent of conspiracy theories" but not as a "conspiracy theorist". The rationale was that multiple sources accused Gaffney of propagating conspiracy theories, however, few actually used the specific phrase "conspiracy theorist". Based on new RS, should this RfC be overturned and Gaffney described as a "conspiracy theorist"?

Specific sources using the phrase "conspiracy theorist" -

  • Politico - The reports drew vigorous condemnation from both Democrats and many Republicans who called Gaffney an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist.[1]
  • CNN - Frank Gaffney, an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist, denied a media report that he had been named to Trump's transition crew.[2]
  • Washington Post - He's allied himself with several hard-right leaders, including Stephen K. Bannon of Breitbart News and Frank Gaffney, an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist who believes that Muslims hostile to U.S. interests are infiltrating all levels of the U.S. government.[3]
  • American Conservative Magazine - Cruz has cobbled together a group of conspiracy theorists and fanatical hard-liners to advise him on foreign policy. The presence of Frank Gaffney and Andrew McCarthy among his advisers is not at all surprising, but it confirms what we already know about Cruz.[4]
  • Daily Beast - Prominent anti-Muslim activist and conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney on Wednesday denied reports that he was involved in President-elect Donald Trump’s transition efforts.[5]
  • Haaretz - Cruz Picks 'Notorious Islamophobe' and Conspiracy Theorist for National Security Team (ref Gaffney) [6]
  • The National Interest - Now he [Frank Gaffney] and his staff at the Center for Security Policy appear to have crept into the Ted Cruz campaign, along with a passel of neoconservatives such as Elliott Abrams and Michael Ledeen who should know better but apparently don’t care that they are cheek by jowl with a febrile conspiracy theorist.[7]

LavaBaron (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/11/gaffney-denies-nyt-wsj-reports-that-hes-a-trump-adviser-231504
  2. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/16/politics/donald-trump-transition-lobbyists-confusion/
  3. ^ http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20161117/people-are-googling-ku-klux-klan-like-never-before
  4. ^ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/cruzs-preposterous-foreign-policy-team/
  5. ^ http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/11/16/frank-gaffney-denies-role-in-trump-transition.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl
  6. ^ http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.709564
  7. ^ http://nationalinterest.org/feature/motley-cruz-teds-wacky-foreign-policy-team-15528

Survey

No offense, but "purveyor of conspiracy theories" is as cumbersome as "proponent of conspiracy theories" and is likely to be edited-out by a later contributor on the basis of readability, rather than citability. Also, no source actually refers to him as a "purveyor" of conspiracy theories. "Conspiracy theorist" is succinct, uses common language and common terminology rather than constructed terminology, and is supported by sources. The objective of this RfC is to make the lede less complicated, not more. LavaBaron (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Proponent of conspiracy theories" is ok, "conspiracy theorist" would be slightly better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Conspiracy theorist – per LavaBaron. I see no need to qualify this with something like "has been described as" (which is weaselly) or "described by Dems and Repubs" (which one source uses but most don't). And again, can we please quash the citekill? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Conspiracy theorist: the term does not have a specific meaning beyond dicdef, therefore it it perfectly OK to describe a person involved in <something> in some way as <something>ist. On the other hand, "proponent" would be appropriate if he himself proposed some novel conspiraces, but the article is rather vague about this; it merelys says "Conspiracy theories Gaffney has promoted include". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Conspiracy theorist please - this term can be understood to mean both somebody who originates, elaborates or promotes conspiracy theories. Proponent implies mere advocacy, whereas purveyor is pompous in tone and also somewhat metaphorical... unless he really is selling them in some sort of retail establishment. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Conspiracy theorist has two obvious advantages here: first, it is well substantiated; second, it is demonstrably accurate. Noody has suggested a replacement that is more precise, all potential alternatives suggested to date have in fact been less precise, so there'as no real case for any other wording. Guy (Help!) 01:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Conspiracy theorist - clear, fully sourced, plainly accurate. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Another possibility is something like the way it´s done in Myron Ebell, "has been described as a climate change skeptic,[7][8] a climate contrarian[2] and a climate change denier.[3][4][5]" Not an improvement, I feel. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, not an improvement, since conspiracy theories are a significant part of why Gaffney is notable. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the ayes have it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Which version of the first sentence is preferable?

Consensus for Version 2: Frank J. Gaffney Jr. (born April 5, 1953) is a conspiracy theorist who is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Having established, by double RfC, that "conspiracy theorist" must appear in the lede, which version of the first sentence is preferable?

  • Version 1: Frank J. Gaffney Jr. (born April 5, 1953) is founder and president of the Center for Security Policy and a conspiracy theorist.
  • Version 2: Frank J. Gaffney Jr. (born April 5, 1953) is a conspiracy theorist who is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy.

LavaBaron (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

First sentence survey

  • Version 2 Version 2 reads clearer by establishing an inverse pyramid flow: profession followed by current job. Other examples:
-Satya Nadella is an Indian-born American business executive. He is the current chief executive officer (CEO) of Microsoft.
-Arthur C. Brooks is an American social scientist and musician. He is the president of the American Enterprise Institute.
-James Comey is an American lawyer and the current Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
-Nancy Pelosi is an American politician who is the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
LavaBaron (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Version 2 Version 1 is not written well, as the "and a conspiracy theorist" at the end doesn't fit. it should be in the beginning, in Version 2. Adotchar| reply here 10:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Version 2 is simply clearer. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Version 2 – Profession followed by current job is fairly standard for bios. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Alternative proposal. Neither of the above actually comply with WP:LEAD. While version 2 is clearer, it fails WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and thus WP:BLP as does the first. I don't buy Lavabaron & Kendall-K1's reasoning, since conspiracy theorist isn't a profession but an ideology. Here's how to write a proper lead for this article:
    Frank J. Gaffney Jr. (born April 5, 1953) is a writer, podcaster, former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy. He and his organization have been identified as conspiracy theorists[cites] and Islamophobes[cites] by other organizations and major publications.
    Use one organizational and one news cite for each negative claim but not more, per WP:OVERCITE and WP:LEAD citation sparsity expectations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Alternative proposal - I support the version proposed by SMcCandlish. The two versions in the RfC statement are not written very well. The alternative proposal is much more clear and avoids giving WP:UNDUE weight to "conspiracy theorist". Meatsgains (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Version 2 simply reads more clearly and concisely. With respect, although User:SMcCandlish raises some good points, the alternative proposal is less concise and more unwieldy. Normally, I would agree with the contention that "conspiracy theorist isn't a profession..." Gaffney, however, has made it his. His only significant professional activity, and the one that apparently provides the majority his income, is to pump out accusations conspiracies of varying players and then ask donors for funding to create more accusations. With regard to WP:BLP, the sourcing for calling him a conspiracy theorist is reasonably sound. A change to "...been identified as a conspiracy theorist..." does have some CYA merit, especially with a personality such as Gaffney. Simply attaching the cites directly to the identification proposed in Version 2 also provides the same cover and avoids the use of passive voice. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Version 2 per below. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Alternative proposal by SMcCandlish to comply with particular policy concerns. Other versions are overly simplistic and might seem to imply bias. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Version 2 brought here by the bot [25] - version 2 is much more readable BlueSalix (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Alternative proposal by SMcCandlish - The lead serves as a summary of the body of an article. The body states "Gaffney has been called a conspiracy theorist by Dave Weigel writing in Reason magazine; Steve Benen of MSNBC; Slate; and The Intercept, among others. ... Democrats, and many Republicans, have called Gaffney a 'conspiracy theorist'.", and the best summary that has been put forth of that is "He and his organization have been identified as conspiracy theorists and Islamophobes by other organizations and major publications." The subject is not directly called a conspiracy theorist anywhere in the body.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Version 2-No need to inflate the lede statement.Conspiract theorist shall appear in the first sentence.Light❯❯❯ Saber 15:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

First sentence discussion

  • I checked some of the source from the rfc, and none of the ones I looked at list CSP before conspiracy theorist. In fact most of them don't mention CSP at all in their description of Gaffney. The most frequently used description used by the sources is "an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist" so maybe we should go with that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Vis a vis SMcandish's point above, I think this article sufficiently establishes that Gaffney is engaged in professional conspiracy theorizing; that is, his primary - and possibly only - source of income is as the head of an organization that propagates conspiracy theories (we even have an entire source that examines his income). Also, his writing, podcsating, etc., all have to do with said aforementioned conspiracy theories (it would be different if he was like writing YA Novels or something, but that's not the case). Therefore, Gaffney's profession is that of a conspiracy theorist. LavaBaron (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • We have already decided to say he's a conspiracy theorist. Now we're deciding whether to list that first or second. The Alternative Proposal is out of scope for this discussion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In response to Eggishorn and LavaBaron: Passive voice and similar hedging constructions are very often a virtue in encyclopedic writing (perhaps uniquely among major writing styles) because of the nature of the material and of an encyclopedia's role as nothing but a pass-through filter between sources and audience. We frequently cannot say "X is a Y", "X did Y", or "X happened because of Y"; only reliable sources we quote or paraphrase can make these claims if they involve any analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis, and we cannot assert them in WP's own voice when there are opposing, non-fringe viewpoints on the matter but must attribute them, per WP:NPOV. Concision also takes a back seat to accuracy, not only of facts but as to their sourcing and what that sourcing implies. WP:BLP requires to take these considerations even more seriously than usual. WP:LEAD in particular directs us to write leads that summarize the key points of an article. As the article grows in length, detail, and nuance, so does the lead; this is not just desirable but necessary. We cannot trust that the reader will delve into the article below the lead unless they want to for their own purposes. Many mobile readers rarely do, and they are now over 50% of our userbase. While I do of course agree with the general assessment here of Gaffney, that's my personal opinion. "He's made conspiracy theory his profession" is a nice turn of metaphoric phrasing if you want to go write a blog post about him, but is also just a personal opinion and non-encyclopedic. It's no different from "Rush Limbaugh has made anger his profession" and refusing to describe him as a talk show host. It's grossly uninformative. If a famous actor was also a conspiracy theorist (and some of them are), we would never describe him/her as just "a conspiracy theorist"; it is guaranteed to confuse readers and is clearly aimed at being dismissive. We have no excuse to take the same tactic with a writer/podcaster just because we disagree with his message.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
You are correct, of course, that my stating Gaffney made conspiracy theory his profession is personal opinion an unencyclopedic. That is why I would never suggest it for the article page. I was instead laying out why using the term conspiracy theorist as a pseudo-profession is correct in this case. And just as we don't leave out Limbaugh's position, the Version 2 formulation includes Gaffney's and avoids being uninformative. Leaving it out would indeed, be a disservice to readers both mobile and non-mobile. Having both conspiracy theorist and founder of (etc.) maintains compliance with WP:BLP as long as the term conspiracy theorist is cited. If not enough editors prefer Version 2, then I would support your alternative in preference to Version 1. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
It's definitely not personal opinion. We've established, by double-consensus, that Gaffney is a conspiracy theorist. We, further, have RS that says his primary source of income is peddling conspiracy theories. It's simple logical sentence construction to say he is a professional conspiracy theorist, in the same way we can do simple math (2+2=4) without it being WP:OR. LavaBaron (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, then. Allow me to rephrase: It is my personal opinion, backed up by WP:RS and in line with wider consensus, that Gaffney is a professional conspiracy theorist. This being the case, the sentence construction, "Frank J. Gaffney Jr. ... is a conspiracy theorist who is the founder..." is in line with the way we identify most other BLP-type articles. It is also concise, precise, quickly understandable (especially for those on mobile devices) and accurate. This would be the preferable option. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I actually was addressing McCandish's comment, not yours, which is why I didn't indent my comment (before you changed it). LavaBaron (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I apologize, then, for my presumption. I would nonetheless make the same rephrasing in the light of your comment. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: Can an organization be a theorist and Islamophobe? Wouldn't "He has been identified as a conspiracy theorist and Islamophobe by other organizations and major publications" followed by stating that he uses his organization for such purposes be an improvement (given the mandate of the prior RfC to use "conspiracy theorist")? Or perhaps "organization" could prefaced with "the members of his". Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Either way is fine. "A/an" wasn't present in the construction I used, so the question is off-point. It is certainly possible for an organization to be (or be composed of, if you prefer) conspiracy theorists and Islamophobes (plural). E.g., "the ACLU are a bunch of liberals and the NRA are mostly conservatives".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

I don't see anyone arguing for Version 1, and the Aternative proposal would require re-visiting an rfc that just closed two weeks ago, so it looks to me that we have consensus for Version 2. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with the above. There are logical and policy problems with the arguments for the alternative proposal as well that I don't think are appropriate for me to describe in detail here. I will on request, though. There seems to be a decent enough consensus here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång and MjolnirPants - if you concur with Version 2, as you have seemed to indicate, please note with a !vote in the Survey section. We have found this is an extremely delicate article and all changes have to occur by the book. Right now there is not a consensus to adopt Version 2, in my opinion, if someone were simply tabulating !votes in the survey section of this RfC. While we would hope someone would not do that, it is best if every i is dotted and t is crossed so that no door is left ajar for future challenge. LavaBaron (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frank Gaffney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions attorney general hearing

Senator Blumenthal queried about Mr.Gaffney. Wikipietime (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Chicago Sun-Times

Kendall-K1 is correct: This Chicago Sun-Times source appears to be an opinion piece, and is should not be cited without in-text attribution. It is designated by the newspaper as "Other Views" which contains only opinion pieces. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Gaffney/Archive_1&oldid=1136737952"