Talk:Muslim Brotherhood

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


Cleaning Up[edit]

This page really needs to be cleaned up. It has enormous paragraphs everywhere, very little coherence (very little of what's written in any section is relevant to the section heading), lots of links to print sources which don't say what it is said they say (one example goes "In 1997, Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mustafa Mashhur told journalist Khalid Daoud..." but the print book source it lists doesn't have any mention of "Mashhur" anywhere and he doesn't seem to be in any news articles anywhere).

Is anyone willing to help me with this? Or wishes to propose a better structure for the page than it has now? I personally don't think we need sections titled "In Egypt", "In the Middle East", "Elsewhere in Africa", "Other States", and "Foreign Relations".

I'm also alarmed at the amount of uncited statements. For example, under "Elsewhere in Africa" and then under "Maldives": 'The Adhaalath Party was founded in 2005. They have 1 seat in the Maldivian Parliament. They have been alleged to have participated in a coup that toppled president Mohamed Nasheed.' No citation, nothing even claiming this to be related to the Muslim Brotherhood...

If people want to take a task here are some which need to be done:

  1. Cleaning up larger paragraphs and breaking them up into readable divided sections.
  2. Ensuring that sections and subsections maintain coherence
  3. Better organizing of the group's "Foreign Relations" and International Activities sections.
  4. Adding sections which can act as catch-all for information which is scattered throughout the page (like "Affiliated Members" or "Affiliated Parties")
  5. Adding "Citation Needed" tags
  6. Verifying sources (lots of print sources here, unfortunately...)

Please feel free to add more... Mavriksfan11 (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Muslim Brotherhood. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 05:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Muslim Brotherhood. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 09:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Alleged Muslim Brotherhood-Nazi Germany links[edit]

The lead of the page contains the claim that 'In its early years, the Brotherhood was financed and supported by Nazi Germany'. The sources for this claim are clearly biased, questionable and do not provide other evidence other than their unsupported claims in their books. The first reference is a book called Understanding the Volatile and Dangerous Middle East: A Comprehensive Analysis which can only be described as an anti-Arab and Muslim screed. The second reference is a book called The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini which is a similar book spouting the same unfounded claims. The third reference is a statement made by the former grand Mufti of Egypt who supported the military coup against the MB government back in 2013 and has a history of making outlandish and unfounded remarks in support of the ruling regime in Egypt. Finally, the WSJ book review provides no evidence of Nazi Germany financing and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. As such, it is not appropriate to make such contentious claims about an organisation using clearly biased and questionable sources in the lead of the article. If the claim is to be made, then it should at the very most be a side-note and not a central part. Faaraax (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And WND Books, publisher of The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini, is among the crappiest sources one can use. The first book is self-published, likewise an unreliable source. nableezy - 00:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
All of those sources are crap. Much better is David Motadel, Islam and Nazi Germany's War, which documents some pre-war financial support not noteworthy enough for the lead. Zerotalk 03:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

To begin with, יניב_הורון, the material you are edit-warring over and claiming is "sourced", despite at other instances claiming ONUS requires consensus, is not sourced. This, the reference for right-wing, does not support far-right. The "anti-semitic thinker of Islamic supremacism" line on Qutb was added without a source here, and the source for the sentence, this, does not once say anything close to that. It in fact doesnt contain the phrase semitic or supremacism. This is not a reliable source, the paragraph sourced to this is a WP:COPYVIO as a word-for-word copy of a translation. Can you see the NY Review of Books piece? Can you tell me what in it supports and the seeming impunity given to Islamist radical attacks on Christians and other minorities? Normally Id say both of you are edit-warring and both of you should stop, but you are repeatedly putting in unreferenced crap into an encyclopedia article and claiming that it is sourced. That is, to be blunt, a lie. There is no source for much of what you are inserting in here. And beyond that, the stench of the hypocrisy in reverting per ONUS here, and here, and here while simultaneously violating that requirement here is really just too much to silently watch. nableezy - 00:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Found a copy of the NYRB article, it comes close to but doesnt quiet support what was in the article. The rest of it was either outright fabrications or plagiarism. So, since you said that the material you restored was sourced content and then demanded that others read the damn sources, despite twice having specific issues brought up in the edit summaries, before again reverting this time without comment, could you give an honest answer to the demands you gave to others? Did you read the damn sources? nableezy - 05:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try to find new sources before reinserting the material.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you answer if you read the sources you demanded others to read, and if you did what in them supported "far-right" or "anti-semitic and Islamic supremacism"? nableezy - 06:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
This is a primary source. Its use is not forbidden as long as it is done with caution and potentially controversial material doesn't cite it. I therefore restored the material with two additional sources. I also restored this, which was already well sourced. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Read the new talk page banner carefully[edit]

This page is reasonably construed to be part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Special rules apply to these articles. Violations can result in blocks and topic bans. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, I really think that is an overreaction. The Brotherhood is largely an internal Egyptian topic. Likud, Ba'ath Party (Syria), and other political parties and or social groups in the region are not covered by the topic area. There are parts that certainly are covered, including perhaps a bit of what was edit-warred over. But I really think you should reconsider this. The Brotherhood is emphatically not so intertwined with the Arab-Israeli topic area that it should as a whole be considered a part of the topic area. nableezy - 06:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Nableezy: they were crucial in the founding of Hamas and the article goes into some depth about the history of their views on Israel. We also just saw a multi-day edit war here between a non-extended confirmed account and an editor who tends to edit topics related to Israel. I think the being crucial to the founding of Hamas bit puts them pretty clearly inside the sanctions, but if another admin like NeilN or GoldenRing disagrees with me, I’m willing to reconsider. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with this. GoldenRing (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the parts about Hamas belongs under the 1RR. The parts about Zionism belong under the 1RR. But the Brotherhood is an Egyptian political party and social movement that goes back to the 20s. Hassan al-Banna has nothing to do with Israel, their charities in Egypt have nothing to do with Israel, their views on Islam have nothing to do with Israel. Really, Likud is not covered by the discretionary sanctions but an Egyptian group is? nableezy - 17:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
But for the record, crucial to the founding of Hamas is not quite accurate. Hamas is an offshoot, grown out of Brotherhood related charities in the Palestinian territories. The Egyptian Brotherhood did not found Hamas however, and if you really go in to the history of it Israel has a more direct hand in the founding of Hamas than the Brotherhood did. All that is besides the point however. The vast majority of this article has nothing to do with Hamas, and as you bring up the edit-war, recognize what your restrictions do. They give the upper hand to the editor who was putting in straight up lies in to an encyclopedia article, and restricts the editor who was editing material that has nothing to do with Israel. nableezy - 17:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The general restrictions apply to pages, not content within pages. While the political party is certainly more than just the Arab-Israeli dispute, I think this is reasonably construed to be subject to the restrictions. I’ve been trying to get rid of these sanctions that had been overbroadly applied recently, so I don’t do this as a knee jerk thing without thinking about it. If you think someone has breached the behavioral standards in this area and that discrectionary sanctions are needed, WP:AE is the place to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Well thats new, the old restrictions always read "articles or whose edited parts can be reasonably construed ...". Is there a process for appealing the inclusion of a page in this topic area? I am normally inclined to have pages included in the restrictions, but the extended-confirmed requirement here is, in my view, both uncalled for and specifically damaging to this article. There is one editor here who has been going through the article and verifying that it actually says what the sources say. And one user here who was inserting bs while lying about the sources. The wrong user is now restricted from editing this article. That strikes me as wrong, to put it lightly. nableezy - 18:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The exact text from the committee’s remedies is Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Also, this article is about the Brotherhood as a whole and covers its relations with the broader Middle East, not simply their role in Egypt (which is covered in Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. I’m significantly less inclined to lift the protection because of that.
Probably the best place to appeal would be WP:AE. I personally don’t see how a group that some countries consider a terrorist organization that helped found Hamas, was involved in the various wars in some capacity, and where the article discusses the stance it took in relationship to Israel as late as 2012 could possibly be outside the restrictions, but I’m always open to review.
Re: your question about Likud, if you think it qualifies and that protection would be beneficial, I’d encourage you to make a request at WP:RFPP. I’m pretty down the line neutral in this area, so I’m willing to consider any reasonable request for protection. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Im not questioning your neutrality at all Tony. I understand why you are putting this protection, I see the same things in the article as you. However I still maintain that material is a tiny proportion of this topic. Yes this covers more than Egypt, but it is largely focused on the history of the Brotherhood, and that is a largely Egyptian topic. nableezy - 19:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)