Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism

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


Rebuttal to the Tennesseean[edit]

@Cwobeel: in regards to this diff [1], what rebuttal are you speaking of? Which allegations are being omitted? There's no point in putting up a tag if we do have reliable sources.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

We have reliable sources, but not reflected in the article. See Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear - Cwobeel (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
See also this donor advisory published by Charity Navigator,[[2]] which references The Tennesean article. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Charity Navigator has become aware of the following information in connection with this charity: During our analysis of this charity’s FYE 2010 Form 990, the document revealed that 100% of the organization's program expenses are being directed to the organization's CEO & Founder's for-profit management company, SAE Productions. Furthermore, the document also revealed that The Investigative Project on Terrorism, which does not have a separate EIN number, directs all donations on its website to the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, which in turn directs all the money to SAE Productions (see PDF Attachments "IPTF page 10 Statement of Functional Expenses," "IPTF page 7 Compensation of Officers," "IPTF, Schedule L, page 2 Business Transactions Involving Interested Persons," and "IPTF, Schedule O, page 2, Compensation of the Five Highest Paid Ind. Contractors.") An article in The Tennessean, published on October 24, 2010, confirmed these findings. Please see that article for more information. We find such practices atypical as compared to how other charities operate and have therefore issued this Donor Advisory.

Ok so with these reliable sources, do you have any change or addition you would propose for the article?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Emerson in lede[edit]

@AngelicCorrector: I've removed some of the content about Emerson from the lede because he has his own article and it seems improper to me to do so unless the sources generally treat his "gaffes" in these instances as representative of IPT rather than of himself. What we could do is add a word or phrase like "discredited pundit Steven Emerson", using your new sources as well as sources already present in the body of this article relating to his previous "gaffes". –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Highly inappropriate , not to mention violation of BLP, to put a smear of this sort in the lede. If it's valid, find multiple sources and put in in an appropriate place.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Emerson is widely known as a crank and we have two university-press sources in the article already. I'm not super gung-ho about including that in the lede, it's just as WP:WEIGHT for the poorly sourced self-serving statement given how commonly pointed out it is in the media that these guys are unreliable. I would also be fine removing the puffery. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 14:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion "discredited pundit" should be removed from the lede. Emerson clearly has his supporters and detractors and picking one academic source that politically aligns opposite of Emerson to make the blanket statement that he is a "discredited pundit" is a bit of cherry-picking that presents a simplistic view of his work. Note that Omid Safi, who has his own supporters and detractors, cites ThinkProgress for the statement about Emerson. I am sure that there are editors who will argue that the statements of university professors should be accepted by Wikipedia as fact, however, those comments really should be used with caution when they appear to label another person's entire body of work as "discredited" without substantial discussion. I have no objections to the use of Safi and Hammer's opinion with the proper application of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but I'm not convinced that it is necessary in this article. - Location (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course it should be removed from the lead. Binksternet restored it on the grounds that the meaning of "discredited" is explained in the main body of the article - which is ridiculous, since the lead is meant to stand by itself and shouldn't require the rest of the article to clarify it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Highly inappropriate , not to mention violation of BLP, to put a smear of this sort in the lede.
Incorrect. "Smears" are not appropriate anywhere in the encyclopedia. However, unflattering factual information may appear in articles, and may be summarized in article leads, as has been done here. Not all news is good news.
picking one academic source that politically aligns opposite of Emerson to make the blanket statement that he is a "discredited pundit" is a bit of cherry-picking
That is not the situation here. A single reliable source was added to the summary sentence in the lead as a formality in case the information "might be challenged", rather than leaving the lead summary void of citations as is customary. There are actually many sources, not just "one", which describe Emerson's loss of credibility in this field, and the many episodes of error, misinformation, apologies, ideological rants, retractions and admissions which lead to it. As for that one specific source, I see no evidence that the Cambridge University Press academic peer-review board is "politically aligned opposite" to anything.
Safi, who has his own supporters and detractors, cites ThinkProgress for the statement about Emerson.
Incorrect. What was cited, by Hammer and Safi and perhaps others for the description of Emerson as an Islamophobe and discredited expert, was not ThinkProgress but an article by a journalist posted at their website. In that article were a dozen or more citations and links to numerous other sources including Emerson himself, Slate, The Tennessean, FAIR, the FEAR, INC report, etc., so it appears that the scholars had a rather extensive pool of information upon which to base their assessment.
there are editors who will argue that the statements of university professors should be accepted by Wikipedia as fact
Perhaps there are editors who would argue that, but that is irrelevant here. No one here is making that argument. The authors of that peer-reviewed academic book, Sylvia Chan-Malik, R. David Coolidge, Edward E. Curtis IV, Nabil Echchaibi, Kambiz GhaneaBassiri, Zareena A. Grewal, Julie Hammer, Rosemary R. Hicks, Sally Howell, Amaney Jawal, Akel Ismail Kahera, Michael Muhammad Knight, Karen Leonard, Debra Majeed, Kathleen M. Moore, Amid Safi, Richard Brent Turner, Gisela Webb, Timur R. Yuskaev, published by the oldest and most respected academic publisher in existence, did not make personal "statements" or "comments".
I have no objections to the use of Safi and Hammer's opinion with the proper application of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but I'm not convinced that it is necessary in this article.
I disagree, and while you have no objections, I absolutely object. I'd rather not see their personal opinions interjected into this article. It is unnecessary. I much prefer that we stick to reliably sourced statements of fact, such as that which exists in the article right now as conveyed by The Cambridge Companion to American Islam.
The IPT and Emerson are inexorably linked, which means the "organization" must sometimes carry the baggage of its founder and principle operative, an individual. I anticipate discussions like this will arise routinely after each episode of world-recognized terror such as that which has occurred in recent days.
Xenophrenic (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I see no evidence that the Cambridge University Press academic peer-review board is "politically aligned opposite" to anything.
If you are familiar with the works of Safi, then you know that he politically aligns opposite of Emerson.
What was cited, by Hammer and Safi and perhaps others for the description of Emerson as an Islamophobe and discredited expert, was not ThinkProgress but an article by a journalist posted at their website.
Yes, let's clarify who Safi and Hammer are citing. The journalist at ThinkProgress was Eli Clifton, who has written for left-leaning groups and media outlets including American Independent News Network, Center for American Progress, Huffington Post, Right Web, and Salon (website). Clifton was also a co-author on the Fear, Inc. report, so he is essentially citing himself in the article. This is like basing a biography of Barack Obama on what is published in FoxNews. Or like letting National Review write the biography of Safi.[3]
I'd rather not see their personal opinions interjected into this article. It is unnecessary.
But that is exactly what you've done. You've just left out the in-text attribution to imply that the only view of Emerson is one that is negative. It's one that I share, but this article is not handling it correctly. - Location (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
If you are familiar with the works of Safi, then you know that he politically aligns opposite of Emerson.
I have no idea what his personal political views are, nor do I care. We're discussing a peer-reviewed book authored by more than a dozen authors and published by the Cambridge University Press. Your point is...?
Yes, let's clarify who Safi and Hammer are citing.
Please, let's. I'm waiting. Do you have special insight as to whom they are citing, or the extent of their research into the matter? To be a little more complete, the journalist's work has appeared on PBS/Frontline’s Tehran bureau, the South China Morning Post, Right Web, LobeLog, Salon, Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, Slate, Gawker, and ForeignPolicy.com. Eli holds a bachelor’s degree from Bates College and a master’s degree in international political economy from the London School of Economics. He is a Fellow with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute who focuses on money in politics and US foreign policy. Spencer Case is a philosophy graduate student at the University of Colorado and a National Review intern. You've cited an opinion piece by a ... grad student? All that aside, you completely glossed over the fact that the Cambridge book cites s source that itself is loaded with additional sources, including Emerson himself. Are you formally disputing the factual accuracy of the information or characterization? Or just raising dust clouds around the source of the source of the source, for some unexplained reason? (Color me lost at this point.)
You've just left out the in-text attribution to imply that the only view of Emerson is one that is negative.
Per WP:YESPOV: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. I've left out the in-text attribution because adding it would violate policy. Oh, wait, are you saying that the information from the Cambridge Companion to American Islam is an opinion piece? (Spoiler alert: I am Sooo going to vigorously dispute that mischaracterization if it is made.) Are you saying that there are equally reliable sources which refute that characterization? (I haven't seen any, but I do not claim to be apprised of all existing sources on the matter.) It is a fact, not "just one view", that Emerson has been discredited (a fact he actually acknowledges and bemoans himself in an interview), and has suffered from it career-wise. But if you have reliably-sourced information which disputes that fact, I would appreciate it if you would bring it up for review here. Simply trying to demonize one of many reliable sources which convey the negative description of Emerson's credibility isn't likely to gain much traction. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not even the lead of the Steven Emerson article describes Emerson as a "discredited pundit". I don't see any reason why this article should. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

I see no reason for having two separate articles. The content of this article can be easily merged into Steven Emerson. This "Investigative Project on Terrorism" organization has Emerson as a single individual working for it, and directly related to him. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I spent a good 30 minutes on the website of this Investigative Project on Terrorism". I encourage other editors to do the same, and arrive at their own conclusions, but what I see is that this is Emerson's own website, and he is the sole "researcher". As such, the material of this article belongs in his BLP. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd support a merge, but FYI the link in the merge banner goes to the wrong place at the moment. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Roscelese: Mmmm. It links to Steven Emerson, which is correct. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Cwobeel: I mean, the link for the merge discussion went to Talk:Steven Emerson, not here. If the merge gets reverted, I'd suggest fixing the link so people know where to discuss. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)