Talk:Gatestone Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is GI Anti-Muslim?[edit]

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

My revisions say "NBC News and others . . ." About "Has been described" -- it is there now; my revisions took it out. So how is this a reason not to make my revisions? You may have been confused by a self-revert in the middle of my revisions -- I screwed one edit up, and it was easiest to back up and fix from there; this did temporarily re-insert the "has been described" however.Adoring nanny (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
So, Gatestone is complaining that Muslims are claiming Gatestone is anti-Muslim? That sounds rather anti-Muslim. Why does that make any difference anyway? If Gatestone wasn't anti-Muslim, why would Muslims be posting it anyway? "Has described" is still weasel and doesn't belong there. BTW: Your reference didn't work. See ref [26] Jim1138 BTW: If it is a Gatestone link, it is probably self-serving and is not RS. See wp:USINGPRIMARY. Use a secondary source based on this, please. (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
We now have Alan Dershowitz[1].Adoring nanny (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Per wp:RSN including, but not limited to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_237#Is_Fox_News_a_WP:RS it would appear that Fox is not RS for politics.
Googling "Gatestone anti-Muslim" returns all sorts of hits. Jim1138 (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Jim1138, I glanced at that thread, and I saw a lot more people saying it was RS than not. Is it your position that Wikipedia should describe Gatestone as "Anti-Muslim" in its own voice, and the article should not mention any dissenting opinions?Adoring nanny (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Please thread your talk. I moved it above the comment below. There are many sources that state that Gatestone is anti-Muslim. Dissenting opinion is fine as long it isn't self-serving. The RSN conclusion seems to be that Fox News is not RS for politics. Perhaps you should take this up on RSN. Jim1138 (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The conclusion of that discussion was to launch an RfC. I have no idea where said RfC is. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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

I have adjusted the lead so that the anti-Muslim bias allegation appears at the end of the second line (along with the allegations about spreading falsehoods etc), and isn't presented as a statement of fact. I recognise that many users will feel strongly about this, but using opinion/journalistic/non-academic articles to designate an organisation anti-Muslim isn't especially encyclopedic, and just looks like an attempt at well poisoning (even if valid). Endymion.12 (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we adhere to reliable sources and describe things as they truly are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I am obviously aware that we adhere to reliable sources, but that isn't synonymous with stating widely-held opinions as fact. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
No op-ed has been cited in support of the 'anti-muslim' description in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
No "anti" qualifier describes things as they are because they don't refer to a characteristic of the thing, but to an external that's not fully complementary. Defining a carivore as "anti-hebribvore" is an inaccurate description that leaves out the characteristics of such animals. The Gatestone Institute views Islam as a political system incompatible with democracy, which it is, and is "anti" and "for" various other things. The institute has its own ideology which is its true nature, therefore calling them simply "anti-muslim" is a malicious caricature of what the institute stands for.2001:985:C551:1:3865:FF2F:F725:42D9 (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
What concerns me is not the inclusion, but the prominence. If the anti-Jewish nature of the Nazi Party can wait until the end of the second paragraph, which it does[2], one would expect that the Anti-Muslim issue in this article could wait similarly. Instead it's in the first sentence.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the first sentence has been edited to be much more neutral, a positive change IMO - the previous wording was very negative/biased. Colinmcdermott (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What does the word 'anti-Muslim' mean here? Shouldn't there be at least a reference to disambiguation page (pace Doug Weller undo)? One should distinguish between meanings of 'anti-Islamic', 'anti-Islamist' and 'anti-Muslim'. The latter should have a narrow meaning (see e.g. Nikita Malik's recommendation "the definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred should be specific and narrow. It should focus on addressing bigotry directed at individuals, and avoid censoring debate or freedom of expression on religion. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nikitamalik/2019/05/20/instead-of-islamophobia-we-should-focus-on-defining-anti-muslim-hatred/) Do people writing for this institute really hate Muslims? Even including many Muslims among them?

The policy adopted by the editors of this article (Snooganssnoongans et al) from NBC has several dissadvantages, I think. First, it does not serve the clarity of communication. Second, it undermines the credibility of this article. Third, it supports the culture of silencing Muslim critics of certain aspects of Islam. Fourth, it indirectly supports the culture of true hatered of Muslims as individuals.

One may dissaprove as "obviously wrong" (Snooganssnoongas) what the Gatestone intstitue does, but facts should be clearly and neutraly stated first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.91.49.164 (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Is GI Right-wing or Conservative?[edit]

The WP:LEAD should summarize the article. I tried to start an analysis of the place of Gatestone on the political spectrum in the body of the article but it was removed. To put it into the lead while prohibiting it in the article violates WP:LEAD Jason from nyc (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You finally reinserted my statement into the body of the article after taking it out. Now let's look at the statement. It has three sources. None of the sources are works about Gatestone. They provide no analysis of this assertion. Indeed, it appears that our statement is nothing more than posting the results of a Google search. This is not research. We need a source that clarify what it means and why it applies to Gatestone. Using Google isn't doing research. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Let compare. Alan Dershowitz in this source [3] describes Gatestone "to be refreshingly centrist. It encourages dialogue between the center-left (represented by people such as former Sen. Joe Lieberman and myself) and people from the center-right (represented by speakers such as John Bolton and the eminent historian Victor Davis Hanson)." He explains what he means by "refreshingly centrist" and provides what he sees as evidence.
The sources for "right-wing" are inadequate. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
RS are RS. They don't need to "prove" that anyone is anything. Furthermore, the notion that GI is not right-wing is just absurd. It's a hoax factory that publishes nothing but anti-Muslim garbage and right-wing hysterics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Sources may be reliable in some regards while not in other regards. Passing references to an individual or organization (without citations) are not a form of analysis. We are not "copy monkeys" blinding cutting and pasting. A judicious analysis by sources is needed. Your analysis is original research. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I encourage you to take your complaint to the NPOV or RS noticeboards. I'm sure you'll get full backing for your assertion that citing three RS constitutes WP:OR. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
That's not what I said. I said your analysis at the end of your paragraph was original research. I said the sources were inadequate. It's clear that you've taken a few articles on Muslims to conclude that they are right-wing. Your POV isn't what matters. We need sources that discuss Gatestone's political leanings. There are no discussion in the sources but there is in mine. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Your source is an op-ed by one of Gatestone's own board members. And I frankly don't know what I can do for you if you won't accept RS and if you can't take a glance at the GI website and figure out that it's right-wing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Alan Dershowitz is well respected, published everywhere, and worth using for an attributed quote. By asking me to "glance" at their website you're asking me to do original research. That's an analysis our sources should be doing and I don't see it. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you please stop with the nonsensical OR accusations? The only reason I'm saying that you should check out the website is because you REJECT using reliable sources. Your edition of Dershowitz's comments were absurd for three reasons: (1) you failed to identify that he is a Gatestone board member, (2) you falsely claimed that descriptions of "right-wing" came from "critics" rather than RS, (3) you used Dershowitz as a contrast to RS/"critics". All in all, your edit misled readers, omitted important context and falsely characterized RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, please! Enough with the personal attacks! (1) I identified Dershowitz as a board member but you removed it [4] (2) I suggest attributing such claims when sources provide an analysis, we can discuss how. (3) Dershowitz is well respected and gives a reasoned argument. Attributed quotes are allowed. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
(1) You did not describe him as a board member when Dershowitz gave his absurd description of the group. You said Dershowitz was a "a supporter" without elaborating further. (2) Nope, RS do not have do an "analysis". That's not how WP:RS works. (3) Dershowitz gives a crappy argument and he's a member of this organization. What's next? Are we going to add a quote in the GOP article, citing a GOP congressman praising the party? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Introduction to this article clearly show a strong negative bias. Tried to use more neutral description of "conservative think-tank"[1][2][3] with citations from BBC, NPR and Ny Times. From reading this talk page I can see multiple editors have tried to reason here but no compromise has been made. Can we move forward and try to work towards a compromise, use neutral/fair language? Colinmcdermott (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Gatestone vs. The Gatestone[edit]

Both the title of the page and Gatestone's usage of their name is "Gatestone Institute", not "The Gatestone institute". After removing "The" in the lead sentence, I was reverted without explanation. Could Snooganssnoogans please respond why it was reverted, or other editors chime in? UberVegan🌾 22:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

conservative think tank[edit]

Per this edit, and strong "left of center" reliable sources, I suggest that the lead sentence be: Gatestone Institute is a conservative think tank with a focus on Islam and the Middle East. NOTE: Snooganssnoogans did not respond to this discussion in talk, so I further suggest that the word "The" be removed from the lead sentence. UberVegan🌾 19:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Right-wing is more precise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Claiming that "right-wing" is more "precise" than "conservative" constitutes W:OR and ignores the W:RS which label it conservative, including: NPR, Politico, Huffington Post, The Jerusalem Post, The Christian Science Monitor, Salon, Vox, The Algemeiner, and The Orlando Sentinel JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
We've gone over this in detail awhile back. Since then several editors have come back to this contention of yours. "Conservative" would be a conservative choice as there seems to be a consensus for this and as I noted above it has broad participation from other than right-wing individuals. Your agreement isn't needed for a consensus as it doesn't have to be unanimous. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Gjelten, Tom (6 April 2013). "Trump's National Security And State Department Picks Alarm American Muslims". NPR. Retrieved 28 February 2019.
  2. ^ Chalk, Will (4 April 2013). "Leave.EU 'now a far-right organisation', Labour MP says". BBC. Retrieved 28 February 2019.
  3. ^ Goodstein, Laurie (6 April 2013). "Pompeo and Bolton Appointments Raise Alarm Over Ties to Anti-Islam Groups". Ny Times. Retrieved 28 February 2019.

Should be described as a "conservative, anti-Muslim think tank"[edit]

The organization is widely described as both conservative and anti-Muslim, therefore the first line of the article should describe the organization as such. It's just bad writing to divide the descriptions of the organization and add a separate sentence near the end of the lede that says "It is anti-Muslim". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't go defining somebody by what they are anti, before you even say who they are. This is not done even in extreme cases like the Nazi Party. As for the writing, I have no objection to improving it. It would, for example, be highly appropriate to mention that they are concerned with issues of democracy, human rights, and a free and strong economy, just as they say on their "about us" page.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
RS do not widely describe the organization that way. What other Wikipedia pages do is not something we can solve here on this talk page. That said, there are lots of pages that describe groups and individuals as 'anti-muslim' or anti-whatever in the first sentence of their lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The thing is, when I see what I see with the Nazis, or Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin for that matter, whose murderous natures are not described right up front, then someone gets all insistent that it is absolutely critical to describe some other group as some nasty thing right up front, I get more than a little skeptical.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the Wikipedia articles for individuals and groups who have had a massive and long-lasting impact on the world are organized a little differently than Wikipedia articles for far-right fringe organizations who are known for not much other than spreading anti-Muslim right-wing conspiracy theories and lies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
A helpful response. As I'm sure you are aware, the fact that an individual or group is "right-wing" is not an appropriate reason to go after them in the very first sentence.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
"that they are concerned with issues of democracy, human rights, and a free and strong economy, just as they say on their "about us" page." We are not supposed to repeat self-serving propaganda in the articles. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion is very clear on this topic.:
  • "Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts." Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Description as conservative and anti-Muslim in the first line of the lede[edit]

Should the first line of the lede describe the Gatestone Institute as a "conservative, anti-Muslim think tank"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Support. The organization has been widely described by RS as "conservative" and "anti-Muslim", therefore the first line of the lede ought t describe the organization as a "conservative, anti-Muslim think tank". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Re: the discussion above, in which I did not participate, either "right-wing think tank" or "conservative think tank" would be entirely acceptable. Per WP:VOICE, I believe the "anti-Muslim" description should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, there should be a separate line, perhaps the second in the lead, which reads something like: "The think tank has been widely characterized by various sources as anti-Muslim/as having an anti-Muslim bias in its reporting". Endymion.12 (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. These sorts of labels are extremely helpful to casual readers and should be included when the sources warrant it. In this case it seems they do. If there are reliable sources that indicate that Gatestone is not anti-Muslim, then can someone please identify them? R2 (bleep) 19:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • For consistency, oppose The article for Pol Pot manages to wait until the third paragraph before describing his genocide. In the case of Jeremiah Wright, his controversial nature is delicately mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. Alton H. Maddox Jr. is not described as a hoaxer in his opening paragraph. The article for the Nazi Party manages to wait until the second paragraph to describe its racist and antisemitic nature. Even the article Jim Jones, known mainly for cyanide-laced kool-aid, manages to wait until late in a long first sentence. Additionally, the proposer gave an interesting explanation here [5]. Should the article have a different organization because of the "right-wing" nature of its subject? The question answers itself.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (1) WP:OTHER. (2) You're misinterpreting what I said (and I'm frankly at a loss at your interpretation): What I said was that Wikipedia articles for individuals and organizations who have had a massive impact on the world and history have long and complex ledes that try to cover all the pertinent info about these organizations/individuals. A fringe group like the Gatestone Institute is not notable for much of anything other than being (a) conservative and (b) anti-Muslim. If you believe this is something unique to conservatives, you might be interested in the RfC I have on the Jimmy Dore page as to whether we should call his show a "a far-left show known for promoting conspiracy theories".[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
You wrote "right-wing" in your reasoning. I didn't. If it wasn't relevant, why include it in your explanation?Adoring nanny (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
You seem very confused. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
In addition to that insulting response to a straightforward question, I'd note that your Jimmy Dore example is also misleading. I haven't seen any attempt by you to add it to the first line of the lead of that article.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
This really demonstrates the principle behind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. For every arguably comparable example, there's an arguably comparable counterexample. The fact that some articles omit or deemphasize some stuff doesn't mean that other articles should omit or deemphasize some stuff. So-called "consistency" shouldn't be a barrier to writing better articles. R2 (bleep) 21:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. They are mostly known as an anti-Muslim propaganda source, not as a think tank. Dimadick (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Will weigh in later. Please do not prematurely close Rfc. --UberVegan🌾 19:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:UNDUE and WP:LABEL and, if it is discussed to write “many sources state (or something similar)”, opposed based on WP:WEASEL.
Since Wikipedia policy extends to talk, I might suggest that Snooganssnoogans’ comments that reliable sources have “widely” described Gatestone Institute as “anti-Muslim” may be WP:WEASEL. Some editors have subsequently picked up on their assertions, and continued to promulgated this in their support of the RfC.  
Per R2’s question above, if “there are reliable sources that indicate that Gatestone is not anti-Muslim, then can someone please identify them?”, I will. Here are three of the strongest reliable sources "indicating" that Gatestone Institute is not anti-Muslim, and should therefore not be described as such in the lead:
  1. Per WP:RS/P, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), considered among the leading civil rights organizations in the United States, in its 2018 list of “anti-Muslim” hate groups in the U.S., does not list Gatestone Institute.
  2. In this SPLC article, it specifically states that in its opinion, Gatestone is not “anti-Muslim”. They write: “Anti-Muslim hate groups are designated with an asterisk (*)” and in the first sentence, Gatestone Institute does NOT have an asterisk.
  3. An SPLC Facebook page about Gatestone Institute does NOT refer to GI as "anti-Muslim".
SPLC does state that GI is “known for spreading anti-Muslim conspiracies,” (which does not support the RfC lead edit), rather it links to an NBC article that is “widely” the basis for other sources using the term. However, in the NBC article, the term “anti-Muslim” is only used in the headline, not in the body of the article. And still, the SPLC does not embrace the term.
Here is Alan Dershowitz in a Fox News opinion piece about NBC’s hit-piece:
“The headline of the hit piece by Przybyla on the NBC News website is: “John Bolton presided over anti-Muslim think tank.” In fact, nothing could be further from the truth...Even a cursory look at Gatestone’s website shows that its writers and scholars include numerous Muslims. These include the prominent journalists Amir Taheri and Khaled Abu Toameh; President of the American Islamic Forum M. Zuhdi Jasser; Salim Mansur; and Raheel Raza, among others...Many of Gatestone’s articles are, in fact, pro-Muslim – advocating human rights and civil liberties for all Muslims, including Palestinians and Iranians.”
Opposed to the few reliable sources that Snooganssnoogans has provided, following are 17 reliable sources that DON’T use the term “anti-Muslim” in describing Gatestone and therefore don't support the RfC. Is it Wikipedia's policy that a few reliable sources (with NPOV bias and opinions) should become the descriptor in the lead sentence over a majority that do not use that term? What is more WP:NPOV?
Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The New Yorker, The Hill, The New York Times, New York Magazine, Vox, Washington Post, Southern Poverty Law Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, Chicago Tribune, Vox, Politico, The Independent,The Nation
Writing in Wikipedia's WP:VOICE that Gatestone Institute is anti-Muslim seems controversial at best, completely WP:NPOV at worst. At this point, the discussion should really be about what is written in the article's body, not as a descriptor in the page's lead. UberVegan🌾 23:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Every time that the Gatestone Institute is mentioned on SPLC website, they do in fact describe it as "anti-Muslim". It's quite a stretch to claim that being "known for spreading anti-Muslim conspiracies" is contradictory to the group being anti-Muslim. It also boggles the mind how this NBC News piece[7] which is literally an in-depth report on all the ways that this organization is known for peddling anti-Muslim conspiracy theories and falsehoods does not support the "anti-Muslim" description. Also, I started to check the sources that PROVE GI is not anti-Muslim and gave up after 5 of the first 7 sources explicitly referred to GI as anti-Muslim:
  1. The LA Times source is 5 yrs old and briefly mentions GI, nothing about anti-Muslim
  2. The Guardian does indeed reference how GI has been widely accused of being anti-Muslim
  3. The New Yorker says GI "has published virulently anti-Muslim articles of questionable accuracy"
  4. The Independent story (which happens to be fringe trash) covers GI claiming Sweden is the rape capital of the world due to Muslim immigration
  5. The Hill story is literally about GI being an org that shares "false or misleading news items about Muslims"
  6. The NYT story is literally about Trump administration officials' ties to anti-Muslim groups, of which GI is one
  7. The NY Mag story is literally about GI being part of the "the Islamophobia industry"
In short, this was a brazen attempt to deceive editors in this RfC. Most of the sources that this user brought to bear do not dispute the "anti-Muslim" description, but in fact strongly support it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The only "brazen attempt to deceive editors" seems to be coming from you. You use the term "describe [Gatestone Institute] as "anti-Muslim." That is different than reliable sources supporting that it is an "anti-Muslim think tank." You seem to be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to support your edit. Because of a lack of time, I will choose only a few items where your recap of my edit was disingenuous at best:
You wrote above: "Every time that the Gatestone Institute is mentioned on SPLC website, they do in fact describe it as "anti-Muslim". First, the SPLC article here specifically does not call it an "anti-Muslim" hate group and only links to the NBC article. WP:SYNTH (An article where it only states it in the headline and Dershowitz refutes the entire article.) Second, where in the Facebook page other than your WP:SYNTH does the SPLC refer to GI as "anti-Muslim"? Lastly, please explain why SPLC doesn't list Gatestone in its 2018 list of anti-Muslim hate groups? --UberVegan🌾 02:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
SPLC literally says GI is an "organization known for spreading anti-Muslim conspiracies" in that link of yours. That Facebook post is a quote from an Intercept story which states that GI depicts Muslim refugees as "rapists and hosts of 'highly infectious diseases'", and the Intercept story itself is literally about GI being an anti-Muslim group. Pretty much every source you've brought up as evidence that GI is not covered as an anti-Muslim group shows the contrary. And I have no idea why GI is not on SPLC's list of "anti-Muslim hate groups" - what I do know by searching SPLC's website is that every mention of GI is in relation to it being anti-Muslim. The goalposts have shifted so drastically that the current reason not to describe GI as anti-Muslim is because one organization does not explicitly describe them as a "hate group", but does explicitly call it anti-Muslim. Note that this RfC is not about whether to describe GI as a "conservative, anti-Muslim hate group". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Another “brazen attempt to deceive editors in this RfC”. The emphasis of the SPLC list that I provided is not on “hate groups”, as you have led others to believe, but on “anti-Muslim”, which you casually left out of your overview. Basically, you have found a handful of RSs that actually use the term “anti-Muslim” to describe GI, then you WP:SYNTH many RSs supporting the idea. The goalposts are the same, but it is nearly impossible to prove a negative, especially when most of the sources are on the other side of the political spectrum. That is why the SPLC's 2018 list is important. It was the first group listed in the article, yet they specifically did not call it "anti-Muslim".UberVegan🌾 18:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unlike many other desciptions, "anti-Muslim" is a value-laden WP:LABEL and not clearly defined. Are they racists or are they just critical of Islam or what? This needs to be explained it detail and not just stuffed in the first sentence. --Pudeo (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support although I wouldn't mind "right-wing" instead of conservative. IMHO it's pedantry to think that what "anti-Muslim" means isn't clear when it's a term used by so many reliable sources and not just about this organisaion. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - this description is predominant in the reliable sources, as shown in detail above. Neutralitytalk 01:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per wide usage in reliable sources. I don't feel that turning up a few sources that simply don't use the term is sufficient to make the label disputed (especially when many of those sources just use other comparable terms, only mention the topic in passing, or otherwise broadly enforce the idea that this is a big part of what makes the topic notable; while higher-quality in-depth sources tend to bring it up.) The descriptor of anti-Muslim or words to that effect has been used extensively in high-profile reliable sources, and, given the significance of the description, it's reasonable to expect sources of similar weight would actively dispute it if it was controversial. --Aquillion (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per WP:NPOV: “All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.” Contrary to Snooganssnoogans' claims that the description of Gatestone as "anti-Muslim" appears in "countless" RS, actually the number is both countable and small, in no way a consensus. The designation of Gatestone itself as "anti-Muslim" appears in only two RS which use the descriptor within the body of the article (The Guardian and Buzzfeed) and is not supported by any empirical evidence in the articles. It is simply the opinion of the journalists and editors and not enough of a consensus for the descriptor to be written in Wikipedia's voice and included in the first sentence. Further, of the 10 sources cited in Note A and the 11th from the New Yorker, they do not all use the term "anti-Muslim" to describe Gatestone itself. There is a diversity of views represented in the RS and that should be reflected in the article, especially in its lead. Here is a summary of what the sources cited for the "anti-Muslim" descriptor do say, which reveals there is a range of opinions in RS about how to describe Gatestone:
  • The NBC article only describes Gatestone as "anti-Muslim" in the headline, which is normally not written by the journalist themselves but an editor. In the article itself it does not describe the organization as “anti-Muslim" but only some of its content: "has promoted misleading and false anti-Muslim news." This approach of critiquing Gatestone's content while not labeling the organization as a whole is a theme in many of the stories cited to try to justify this "anti-Muslim" descriptor.
  • The Max Blumenthal article at The Nation also does not describe Gatestone as "anti-Muslim." The mere use of a clickbait-style headline like "The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate" is not sufficient to then label Gatestone itself as "anti-Muslim." Further, if this article is to be included on the page it should conform with the guidelines about content from The Nation as noted in the perennial sources guide: "Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed." Thus, any information coming from this article should be attributed as coming from The Nation.
  • In the Foreign Policy article the term "anti-Muslim" never appears and when Gatestone is mentioned it is not described as anti-anything. The term used in the article to describe various individuals and organizations is "anti-Islam" which of course is not synonymous with "anti-Muslim."
  • In the Independent article it does not state that Gatestone is "anti-Muslim." Instead it states it is "what some critics have called an anti-Muslim think tank." This fact should be relevant and considered in how the Gatestone wiki article is written.
  • The Vox article - which relies on the NBC article - does not describe Gatestone as "anti-Muslim", it says it is "a far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim agitprop" - again describing some of Gatestone's content as "anti-Muslim" is not the same thing as designating the entire organization itself as "anti-Muslim." The New York Times publishes some conservative columnists. Snooganssnoogans, would you then argue that it would therefore be accurate to describe the Times itself as "conservative"?
  • The Albawaba article also does not use the term "anti-Muslim" or offer any descriptors about the organization. Again, they are analyzing and describing their critical opinions of Gatestone's content.
  • The New York Times article also does not use "anti-Muslim" to describe Gatestone, but rather simply describes its content as "articles on its website promoting the notion that pliant European countries, especially Britain, are submitting to “Islamization” by hostile Muslim migrants."
  • The New York Magazine article also does not use "anti-Muslim" to directly describe Gatestone, instead it again critiques specific articles Gatestone has published: "a far-right think tank that claims Muslims have established hundreds of  'microstates governed by Islamic Sharia law' (a.k.a. 'no-go zones') throughout France; that Muslim refugees have brought 'a rape epidemic' and 'exotic diseases' with them to Germany; and that the United Kingdom is on the cusp of becoming an 'Islamist colony.'" This last mention is particularly notable in demonstrating the inaccuracy of the "anti-Muslim" descriptor of the organization. Islamism is a political ideology opposed by both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. If Gatestone were indeed "anti-Muslim" then a "Muslim colony" would have appeared instead. Those who are genuinely "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Islam" tend not to distinguish between Islamism the ideology and Islam the religion.
  • The New Yorker article cited states Gatestone "has published virulently anti-Muslim articles of questionable accuracy." Again, this is not a descriptor of the organization, but of some articles it has published.

Given this range of views in the RS, a more accurate and neutral summary would be "Gatestone has been accused of being 'anti-Muslim' or part of an 'anti-Islam' movement, and the factual claims of its articles challenged. Gatestone and its supporters dispute these allegations."

Also important: the "anti-Muslim" designation of the group is further problematic given the fact that Gatestone's current chairman Amir Taheri is a Muslim himself, as noted on his Wiki page and attested to in RS already featured on Gatestone’s Wiki Page (This article at the Washington Examiner.) Thus his sentence in the lead should be revised to "Its current chairman is Amir Taheri, a Shia Muslim journalist and author who was born in Iran." It will be interesting to see how the lead reconciles that Gatestone Institute is "anti-Muslim" when its chairman is a Muslim. JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:LABEL, WP:WEASEL, which have all been detailed in greater length by other editors above. R333ct0r (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:LABEL. Galestar (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Long-winded equivocating aside, the purpose of the lede is to provide a factual summary of reliable, independent sources. Having a Muslim in a leadership position is not an automatic get-out-of-bigotry free card unless reliable sources say it is, which seems unlikely. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with great regret. Snooganssnoogans should be commended for doing the right thing and seeking to call a spade a spade in the lede of the article. The purpose of the lede is to get to the point. However, the sources just aren't strong enough for "anti-Islam". On the evidence I see, most reliable newspapers of record stop slightly short of calling the organisation "anti-Muslim" on their non-editorial pages. No doubt this is an overabundance of caution, but even if so, we are compelled to take the same approach rather than synthesise the way to our own obvious conclusions. Having said all of that, "conservative" is clearly an inapt description, especially on its own. "Right wing" is better and there are sufficient sources for it. I also completely agree with the comments of Grayfell above that having a Muslim as the group's chair is completely irrelevant. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • Per WP:VOICE, "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." There are countless RS that have been cited in support of "anti-Muslim" in describing this organization. Not a single RS has been brought up that disputes that the organization is anti-Muslim. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This entirely misses the point. WP:VOICE uses the following standard as an example: "For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."". I could present literally thousands of reliable sources which explicitly make the claim that genocide is an example of unambiguous moral evil, but these would still be opinions. The "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions" referenced in VOICE refer to points of fact, rather than judgments. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Evil" is an entirely subjective opinion, and no, you could not present "literally thousands of reliable sources which explicitly make the claim that genocide is an example of unambiguous moral evil" (what RS are you actually reading???). Describing someone as "anti-Muslim" is not an opinion (anymore than describing something as "conservative", "libertarian", "anti-immigration" and "anti-abortion"), and a multitude of RS have already been presented that describe the organization this way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The characterization of this think tank as "anti-Muslim" is also a subjective, value-laden opinion. This ought to be especially evident given that it is clearly a description which those it is being applied to would reject. It also has clearly pejorative connotations, which makes it doubly important that it is presented according to the relevant policy (WP:VOICE). This applies to any number of adjectives which should only be used with attribution, especially where controversial. I'm not getting drawn into the dispute, so expect this to be my final reply. That you won't even accept there is a consensus that genocide is a "moral evil" makes me much less inclined to engage here. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Your argument that "anti-Muslim" is covered by WP:VOICE is belied by the fact that it's been agreed-upon again and again that RS descriptions, which some may consider pejorative and which some article subjects may dispute, are acceptable if they are widely used by RS. There are plenty of articles where individuals and organizations are described as anti-semitic, anti-muslim, anti-immigration, conspiracy theorist, racist and whatever, because RS widely describe them as such. RS do not widely describe things as "good" and "evil" (again, I'm at a loss at which RS you are actually reading), because those are subjective opinions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • UberVegan, your highlighting of the SPLC as an organization that indicates that Gatestone is not anti-Muslim is somewhat questionable, given that one of the SPLC pages you pointed to describes Gatestone as "an organization known for spreading anti-Muslim conspiracies." R2 (bleep) 00:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
R2, thank you for mentioning that. I actually meant to highlight that that link goes to the same NBC article that Dershowitz writes about. That said, even with that link, as you'll see, the SPLC does not call them an anti-Muslim organization when they specifically use an asterisk to designate those organizations. Further, as I've been led to understand, the actual term must be used in the reliable sources, otherwise it becomes WP:OR. UberVegan🌾 02:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Arguments that this is reliably sourced, therefore it has to be in the first line of the lead, are missing the point. Plenty of things are reliably sourced but not in the first line of the lead of the corresponding articles. Like Adolph Hitler. Reliably sourced that he was anti-Jewish? Yes. First line of the lead? No, it waits until the end of the first paragraph. Multiple other examples with my vote above.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Saying that Dershowitz "refutes" something[edit]

Two editors (who coincidentally are falsely claiming in the RfC above that RS do not call this group anti-Muslim) are edit-warring text saying that Alan Dershowitz is "refuting" reports of the anti-Muslim description, and adding a long-ass quote from him. They are also removing any mention that Dershowitz is a GI fellow, which one would think is relevant context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, your WP:CIVIL and latest "brazen attempt to deceive editors" knows no limits. I have already stated that some RSs do support the claim. But your latest comment that I'm "removing any mention that Dershowitz is a GI fellow" is absurd and a lie. I placed it in THIS edit with a citation from GI, and you removed it, writing "this is GI's website". I can't speak for the editor who reverted you, but I'm assuming they did not place it back in part because your revert's comment seemed to contest the citation and information about his being a GI fellow. Not everything is an insidious attempt to subterfuge. --UberVegan🌾 23:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
You're brazenly telling fibs again: (1) here you add that huge Dershowitz blockquote while removing any mention that he's involved with GI[8], (2) I never removed that he was involved with GI (my version literally states he "contributes to Gatestone" or that he's a "Gatestone Institute fellow", (3) "this is GI's website" (which you for some unknown reason is bringing up) was obviously meant to be "this is not GI's website", as in this Wikipedia page is not for putting in long screeds by members of the organization, sourced to themselves. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)