Talk:The Intelligence Summit

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

This is such a testament to the competence of Wikipedia editors!

The Intelligence Summit article[edit]

I have re-deleted an article on The Intelligence Summit because it was the subject of a prior discussion, the primary crux of which was notability. My understanding is that deletion discussions based on notability can only be overturned at deletion review (or by recreation of an article when no one else notices, but we'll leave that one alone). Sorry to delete your work.--Chaser - T 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not "undelete" a pre-existing stub article; I created an entirely new and amply sourced article from scratch. WP:DRV doesn't appear to authorize automatic re-deletion of such articles merely because a prior entry using the same name was once deleted. I've mirrored this exchange at your talk page and at the article's talk page.--Mike18xx 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You need to go through deletion review. This article should be speedy deleted and protected against re-creation. The version you made may be different but it has exactly the same problems -- not notable, and not sourced to reliable sources. csloat 18:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
csloat is right. DRV is the way to contest the decision of whether the subject is notable. If the decision is successfully overturned, it will be undeleted by one of the admins that watches DRV.--Chaser - T 18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not attempting to undelete a prior article. This is an entirely new article. The only thing either have in common is the name.--Mike18xx 19:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
That's completely false, and you ought to know that. This is about the same non-notable topic. The only difference is that this is longer, with more trivia about the non-notable topic. As I said in the AfD before, this is at best a footnote to the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents article. This should be speedily deleted forthwith. csloat 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not "completely false" (and you ought to know that). The previous article was mainly a link-farm list of people attending the conference without any attending exposition. The present article has references which could be described as right-wing, left-wing and spook-wing, so it's about as averaged-out NPOV as something like this could get. In the text, I don't make any judgments concerning the veracity of accusations made by Shaw or Loftus. Furthermore, The Intelligence Summit cannot legitimately be shoehorned into an Iraq footnote due to its involvement in other terrorism issues (e.g., global jihad).--Mike18xx 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The two articles are about the exact same topic - the intelligence summit - and pretending otherwise borders on bad faith. The Summit's only claim to notability is the Saddam tapes - its terrorism focus is not notable. There are hundreds of conferences about terrorism every year, many with notable figures attending them. The only claim this particular one has to notability is some outrageous (and demonstrably false) claims made by Shaw and co. that briefly attained media attention -- for about a week in 2006 -- and have since been justifiably ignored. This is a footnote to the OIF docs page and perhaps the Shaw page. csloat 01:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
csloat, would you cool it? Accusing Mike of bordering on bad faith doesn't help anything. These articles are different enough that I shouldn't have deleted the original like I did. A lot of people in the AFD are saying the same thing.--Chaser - T 01:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain what is different about the subject matter of these two articles? I agree this one is better in that it's not a stub or a useless list of participants, but it is about the same exact topic. And the important point here -- missed perhaps because of my admittedly unnecessary comment about faith -- is this: The only claim this particular one has to notability is some outrageous (and demonstrably false) claims made by Shaw and co. that briefly attained media attention -- for about a week in 2006 -- and have since been justifiably ignored. This is a footnote to the OIF docs page and perhaps the Shaw page. csloat 01:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Reference #1 is a 2007 piece that doesn't even mention Shaw, Iraq, Saddamn, Bush or WMDs. If the Iraq/Shaw stuff is emphasized, that's merely because those are what the Western press (and the Left) has chosen to confine its write-ups about.--Mike18xx 02:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What claim to notability does that one reference make? None. The reason the Iraq/Shaw stuff is emphasized is because that is all that is notable, hence the western press (both left and right!) has only covered that. Your claim "and the Left" is ludicrous; most of your sources are from the extreme right (like most of the attendees at this so-called conference). Left and right aside, I assure you this "conference" is an object of ridicule among academic and policy experts on terrorism (when they bother to talk about it at all). It doesn't matter - the article is not going to be deleted, but I will do my best to make sure that it does not remain a PR puff piece about the conference. This should be an encyclopedia entry, not a press release. csloat 17:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
(de-indent) Well, the two versions are clearly different (which I initially thought didn't matter for recreations where the original deletion reason was notability). As to what is different, and why many people now say it is notable, please look at the primary notability criteria at WP:N#General_notability_guideline, which indicates that secondary coverage in reliable sources is the most important consideration. Whereas the first version had no sources, the second and third versions had four references, including Frontpagemag and Newsmax. That at least gets it to the point where one can make an argument for notability based on our primary notability criterion, even if reasonable people can still disagree.--Chaser - T 01:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, a couple articles in extremist magazines over a couple of days in 2006 doesn't make a thing notable to me, but clearly others disagree with me. But this is still an article about the same topic, so my original point stands -- Mike's claim that the only thing similar is the title is utterly false. This topic is exactly the same, and it did not get more notable in the months since it was deleted for non-notability, and the "new" articles referenced were all around during the previous AfD discussion. Again, the entire substance of the notability claim rests on the link to Shaw and the OIF documents; the whole thing can easily be encapsulated in a footnote. But whatever; perhaps I'll look into starting articles on other important conferences on terrorism like this one in 2004 (which had some actual terrorism experts like Robert Pape at it, unlike the Summit), or this one in Saudi Arabia (attended by numerous security officials and experts worldwide), or just about any of these, or this one at West Point, or this one in Tokyo... Arguably all of the linked ones are more important than the "Intelligence Summit" to anyone who works in counterterrorism or any academic who studies it, but the Summit gets attention here because of the tiny bit of controversy - a couple days' worth at best - generated by some patently false but overhyped claims by the discredited Mr. Shaw. And certainly this conference in Iran was far more controversial in every way than the Intelligence Summit, yet the Iran conference did not merit its own page. csloat 02:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Are we to conclude that Tawfik Hamid isn't an "actual terrorism expert" despite having been an actual terrorist?--Mike18xx 02:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
He hasn't published any peer reviewed research on the topic, but I would agree we could consider him an expert in a certain sense. Nevertheless he pales in comparison to Robert Pape, whose work is cited by anyone writing on terrorism whether or not they agree with him. Meanwhile I've never heard of Hamid until today. As I said on the deletion page, however; my point is not "whose expert is bigger" but rather that the simple fact that this is a conference attended by terrorism experts does not make it notable.csloat 17:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Give it up, Sloat; I caught you with your pants down, and we both know it.--Mike18xx 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL. I can assure you my pants are very much on, and that you haven't answered my argument. But your comment says everything about your goal here. As I said below, I'm sorry you're taking this all so personally; for me this is about the integrity of Wikipedia. csloat 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Your attempt to argue that Tawfik Hamid isn't an actual terrorism expert despite having been an actual terrorist is duly noted. If you earnestly care about the integrity of Wikipedia, I suggest you submit an AfD for that putrid rot State terrorism by the United States. You know the one.--Mike18xx 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
So what if he's a terrorist? That does not make him an expert on terrorism, and you know that. What is notable is that I have never heard of this guy despite having read nearly every scholarly book published on terrorism that I could get my hands on, and hundreds of published articles in peer reviewed journals (including nearly every article in the journal Terrorism and Political Violence). Meanwhile, Robert Pape's work is cited constantly. I ask you again -- what peer-reviewed research has Mr. Hamid contributed to the scholarly literature on this topic? csloat 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Argumentum ad Verecundiam logical-fallacies tripping all over each other.--Mike18xx 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Cute, but the very issue at hand is authority, so your comment really doesn't make sense in this context. csloat 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Tawfik Hamid has first-hand experience; the others don't.--Mike18xx 21:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
So does Ayman al-Zawahiri; I'm not interested in his opinion either. The issue at hand was notability as a scholarly expert. Nobody would disagree that Pape has it and what's-his-name doesn't. I think we're done here. csloat 22:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Argumentum ad Verecundiam logical-fallacies tripping all over each other--Mike18xx 04:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because something doesn't have an article yet doesn't mean Wikipedians made a conscious decision that it didn't deserve one or a concerted effort to delete it. It could just mean we haven't gotten around to writing an article on a worthwhile subject. I encourage you to write those articles if you're interested.--Chaser - T 02:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not interested - I don't think those topics are notable either, and I doubt anyone else does. That was my point. This particular conference is being pushed as notable for pure POV reasons only. csloat 17:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a much more substantial article than described in the deletion discussion linked to above, which describes it as one sentence. G4 requires substantial identity and no evidence that the deletion complaints have been addressed. (I'm not sure this should stay, but it's not speediable.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The deleted article is much lengthier than that. I've restored all revisions and started an AFD discussion in any case.--Chaser - T 19:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How strange! Last time csloat argued that that ‘’it was a different article’’ about Operation Sarindar as it had been merely renamed from Russia and Saddam WMD allegations (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Sarindar). Now he argues that The Intelligence Summit creaded anew is still the same. Not very consistent view. In Wikipedia we don’t delete topics, we delete articles. Colchicum 09:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:IntelligenceSummit.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

(Mirrored from my talk-page)--Mike18xx 03:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC) ... An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Intelligencesummit.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. csloat 02:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've put the logo image up for deletion. It should not be here. It makes the page look even more like a press release from the organization, and it violates both copyright and trademark law. We don't need logos from every organization on wikipedia, and this one could get us into trouble. Besides, the only reason for its inclusion appears to be that it makes the organization seem more legitimate. csloat 17:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The tag and fair-use rationale are nearly identical to the CBS eyeball or any number of other organizational logos and mastheads. The CBS eyeball is a lossless, infinitely-scalable vector graphic while this one is just a pixel field. The CBS eyeball's rationale has "?" for source. The vast majority of images on Wikipedia don't even have rationale tables yet. Nobody at Wikipedia is going to get into trouble. Nobody with a lick of sense is going to confuse the article with a press-release. If you wanted more negative references, you shouldn't have deleted the Guardian and Rightweb links. Regards your last sentence, I can easily invert that by maintaining that your only reason for wanting to delete the image is to make the article appear less polished in order to scrounge another delete vote for the AfD (which is presently running 9 to 2 in favor of keep, and it looks like the person who proposed the AfD in the first place has even retracted).--Mike18xx 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
CBS is far more notable than the Intelligence Summit; the comparison is laughable. If you want to delete the CBS logo, go for it. As for the AfD, I recognize that the vote is not going my way, but for me this is about improving Wikipedia, rather than a personal contest of wills with someone I don't even know. I'm sorry that you are taking it so personally. csloat 20:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, was there a fair-use argument in that rejoinder?--Mike18xx 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're taking this so personally; if you read my arguments over again you may understand them. Perhaps not - it's ok; I'm no longer interested in convincing you of anything. csloat 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What on earth makes you think I'm taking this personally?--Mike18xx 04:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass revert[edit]

I spent quite a bit of time researching this "conference" and adding sourced and relevant content to the article -- it is insulting and it demeans the Wikipedia project to delete all those changes in one fell swoop without an explanation. Mike's one comment in the edit summary deleting several major additions was that CAIR is a source that is "notable but not credible." First of all, that summary does not justify all the other massive deletions of content. Second, the reason does not justify even the removal of that quote. Notability is what is important here. It is not Wikipedia's job to establish the credibility of such a source when the source is quoted in a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. Any published indicts of CAIR's credibility may be included on the CAIR page, but such opinions do not invalidate the use of such a source here. Third, of course, Mike is wrong about his assessment anyway, but that is neither here nor there. There is no point in debating the credibility of CAIR on this page. In the future, if you have a question about a change to the article, take it to talk, and discuss that one question. Mass deletions such as this border on vandalism. csloat 17:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK. 'Nuff said. Ride your hobby-horse on the Shaw and Loftus pages.--Mike18xx 19:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Non sequitur. 'Nuff said. For future edits, please explain each edit with information and evidence about your edit either here or on the edit summary, as I have. csloat 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
That is an interesting article. It is related to Operation Sarindar I worked with. It seems that cslot is making a lot of changes without discussing them and finding consensus.Biophys 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I explained each change in the edit summary. If you have a question about any specific change please post such questions to talk and we shall discuss. Do not mass revert. I am also reporting both your stalking behavior as well as Mike's. csloat 23:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
In the case of serious disagreements (like here), edit summaries are not enough. Unfortunately, you explained and discussed with others nothing. Please do it now.Biophys 01:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Which edit did you have a problem with? I explained every edit in the summaries and each one is on its face acceptable, since they all insert relevant and well sourced material from reliable sources into the article. csloat 15:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Some parts of text included by csloat (and excluded now) seem to be legitimate. John Loftus is a notable man; and this reference [1] is interesting. Do you have other disagreements except the image?Biophys 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the text yet but on first glance the text seems to be legitimate. If its related to the summit and its coming from a RS (which it is in this case), then it can be included. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 01:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • John Loftus is indeed a notable man -- and he has his own Wikipedia article (that I do not particularly care about, BTW, unless I am prompted to care about it by someone particularly annoying) which certain others are free to go crap all over. The Sptimes article doesn't really contain anything at all about TIS, per se; rather, it's all about Loftus, his critics, and blatant one-side-only reporting. But this Wikipedia article is all about TIS, not all about Loftus. Similarly, Shaw's statements are picked over elsewhere. There's no need for this article to be a bloated monstrosity duplicating the same stuff in a half-dozen other articles, and this will be particularly the case when further conferences feature further incendiary bombshells by other notable figures. In fact, the only reason it's necessary to "name-drop" Shaw at all is due to Wikipedia notability requirements; I'd just as soon he weren't in the article at all.--Mike18xx 05:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
But cslot just reported me to WP:ANI for alleged wikistalking. That is how he handles disputes.Biophys 02:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I am quite possibly the grouchiest and most abrasive bastard on Wikipedia, but even my stellar record of accumulating blocks and warnings is smaller than his. If I were him, I'd be careful about annoying too many admins with little league tattle-taling.--Mike18xx 05:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes you are abrasive. I reported you both because you are violating the rules and I asked you to stop and you escalated it instead. The content dispute is separate. As for the content dispute, every single piece of information I added spoke directly to the issue of the Intelligence Summit, not to Mr. Loftus or Shaw separately. Your comments above are false. Please restore the material forthwith. csloat 15:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You reported me because bully attempts are what you resort to when you can't win consensus. You appear to have a very long history of it. Regards the article, you are blatantly coatracking, and you know it.--Mike18xx 21:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Cease your personal attacks immediately. Deal with the issues here or stop your disruptive edit warring. You know quite well that there is no "coatracking" going on. The only thing that is happening is you are vandalizing this page by removing legitimate and well-sourced information about this organization. Cut it out. csloat 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

I have restored the infobox that I deleted so that Mike18xx can see that I am editing in good faith. The picture seems to be the only thing Mike has made clear that he feels there is a reason to keep, but he has not explained that reason. If he or anyone else believes the box should stay, please indicate why -- right now there does not seem to be a good reason to keep it as it is just describing a website. What useful information is this actually conveying? csloat 00:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the seal better than the banner[edit]

Mike18xx, I liked this seal better which was recommended by another user on the IfD. Its more effective because its less intrusive. It says more positive stuff that the bigger image which is actually a little bit visually incoherent/inconsistent because we cant make out why the image has been cut the way it has. Thats becuase it was cut off from the screenshot of the site. The seal is beautiful. I recommend using the seal instead of the banner, and actually, if you use the seal in its original size, it says everything the image says and it looks better too. What do you think? Tell you what, using the masthead is like saying too much, so its a negative impact. The seal says everything better. That's my recommendation. This is like giving more respect to the organization. You can RV if you want to. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 00:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's good.--Mike18xx 05:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The seal is great but far too big. Now please restore all of the quotations and citations that you deleted without comment. Deleting relevant and sourced material without explanation like that is no better than vandalism. csloat 15:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of criticism[edit]

Why is sourced criticism being deleted from this article? WP:COATRACK is not a policy, or even a guideline. Please give a policy reason. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback: I think it would be more interesting knowing what it is that you are so strongly objecting to regarding WP:COATRACK? -- Karl Meier 12:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting an RfC on this page. For those just coming to the page, here is the version of the page as it should be, and here is the version of the page as butchered by Mike18xx (talk · contribs) and Biophys (talk · contribs). I am the one who added the new content; you can see the edit summaries for each addition in the history (June 17 19:00 - June 18 00:47). I am happy to discuss individual edits one at a time, but the mass deletion of sourced content has to stop. csloat 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of sourced material is considered to be a form of vandalism, unless the material can be shown to violate core policies like WP:BLP. In this case, the material looks fine to me and should remain in the article. --Marvin Diode 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The material isn't fine, and isn't appropiate to an article about TIS because it isn't about TIS. It's blatant coatracking, and you both know it.--Mike18xx 08:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The Ahmed Bedler and Woolsey quotes, plus the UPI and St Petersburg Times stories, are all explicitly about the Summit. I have no idea why you would make the assertion above. --Marvin Diode 14:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To start an article with a long quote attacking the organisation, using a partisan source like CAIR, is not according to the letter or the spirit of NPOV. There are many other issues that we will have to deal with on this article, but for starters I have removed the long quote, and added a POV template. -- Karl Meier 11:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading the article again, it appear to me that every negative statement about the organisation has been digged out, and that the article have been turned into a chorus attacking it. Obvious examples of original reseach has also been inserted including grave examples as "The Summit describes itself as "non-partisan," but.. [another source attacking the organisation]". As for the way that the article discuss John Loftus, it seems to be in violation of one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, which is WP:BLP. I'll do something about that also as soon as possible. -- Karl Meier 12:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you have a valid complaint with regard to the sources. There may be NPOV issues about putting the CAIR quote so close to the beginning of the article. The article could probably use some formatting and organization, but please, no more POV deletions of sourced material. --Marvin Diode 14:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Marvin. The one potentially valid point you have is regarding where it says "The summitt describes itself as nonpartisan but..." -- I will fix that as you're right, it should not be phrased in an argumentative manner. The stuff about Loftus is all from valid and reliable sources; we should not censor such information for BLP concerns. As long as they are appropriately attributed that should not be a problem. csloat 20:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem with this page is not that the content is without sources, but that the information seems to be cherry-picked negative opinions from partisan sources, which all together make this look more like an attack page than an article in a serious Encyclopedia. The negative quotes is given a massive amount of WP:NPOV#Undue Weight, and something will have to be done about that. One solution could be to turn the article into a more neutral and balanced stub, that doesn't suffer from the problems that cherry picked opinions from partisan and extremist sources like CAIR bring with them. I suggest that we avoid the extreme views and opinions and focus on balance and facts. -- Karl Meier 21:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The best way to solve POV balance problems is not by deleting well-sourced material, but by adding other, balancing material that is equally well sourced. --Marvin Diode 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Even well-referenced material may be selected and arranged into something that is against everything that Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality stand for. To ensure that the article's is balanced and not just a selected chorus attacking selected individuals and organizations is more important than keeping every piece of information that is referenced. The current version of the article violates both NPOV and WP:BLP which specifically mention that: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics". It is true that the material that is included, and which attack several individuals and the articles subject, is referenced. However it is also true that the criticism is given a huge amount of undue weight, and that the current version is violating important policies. I do feel tempted to revert back to Mike's version which stick to the unbiased facts. A section called "criticism" can then be added where the most important criticisms that have been raised against the organization can be mentioned according to their importance. -- Karl Meier 21:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're incorrect here. You are talking in the abstract rather than specifically referring to the material in this article. The fact is, if you research the intelligence summit, you will find these things. Most of these sources are not particularly biased here (the CAIR person is the only source anyone had a problem with, and I think that source is notable, and one can click on CAIR to learn more about the organization). Some, in fact, were friends of Loftus who disagreed with his decision to hijack the Holocaust organization for his own political ends. There are no attacks on Loftus' character at all here; only criticism of his actions with regard to this particular organization. There is no undue weight here -- research the Intelligence Summit, and this is the consensus of what you find in mainstream media sources. Far right-wing sources like Frontpagemagazine may be generally more positive about the organization, but they do not respond to the specific points laid out in the sources quoted in this article. If you find that they do, please feel free to include some of that material here as well. But do not delete well sourced material like this wholesale. Thanks. csloat 03:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
To be more specific I am talking about the bulk additions of a huge amount of critical material that has been added since since a deletion debate decided that the article should be kept around June 13. I am sure that I would be able to find a whole lot of criticism about almost any subject, individual or organization if I made enough research, but cherry picking these critical opinions and quotes is not acceptable, and reading the current version of the article, that is what seems to have happened. In order to create a less unbalanced starting point, I suggest that we remove the cherry-picked attack-material, and go back to Mike's version which is reasonably unbiased, and which stick to the plain facts. From such a more neutral starting that is not in violation of NPOV#Undue Weight and BLP#Criticism, we can then add summaries of some of the more important criticism according to their importance. The partisan sources such as CAIR, and the redundant material can be left out. The current version of the article where perhaps around 80 percent of the material is very critical towards the articles subject is not acceptable, as it is giving a huge amount of undue weight to this side of the discussion. -- Karl Meier 07:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I still maintain that addition, rather than deletion, is the proper response to Undue Weight problems. I visited the organization's website and recognized a number of notable persons listed as speakers and organizers, so I added their names to the intro. Supporters of the organization could doubtless find more balancing material. This would satisfy Undue Weight concerns. However, if the purpose of this discussion is simply to remove embarassing criticism, that should be discouraged. --Marvin Diode 12:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Marvin - better to add than delete if the material is relevant to the article. Frankly, Karl, you should research this organization yourself. I originally supported deletion because I did not think this organization had any acknowledgement from reliable sources. That was true in 2006 but it is no longer true, and I was shown to be wrong by those who supported keeping this article. So I researched reliable and mainstream sources, and what little I found concerned the various issues that have been included in the article. I did not "cherry pick" anything -- the majority of articles published in mainstream media sources since Feb 2006 have reported criticism of this organization from many sources, including John Loftus' friends. (Even Victoria Toensing, who many consider a notorious right-wing hack, seems to think this organization is a joke). The ties between the major funder of this organization and the Russian Mafia are not a matter of speculation -- they have been acknowledged by the U.S. Department of Justice. And those publications predisposed to respond positively to this organization -- e.g. Frontpagemagazine -- do not even try to respond to the specific points raised by the mainstream media sources. So Karl, your concern about WP:UNDUE is misplaced here. And if you think it is justified, please offer evidence that an alternative portrait of this organization can be easily found in mainstream media sources. We do not concern ourselves with WP:UNDUE because the Charles Manson page focuses mostly on his crimes and very little on his positive qualities, and we do not declare that WP:NPOV requires that we cover up the fact that most media representations of him focus on his crimes. csloat 13:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Csloat: What I am suggesting here is that we make the article balanced and according to WP:NPOV#Undue Weight and WP:BLP not by removing information from reliable sources (and no, that doesn't include Ahmed Bedier) that mentioned that the organization has been criticized, but by summarizing them to give it a more appropiate size. More moderate or positive voices will of course also have to be included and given proper weight, to ensure that the article is balanced and neutral. I will work on summarizing the criticism and create "criticism" section, and I will make the changes as soon as Mike come back and is again able to voice his opinions on these matters. -- Karl Meier 16:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll be happy to look at any changes you suggest, but I am far more likely to support direct quotations than summaries from an editor with an obvious bias against the quotations. Which quotations specifically did you have a problem with? Again I have a hard time understanding your position because you are writing about the article in a very general way rather than focusing on specific parts of it. As for the "more moderate or positive voices," I have invited you several times now to include such voices if you can find them. I have looked up this organization in several databases of print media such as Infotrak and LexisNexis, and I did not see much in support of the organization. As I said, even Loftus' political allies complained about his ethics in establishing this organization and do not take its "intelligence" mission seriously. We cannot censor that information. As for Bedier, we are free to disagree on that, as long as you do not remove his well sourced and notable criticism from the article. csloat 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
One other thing - you may want to read WP:OWN and recognize that Mike does not own this article. I am happy to have his voice included in this discussion, but he was rightfully blocked for his edit-warring behavior and for arrogantly asserting ownership of this article. If his behavior is similar upon his return, I don't expect his contributions to be useful. csloat 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not Wikiquote, and quote farms must be either deleted or summarized. Another thing is that I have been very, very specific about the material I am talking about: It is the huge negative quotes that has been added since the article survived a deletion debate. As for Mike and WP:OWN, the history show that he is not the only editor here that has made a whole lot of reverts. For example, my edits which included the removal of a negative quote from a highly partisan source was reverted within a couple of hours. -- Karl Meier 05:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
If you delete well sourced material it will be replaced; keep doing it and it will appear to be vandalism. This has nothing to do with Mike's WP:OWN issues on this page. csloat 06:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
To restore an unbiased presentation of an article's subject by removing rants from extremist sources like CAIR has nothing to do with vandalism. I suggest that in the future mind WP:Civility and avoid any such personal attack, insinuating that I intend to vandalize anything. You don't WP:OWN this article, and Mike's opinions and concerns about the lack of neutrality in the article is entirely valid. The current version is not going to stay like it is, and I intend to work hard in the coming months to ensure that the article is written according to both NPOV and BLP. -- Karl Meier 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The article has already been rewritten acccording to NPOV and BLP, so I'm not sure what your concern is. I have not personally attacked anyone, nor have I attempted to WP:OWN this article in any way. None of Mike's concerns are valid that I have seen, but I welcome any attempt by you to explain specifically the problem. Name-calling sources you don't like really is not helpful - as I said before, it doesn't matter what you think of CAIR. What matters is that the quotation in the article is from a notable speaker and published in a reliable source. I am not going to debate about whether CAIR is a terrorist front or whatever nonsense Mike appears to be claiming, because it doesn't matter (and the repeated claim appears to violate BLP). What matters is the fact that this criticism is notable and verifiable. csloat 20:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not "name-calling" sources that I don't like, I am simply pointing out what sources like CAIR is: Partisan and not reliable. Your claim that the article should be something that is even close to neutral, of course doesn't make sense. As I have already pointed out, giving 80 percent of the article to rants and attacks from partisan sources like CAIR, is not neutral, but to give a huge amount of NPOV#Undue Weight, to the critical side oft the discussion. If an article is to be neutral, it should give space to both sides, and to archive that, the unreliable and unacceptable sources be removed, and the rest summarized down to a reasonable size. I have quoted the relevant policy above which makes it clear that criticism must not overwhelm an article. As for you not attacking other editors, making insinuation about me wanting to "vandalize" the article, is a very strong and inappropriate attack by any standard, and I will not accept that kind incivilities. The discussion page is not a soapbox for personal attacks. -- Karl Meier 21:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I would call CAIR a partisan source, and I would say the same for NewsMax and FrontPage. However, by eyeballing the article, I would estimate that no more than 10% of it is devoted to these partisan sources (two of which are favorable to the Intelligence Summit.) The remainder is sourced to the New York Sun, St. Petersburg Times, and UPI, sources which I don't think can be called partisan. --Marvin Diode 21:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
In addition, the CAIR material is actually sourced to CNN, which is a reliable source. Objections to it based on Wikipedia policy on reliable sources are completely incorrect, But you're right, we are really talking about a small part of the article - 2 sentences that are more than balanced out by material from far right-wing sources. csloat 00:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
No. CAIR is the source for the accusations that CAIR make. It doesn't matter who publish them. Anyway, I will wait a few months and I will then publish a better version of the article, that I almost finished anyway. Hopefully then, a more balanced presentation can be sustained. For now though, I will work on other issues. --Karl Meier 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Read WP:V. It does matter that CNN published the comments; they would not be notable or verifiable if published on a blog. If you have a "better version" of anything in the article, let's see it now; why wait a few months? Let's talk about any specific change you want to make. We know you want to censor the Bedier quote, and we have discussed that; so far you have offered no legitimate reason for such censorship. The second change we know you want to make is to censor the information about Hamid's former ties to terrorism. As I have said, I would not object to you making that change, even though you keep using it as a basis for attacking me. Those are the only two specific changes you have suggested -- one I oppose, and one I have no opinion on. As Marvin points out above, this represents a tiny portion of the article, and claiming that the article is POV or unbalanced as a result of these two sentences is a bit hysterical. csloat 18:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

I still don't understand the value of the infobox. Having the seal is fine, but why do we need to repeat three times the name of the company that registered the website? It seems excessive and it detracts from the useful information on the page. csloat 20:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I found a more useful infobox - non=profit organizations. I'll replace the current one.csloat 20:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Some improvements?[edit]

While reading this article, I could not understand anything. First, what is this "intelligence summit"? Is it simply an organizing committe that regularly conduct conferences ("summits") or is it a private spy agency? Second, it says: "this is not a mainstream conference...". What "mainstream" conferences on espionage subjects (if that is their subject) are conducted every year? Third and most important, this article provides no useful and interesting information on the subject. For example, these notable pepole (many of them are described as such in WP) met om a "Summit" in March 2007. So, what exactly they were talking about? That would be a good educational material. But intsead, this article seems to be written solely with a purpose to discredit this "Summit" organizers and participants, based on empty-worded statements and non-notable opinions in the press. Maybe these people can not be trusted. But I want to know what they are telling.Biophys 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree -- it's pretty clear to me from the article what they were talking about at the conference, and it's pretty clear what they mean by "mainstream" (and there are scores of mainstream conferences on intelligence and related topics). But of course additional material from reliable sources about this conference is always welcome! csloat 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree too. Current text provides POV, poorly substantiated personal accusations, and all kind of "dirty laundry" instead of encyclopedic content. Biophys 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I agree with Biophys that the term "private intelligence agency" is a bit ambiguous, so I changed the lead to make that a "research and advocacy" organization. It is clearly not a "private spy agency," and appears instead to be something roughly analogous to Political Research Associates. I also added its self-description as a "nonpartisan, nonprofit educational forum."

2. Otherwise, it appears that Biophys wishes the article to be more favorably disposed toward the organization. This should be accomplished by adding well-sourced positive characterizations, not by deleting well-sourced negative characterizations. --Marvin Diode 14:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Marvin. I'm not sure who came up with "private intelligence agency," but political advocacy organization is far more accurate. csloat 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
So, if this is an "advocacy organization", what exactly does it advocate? This article includes the following passage, for example:
John Loftus has come under fire from former representatives of the International Holocaust Education Center, who are concerned about him using the organization's tax-exempt status improperly to promote his intelligence activities. The St. Petersburg Times noted that "Walter Loebenberg, who founded the Holocaust education center and approved of turning the name over to Loftus in 2005 because of his high regard for him, says that he knew Loftus was doing intelligence work at the time. 'But ... we agreed he would change the name if he did his intelligence work under the name of the Holocaust education center. It has gone farther than we expected,' said Loebenberg. 'We never would have organized or sponsored an intelligence conference.'" An IRS spokesperson explained the impropriety: "If a tax-exempt charitable organization changes the name, the purpose or the structure, it must let IRS know by corresponding with us. And, it must remain neutral and nonpartisan."
What this has to do with "Intelligence Summit"? Besides, this is not an enyclopedic content, but something more appropriate for yellow press.Biophys 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(1) It apparently advocates the theory that the Saddam tapes were evidence of Iraqi WMD and terrorism, and it also apparently advocates bombing Iran. (2) The above quote is all about the Intelligence Summit; it shows that the founder of the organization improperly used his tax exempt status against the wishes of the Holocause Education Center. who says they never would have sponsored the conference haqd they known Loftus's intentions. There is no "yellow journalism" here; the names and facts are all well documented. csloat 20:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I finally got it: "Originally incorporated as the International Holocaust Education Center(3), after 9/11 IHEC rapidly expanded its educational mission from fighting racism to fighting terrorism, and is now known as the Intelligence and Homeland Security Education Center." But this article does not explain that! So, is "Intelligence Summit" and "Intelligence and Homeland Security Education Center" the same organization? This is also not clear.Biophys 20:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC) No, it is not! They say: "The International Intelligence Summitsm is a fully authorized program of IHEC." Again, this is not explained in this article. So, this is not organization, this is a "program". What program? Everything is mess.Biophys 20:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
So, "Intelligence Summit" is simply a system of conferences (like annual meetings of Biophysics Society, with an organizing committee as usual), which was organized by IHEC. The question remains: was this "Intelligence and Homeland Security Education Center" organized according to US law, or a criminal case was opened by IRS? Biophys 20:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not so mysterious as you make it out to be. The I.S. is clearly an organization, which describes itself on its own website as a "nonpartisan, nonprofit educational forum." Csloat and I apparently agree that it is a fair summary of its activities to refer to it also as a "research and advocacy organization." It advocates policies that are generally identified with neoconservatism -- would it be OR to add a category to that effect? --Marvin Diode 21:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The subject of the article must be clearly defined. This is either an article about organization (IHEC) or an article about a conference (?). What does it mean: "forum"? This should be explained. By the way, this Loftus replied to the criticism: [2].Biophys 21:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting and revealing response from Loftus - thanks for the link! I'm not sure we can use it until he publishes it in a reliable source, of course, but it's definitely worth reading. csloat 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, as for your other comment, I'm not sure there is much problem here. This is an organization whose main function is this annual conference. No real mystery. csloat 22:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
What organization do you mean: "Intelligence Summit" or "IHEC"? These two are clearly different, as stated in their web site. If this aricle is about "Intelligence Summit", then claims about misappropriation of name and IRS are irrelevant, since they are about a different oganization (IHEC).Biophys 23:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It is unclear to me in what way the "Intelligence Summit" and the "IHEC" are "clearly different." They both appear to be personal vehicles for John Loftus. One is a funding conduit, the other a venue for promoting the viewpoints that Loftus favors. --Marvin Diode 00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
O'K, I just exlained this in the articles based on words of Loftus. Now this is clear for me; should be also clear for any reader. He said this is A CONFERENCE. Biophys 00:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a nonprofit organization whose main purpose appears to be to hold a conference. I removed stuff that wasn't from a WP:RS from your edits; John Loftus' personal web page should not be quoted here, particularly not in the intro, and particularly not on hotly contested issues such as whether this really is a "charity" and whether former CIA directors' attendance should be used to promote the organization. csloat 00:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

POV problems[edit]

User csloat just deleted reference to a personal website of John Loftus telling: this is not a reliable source. But we must also follow WP:NPOV policy. Look, what is happening here. A non-notable journalist wrote an offensive article with personal accusations with regard to a notable figure, John Loftus. John Loftus claims in his personal site: this is a journalistic fraud and provides his explanation of the events. We must provide both views to be objective. There is no doubts that statement indeed belogs to Loftus. This is an appropriate source because the person (source) tells about himself.Biophys 05:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The closer we look, the more it appears that the Intelligence Summit, along with the charity and its various names, are largely a one-man show run by Loftus. Therefore it is appropriate to quote Loftus' personal website under WP:SELFPUB. It is also appropriate to note that the Intelligence Summit is largely a vehicle for Loftus's views: he says in his website that it is funded by "his" charity, presumably at his discretion. --Marvin Diode 06:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this seems to be fair enough. Thank you for mediating this issue! The article still seems to be pretty much POV. But I do agree that funding by Michael Cherney undermines credibility of this "Intelligence Summit". He is usually regarded as a gangster in Russian press, and he was investigated by police of many countries (hence the visa refusals), although he was never officially indicted/charged or convicted, as far as I know. After looking at his name (I did not realized before he was that "chyorny"; in Russian his name means "black"), I am loosing any desire to edit here...Biophys 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Cherney's participation is the very reason the more notable members of the Summit made very public exits; he is known as a gangster not just in the Russian press but here in the US as well. NPOV does not mean we have to include stuff from non-RS's for "balance" when the reality is that most reliable sources have negative things to say about this conference. We don't look for comments by friends of Charles Manson to "balance" the negative stuff about him in the article. If something is published in the NYT, sure, but if a friend of Manson creates their own self-published web page, that doesn't cut it. If we are going to quote Loftus's self-published weblog, we need to make clear that is what it is. (And it is not really fair to characterize the St Petersburg Times as "non-notable" or the accusations as "personal" -- the accusations are backed up by several involved source, and they revolve around Loftus' public activities as part of a non-profit organization under US law, not with any personal character traits). csloat 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Still, maybe I will try to improve this article in the future... Loftus provided a link: [3], which povides some interesting info about CAIR and other related issuses. I will take a look at WP articles about that.Biophys 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The accusations are personal because they dicredit a person (Loftus). The journalist who wrote this is non-notable; one could not make a WP article about him.Biophys 19:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether the journalist's notability in your mind is anyone's concern here. The Americans Against Hate site is not a WP:RS so I hope you aren't planning to add that material to any wikipedia pages. Finally, these are not personal attacks on Loftus; they are critiques of his public activities. Perhaps we are simply using the words differently. csloat 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Why this is not a reliable source? It seems to have an editorial oversight.Biophys 20:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking at its website, it appears to be a one-man show, which means, under WP:SELFPUB, it would be a suitable source for the article on itself, but not articles on other persons or organizations. --Marvin Diode 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Michael Cherney is as much a gangster as Gusinskiy, Khodorkovskiy or Litvinenko. You don't toe the government line - you get your business confiscated (Gusinskiy), jailed (Khodorkovskiy) or murdered (Litvinenko). If you're lucky, you get labeled as a gangster. Who cares that you never convicted and win every lawsuit filed to clear your name? If Putin and Negroponte say you're a gangster - you are a gangster. End of story! Intelsum 03:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

History[edit]

INTELCON was the forerunner to The Intelligence Summit. Shouldn't there be a little bit of history about this? smb 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you know the history please add it... that link redirects here :) csloat 23:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it still alive?[edit]

The website is down. I have changed the links to the archive.org-links to keep the information present. Anyway, does anyone know if this organization still exists, or has merged or is dissolved?Jeff5102 (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)