Talk:Gatestone Institute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removing the current unncecessary tags

A user reverted my edit claiming it was done "without a cause". So before I change it again, I'll explain here the reason why I think these tags should be removed. 1. POV - I read the article and nothing seems to violate this guideline. If anyone finds something, please point it out and I'll gladly remove it. 2. 'Reference improve' - the article definitely meets this requirement. I don't know what it looked like in previous versions, but as of now there's a citation for nearly every sentence. 3. notability - the most obvious one. Just give me one reason why you think it isn't notable enough. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Improving the Page

I will continue to add content and improve on this page. The tags when originally placed had merit, but I do ask that these labels be reconsidered for removal at this time or at least reviewed as additional content and sourcing is added. Considering the organization advisors, members and publishings, I feel we have gone well beyond the concern over notability. You will also see diversity in the reference links.

I welcome all input and help with this and any page I work on. Hawkswin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I agree with you and was about the do this, as I said above. I just removed these tags again, and don't think there should be any resistance met this time. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

missing author

Currently, the last article published by Gatestone Institute is Soeren Kern, Europe: Anti-Israel or Anti-Semitic?, 2013-09-20 (his answer is: both). The Wikipedia article fail to mention this prolific author. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am adding a notable article section within the next few days and Kern will be included. Hawkswin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't be listing all the authors anyway. Maybe those with their own articles. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Board speculation

I have removed the blurb about the boards. There is no evidence the individuals have been contacted or have agreed to join them. This is pure speculation unsupported by independent references.reddogsix (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted you because I don't see any speculation there. The website makes a statement that's either true or false and we attribute it to the organization itself. The reader can either believe it or not. Absent any contradictory information, the organization should be able to speak for itself about its internal activities. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about Independently verifable information, if you can provide an independent sources then it would be appropriate. There is no independence in the orgs website. RedDogSix (unsigned).

It's indeed a bit of a dilemma whether we should use that information given by the organization itself or not, however we all know that the Gatestone Institute isn't lying or making up these names of course. A quick search on the web found this article [1], confirming that John Bolton is the chairman, and this one [2], saying James Woolsey is part of the organization. I'm sure there are more sources, but what do you think, is it safe to revert it back again now? - Shalom11111 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

probably ok. reddogsix (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

My thought was that we were reporting the fact that Gatestone said something on its website and that that fact could be independently verified by any reader of our article who could click on the link we provide in our footnote. Is that a step too far? --72.66.30.115 (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

POV - not "non-partisan"

This isn't a non-partisan group. See [3]. It doesn't mention that it's an off-shoot of the Hudson Institute, and it reads almost like a page you might find on the orgisation's website or in a publicity brochure. Dougweller (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The article only notes that the group describes itself as nonpartisan, which is accurate. The rest, I don't disagree with, as the article does need some rewriting. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. There will be changes made. The article you site greatly lacks objectivity and makes serious accusations via guilt by association. Rosenwald's funding to writers and causes should be made on the pages of those entities (Pipes, Jasser etc.) as well as her own page. Originally the description was written as they are "non-partisan" but I agree to an extent your assessment so I changed it to refer to their own description. Rosenwald's personal work with both Dems (Bill Brady, Hillary Clinton) and Republicans (McCain, Romney) as well as the organization having associates featured by Huffington Post, Jerusalem Post and Al Jezeera makes me hesitant to blatantly call them partisan or conservative. They are unequivocally pro-Israel and maybe putting that in would make the page more accurate. I believe that is what you are getting at.

Many groups tend to publicize their relationships with other organizations. I will look for links to a Hudson connection. Again, thanks for your feedback and concerns. Hawkswin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

We simply attribute the material to the author - without comment on the author or the site. We have an article on the author so people can read about him there. Rosenwald's other activities are clearly relevant to Gatestone as it was her brainchild. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

In this context "non-partisan" is not the antonym of "partisan", it just means the organization is not formally allied with any political party. So, it can be, and is, nonpartisan and partisan at the same time! --72.66.30.115 (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

But that isn't how the ordinary reader is likely to understand it - the solution of course is to say it isn't formally allied with any political party. Or nothing at all. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The ordinary reader is now welcome to click on the blue-linked "nonpartisan" for further clarification, perhaps. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

1.We can't say "The Institute's pro-Israel positions have lead some to label it "islamophobic"" - that's [[WP:OR|original research unless we can quote the source saying that.

2.Nina Rosenwald is the president, it's very relevant that she is on the list as well as Gatestone.

3.Please don't remove POV tags without agreement - 1 & 2 can be seen as making it more pov.

4.Name changes are relevant. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you mean in #1, but since we haven't told the reader the Institute's positions, the original unqualified statement seems to come out of nowhere. #2: we've already told the reader she's the founder and president and linked to the "islamophobe" list—do we have to do everything for "the ordinary reader"? #3: the POV tag was misplaced from the get-go—if I recall correctly, when that tag was placed, the article was a plain-vanilla, generic description of the organization. it was so bland it couldn't have been more neutral. #4: don't understand—as far as I can tell, it was never called the Stonegate Institute; at least i didn't see it in the sources cited. #5 by the way, why are you spending time on an article that's going to be deleted? --72.66.30.115 (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

4 "as I can tell, it was never called the Stonegate Institute" That's cute. On my side, I can tell it was called the Stonegate Institute at a time (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, http://www.facebook.com/Stonegate.Institute , http://www.meforum.org/docs/publication/Stonegate+Institute , http://www.jewishpress.com/tag/stonegate-institute/ , http://www.honestreporting.ca/tag/stonegate-institute , stonegateinstitute.org at the Wayback Machine (archived March 15, 2012)) Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Vfp, for catching Robert Spencer, that was sloppy of me. If you have time, could you please add citations for your additions of "Stonegate Institute" and "Hudson New York Institute" to the lead sentence? Thanks again. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As for '1', it is hard to tell the reader all the institution's positions without independent sources stating them. As for 2, we aren't doing everything, and it is clearly relevant. As for 3, the article is still in flux. 4 we've dealt with, and 5 applies to everyone still editing and while the article exists it should still be the best it can be, and we can't be sure what will happen at the AfD. People will copy the article in any case to websites, etc. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@ 72.* : done. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your doing that, Visite f p. I think the Facebook ref is acceptable (I could be wrong), but I have a problem with the Clarion ref—it's from their current webpage and they're telling us that Rhode still works for Hudson New York, which hasn't existed since January 2012, afaict. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability

The article does not currently support the notability of the subject, relying as it does upon self-published material and unreliable sources. I suggest that users interested in the article find some reliable sources that give significant coverage to the organization, per our notability guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Most pages of such organisations rely on what they've put in themselves. We know this and know how to take it. It is probably even better than a (neutral?) researcher spending days scrutinizing stuff, making a final analysis which is not even final as everything seems to change so quickly in these trying times. Who'd have to fund the researcher, I wonder. Wikipedia is mostly not the end-point, but the trigger point and inspiration for further research if the topic is important enough. 58.174.193.15 (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

not a reliable source

Copied here, till the blog is established as reliable source per WP:RS

Ali Gharib, of the blog Open Zion, describes it as "a spin-off of the Hudson Institute where right-wingers (along with Alan Dershowitz) champion hawkish, often "pro-Israel" policies and, not infrequently, rattle off Islamophobic blogposts."[1]

What makes Open Zion an authority on WP:RS?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

nothing--so I removed it. tickle me 04:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

As a former German I found that all reports on the refugee crisis in Germany tallied with what I had read scattered in German - the English language sites do not normally carry an overview of the various shocking events in Germany. Gatestone did, and I found that useful, as well as a reliable source. What the motivations are to do that, we don't know, and I don't want to speculate but in this particular area it is necessary to counteract the omissions of the MSM. 58.174.193.15 (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gatestone Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130803203341/http://www.foxnews.com/topics/john-bolton.htm to http://www.foxnews.com/topics/john-bolton.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

To include a summary of Gatestone articles is highly relevant in order to build up this article

I have added a summary of some articles AND references to some external articles on the organization I found on Gatestones webpage. The articles on Gatestone was added to the part of controversies since it is criticism of the organisation. These are serious organsations/newspapers and relevant sources that improves the article. There are also responses to these accusations under response. If user:David A dies not understand this logic I kindly ask him to engage in a discussion here and explain why he disagrees before he engages in an editing war.Chez alexito (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You can't just add selected articles published on their venue that you think are important. That's WP:Original Research. I have restored the consensus version per WP:BRD. Argue for a new consensus first. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. You seem to cherry-pick articles and unreliable, non-notable, sources to attempt to turn this page into a slanted POV propaganda-piece. David A (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There is also the matter of WP:Undue Weight. David A (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of related AfD

I submitted an AfD for Nina Rosenwald in which I suggest a partial merge into this article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Rosenwald. This may be of interest to the editors here. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Improving the article

The Gatestone article looks REALLY bad in its current state. It looks like it has been written by someone from the institute itself. It has no substance such as presenting or discussing its ideological standpoint, no examples of what has been published in the institute or what has been published concerning the institute by other media. Since the users Jason from nyc and David A has deleted the content I added, without adding something new, I really hope they take their responsibility to fix this article so that it keeps a good standard. Chez alexito (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Inserting several cherry-picked OR articles, and a few obscure unreliable sources, in order to severely slant the article into a one-sided hit job, is not to "improve the article", as both you and I know very well. Wikipedia has a responsibility to maintain WP:NPOV, not to simply provide one-sided propaganda. David A (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The Nation and Middle East Eye are well respected sources. You don't seem to understand this, nor do you seem to understand that the article IN ITS CURRENT FORM looks like it has been written by someone from the institute, lacking any serious outside analysis or criticism. Chez alexito (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the article currently maintains WP:NPOV: Criticism and defence in equal amounts. As opposed to the one-sided WP:Undue Weight hit piece that you are attempting to turn it into, simply because the organisation has the audacity to rationally criticise Islamism, a genocidally bigoted fascist ideology. Cherry-picking WP:OR articles to support your predetermined conclusion, and citing non-notable sources such as Alternet, does not seem like an "improvement". David A (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That said, you can check here if there are any of your sources that qualify. You will need to summarise the text much more however. David A (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha, your comment about Islamism explains what I suspected from the beginning. That you are misusing and misreading Wikipedias rules for your own agenda. I have read that you have a problem with Islam on your page of comments and that this is not the first time you are involved in this kind of editing. You cant apply WP:NPOV blindly. Where are you going to end up if you do that when applying that to the article on ISIS or on Mein Kampf? I have the the right to add trusted sources such as The Nation and Middle East Eye that criticizes the institution. I think I have explained my point enough on this matter. Chez alexito (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

What agenda? That I dislike ridiculously extreme versions of fascism, bigotry, and fundamentalism in all its forms, including Nazism, Communism, and Islamism, as opposed to yourself defending the last category by attacking the critics? That isn't exactly a radical viewpoint. And saying "hahaha" about an ongoing genocide on Christians in the Middle East is not exactly a sign of maturity. David A (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I laugh. You make me laugh. You are not only confused by mixing up criticism against radical Islamism extremism with Islam. You are also ascribing me ideas I don't have or that I would never defend. Furthermore, you believe that criticizing critics of Islam is defending genocide against Christians. That is the most laughable of all and shows that your line of reasoning lacks all logic. Chez alexito (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read the following PEW Research statistical survey. Radical Islam/Islamism is not a marginalised movement. It is very commonplace. Particularly focus on the numbers stating how high percentages that want all apostates to be executed, and rape victims stoned to death: http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf David A (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This is truly wonderful. Slowly by slowly you expose the underlying motives for your editing on this subject, and the agenda behind it. Islam is a religion with many branches and the vast majority of Muslims are tolerant and peaceful. Most radical islam has grown out from some small sects in islam, such as wahhabism and Salafi interpretations, but its still marginal. If you want to know more about islam study it better.Chez alexito (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not an agenda to simply have read up on the statistics, rather than blindly swallow unfounded propaganda. Do you have any particular reasons for why the opinion poll with 38000 Muslims in 39 different countries is considered unreliable? David A (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, regardless of your provocations, I do not believe that we will get anywhere by arguing further, and I have allowed your edits to remain after you shortened them down to the most relevant parts. David A (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

David A, The changes I did are taken DIRECTLY from the article. The response was not referring to the accusations made by CAIR. It is not me that is writing this accusations but the article itself is referring to them. Read the article BEFORE you make any changes. If you delete the accusations you don't know what the response is about. Chez alexito (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you are turning the response section into an accusation as well. Attacks should be kept in the criticism section, and rebuttals in the responses section. The article is turning increasingly one-sided and POV, due to your edits. David A (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You must be joking. If you have a response you must know what they are responding to. I didn't make any edits in the text of the article, I just clarified what they are responding to. It seems that you have a problem with the content of the article that the response is referring to, but I am not the one that put the article there and I think the response makes the content balanced and doesn't change the article. I understood since our last discussion that you are keen on promoting your view on Islam, and I am sorry the reference is not fully in line with your views, but cherry-picking the content from the referred article without clarifying what they are referring to when responding is just confusing. Chez alexito (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. On second inspection, the current version of the text does not seem particularly bad. David A (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Founding date

Regarding the name changes and founding date: I note that on the Stonegate Institute webpage of 8 January 2012 it says: "On January 1, 2012, our name changed from "Hudson New York" to Stonegate Institute." Thereafter in January through mid March 2012 the header read: "Formerly Hudson Institute New York." On 22 March 2012 the stonegate.org site redirected to gatestoneinstitute.org, and the 23 March 2012 archive had the header: "Note to our readers: Unfortunately we have had to change our name again, but last time: Lawyers... What can one do?". It does seem that Hudson Institute New York was founded prior to 2012. It appears that the Hudson Institute New York was in place by at least October 2008 and used the web addresses www.hudson-ny.org, hudsonnewyork.org and www.hudsonny.org. The earliest archived page that I found was this one from November 2008. Their earliest published papers that I saw were dated 27 October 2008. --Bejnar (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

501(c)(3) status

There is a Guidestar report here on the Gatestone Institute as of the end of 2014. They are listed on the IRS list of 501(c)(3) organizations as "Gatestone Institute". --Bejnar (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected the article due to the ongoing dispute between several editors. There were only 3 edits to this talk page about this current dispute and by my count 50 edits over a few days that were constantly disputed. If you have an issue with an edit take it to the talk page. If you have issues with reliable sources there is a noticeboard for that. Please discuss the content issues on this page amicably and come to a resolution and then the article will be unprotected. Woody (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I not sure exactly who the warring editors were or what they were arguing over. If it was the label "right-wing" then I would agree that while that is a simplistic label it is substantially correct, although the think tank seems to take a liberal stance on some issues. If it was over their "non-partisan" status, I would argue that their claim is disingenuous (except for 501(c)(3) US tax purposes). While they do not expressly endorce a particular political party's policies, they do endorce a specific ideology, and are partisan with respect to it. I think it far better to describe their actual beliefs in the text section without labels that might misled some readers. In the lead summary, I would summarize those beliefs without simplistic labels. --Bejnar (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead section rewrite

There seems to be some disagreement on what should be included in the lead sentence. I have reverted to the last stable version and would hope folks could discuss this here. --Malerooster (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You did more than that. Also, you did not revert to "last stable version". You reverted to "last version that matches my POV".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't comment on editors or we can go to ANI. --Malerooster (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean that place where last time your name was brought up it was to suggest a block for your personal attacks [4]? Or the other times you barely squaked out of a block? Sure. Anyway, I'm not discussing *you*, I'm discussing *your edits*.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The great thing about this project is that anybody can go back and look at the history of this article. 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, ect. I encourage editors do this, maybe look at Feb 15th version and then decide when the current edit warring started and how the article should read until consensus is reached. --Malerooster (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead has had non partisan for a while it looks like. Then I see "conservative" was added. Now I see right wing. What do others think about this.--Malerooster (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, and if you look at a different date you will see a different version. Let's stop kidding around, this article hasn't been "stable" since... ever. You and a few others have been busy edit warring on it for months if not years. Also, there's no tyranny of status quo on Wikipedia and we don't privilege a "stable version" over newer versions. Each edit is evaluated on its merits and compliance with Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. Oh course we defer to the last stable version during edit warring until consensus is reached. Also, please stop with the personal attack, it isn't needed and just shows you have lost the aurguement. --Malerooster (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Funding

Gregcollins11, I was hoping we'd leave the extensive discussion of Nina Rosenwald's funding activities in her BLP. I proposed an AfD to delete the BLP and merge it into this article. It was defeated. Yet, we continued to see a merging of info from that BLP into this article. Why have a whole separate article about her if we are going to have a whole sub-article here discussing the same allegations? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV in the lead

The lead is a summary of the main points in the article.

There is criticism in at least two sections of the article.

That is not reflected in the lead, hence the NPOV tag. Seems obvious. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes and the criticism should be noted briefly in the lead too.VR _talk 19:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. There was a brief summary in the lede a few weeks ago but it was whitewashed by other editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gatestone Institute. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170316024603/https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9190/media-censorship-muslims-terrorists to https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9190/media-censorship-muslims-terrorists

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Should this article list dozens of personnel in the institute?

So this was reverted[5]. How is that notable in any way? Most of the people listed don't even have Wikipedia pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It is noteworthy to show that the institute employs a wide variety of writers, not simply a few boogeymen. David A (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Should this article be an advert for the Gatestone Institute or a duplicate of its website? The text already mentions some of the people who have written for the Gatestone Institute. Many of the people listed don't even have Wikipedia pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither, and you have currently turned it into a onesided POV hit job, despite that they publish plenty of well-researched articles from a wide variety of writers. However, to strictly list a few key figures, along with cited articles that paint them as some kind of monsters, rather than people who simply seem to attempt to inform the public about the dangers of Salafism, the most extreme form of Islam, is extremely onesided. David A (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The text is literally a duplicate of the list from the Gatestone Institute website[6]. Is there any reliable secondary source that finds this information notable enough to mention when describing the Gatestone Institute? If not, why should the Wikipedia article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Gatestone wouldn't even be notable if it weren't for a few isolated articles by hostile authors. In fairness we should use information provided on its website to provide balance. If the Gatestone info was all we had I'd move to delete the article as self-promotion but info about what is being criticized in notable sources, is valuable supplemental info.

As a compromise, how about we delete the long line-by-line lists as Snoo has done but keep or insert inline sentences mentioning those who have Wikipedia pages. This gives a sample of notable people involved. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Ideally we wouldn't mention any of the individuals associated with the think tank unless they were mentioned by reliable sources. This article is not an ad for the think tank or a duplicate of its website. What I did was the compromise. I left a ridiculous sentence in the lede listing a bunch of people who have written for the think tank even though no RS was cited, and kept the mentions of chairmen, presidents and vice-presidents. Why is that not enough? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If all we had was self-published info that it would be an ad. But once the organization has been covered by hostile critics it can no longer be considered a self-promotion. Mentioning the notable people associated with Gatestone is just due diligence. It should just be in a sentence form. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't have all the people who have ever written in Gatestone. If we want to select some people, they should be notable individuals in higher capacities. Many of the times, these are actually noted in reliable sources.

Also, David A is making a straw man argument. I don't see anyone whose accused Gatestone of only using "a few boogeymen".VR _talk 15:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I see some mixing going on here. For example, the source given for Harold Rhode is this, which actually paints him more as a liability than an asset for Gatestone. So are you sure you want include Gatestone's personnel? Because if you do, you're just opening it up to more criticism.VR _talk 15:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jason from nyc distorts and misrepresents a Bloomberg article, gives the impression that no-go zones exist

Jason from NYC has now twice inserted this BS into the article[7]:

In 2012, an article in Gatestone claimed that France had "Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off-limits to non-Muslims." Bloomberg reported that this was "demonstrably untrue" ... yet "there are grains of truth" in that Muslims "live in tough, isolated neighborhoods ... [where] police are afraid to respond to calls from dangerous neighborhoods.

This text completely distorts what the Bloomberg piece says (the Bloomberg in no uncertain terms refers to no-go zones as a falsehood) and falsely sets up a contradiction in the Bloomberg piece by adding "yet". This is what the Bloomberg article says: "As with many urban legends, there are grains of truth in this one. Many French Muslims live in tough, isolated neighborhoods and have faced discrimination in housing and employment. Sometimes, police are afraid to respond to calls from dangerous neighborhoods in France and elsewhere." This text does not say that "Muslims live in tough, isolated neighborhoods ... [where] police are afraid to respond to calls from dangerous neighborhoods." It says that Many French Muslims live in dangerous neighbourhoods and police are sometimes afraid of going into dangerous neighbourhoods. The text as written is both an intentional distortion of the Bloomberg text and completely undue in that misrepresents the article which is devoted to debunking the myth by throwing in one line that gives the impression that the article contradicts itself.

Also, can User:Gregcollins11 please stop with re-doing the same defective edits again and again?[8] This is at least the third time that this user has reinserted the unsupported falsehood that "Gatestone writers have been cited approvingly by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, National Catholic Register, Vanity Fair, New York Post, U.S. News & World Report, The Hill, and New York Daily News." and removed the reliably sourced sentence "The organization has been described as right-wing." The user offers no explanation for these edits and comes back again and again to do them.

The fact is that Gatestone has been cited approvingly by all of those media organizations. See the following:

NY Times

Wall Street Journal

National Catholic Register

Vanity Fair

New York Post

U.S. News & World Report

The Hill

New York Daily News

I will continue to add those links on Gatestone's Wikipedia page. I will also continue to delete "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues," or, I will continue to add "Muslim writers for Gatestone have defended the organization against this allegation" or the like in the lede, in order to add balance to the incendiary claim.

I will also continue to delete "right-wing" in describing the group. Gatestone publishes left-leaning authors, as well as stories from Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Hindus. Gregcollins11 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there has been an apparent smear campaign against the organisation in these pages headed by Snooganssnoogans. David A (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There is seriously no article on Wikipedia that has been as big a pain in the ass for me to edit on as this one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine, let's work on the wording. The Bloomberg article does say:

As with many urban legends, there are grains of truth in this one. Many French Muslims live in tough, isolated neighborhoods and have faced discrimination in housing and employment. Sometimes, police are afraid to respond to calls from dangerous neighborhoods in France and elsewhere. A few years ago, an Islamist group in Britain demanded that the government establish autonomous sharia-governed zones in some cities. The government swiftly outlawed the group, and it hasn't been heard from since.

This adds qualifications to the "totally false." Let's work on combining both aspects of the article, perhaps in a short single sentence.

Also, Greg Collins, brings up a good point in that the New York Times also had articles on this topic: [9], [10], and CNN, [11]. As this is a section on inaccuracies, if these inaccuracies are common across the political spectrum, it would seen less about Gatestone's propensity to error than a general propensity to error by news writers. Surely we do not put all the errors of a magazine in Wiki articles of those magazines. Exceptional errors would be worth noting. Common errors are undue weight. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a qualification! Bloomberg literally says that no-go zones are "demonstrably untrue", "myth", "totally false" and "urban legend"[12]. Saying that there are "grain of truth" to something is not a qualification or endorsement. There are "grains of truth" to every falsehood and conspiracy theory! It's completely undue to add any such language to the text. So, no, the text should not be re-worded. It should be removed in whole. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It is an important statement about what actually does exists and the basis for "urban legend." It isn't in the article by accident. The author is clearly making a distinction between the misunderstanding about "no-go-zones" and the reality of areas where even the "police are afraid to respond to calls." Let's report the whole story to make a balanced article. Work together with me on this. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, last time you waited for me to propose a change. I'll so it again. How about: "Bloomberg said this is an 'urban legend' that exaggerates the danger police face in certain neighborhoods." Or how about "Bloomberg notes it is 'undeniably untrue' but not without foundation given the fear police face in France and elsewhere in tough isolated Muslim areas." What do you think? How about you give it a shot? Jason from nyc (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Both those sentences are a complete distortion of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

How? The article notes there are neighborhoods where the police fear to tread yet they are not autonomous or impenetrable. It explains the reality and myth. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

As for your last paragraph, you clearly don't understand what Original Research is (not the first time). You do not get to rebut the Bloomberg article with some material that you cobble together yourself (synthesis). And your last paragraph has nothing to do with Gregcollins11's malformed and disruptive edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Jason: thanks for the attempts at re-wording it. While you have good intentions, both of your rewordings do come across as distorting what Bloomberg is saying. For now, I've put in Bloomberg's exact quote. Its worth noting that Gatestone actually defined no-go zones not in terms of law enforcement, but rather as "Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off limits to non-Muslims". That's totally false. No grain of truth to that. If we stick to just that claim, we can leave it at that. But Gatestone also made a claim of ' "no-go" zones for French police '. That does have a grain of truth, though, as Bloomberg notes, its still an urban legend.VR _talk 06:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

As Snoo pointed out my original wording was faulty. I appreciate your improvement in terms of including Bloomberg's analysis of myth vs. reality. Using a quote sometimes means editors can't agree on the meaning of the article and we've given up on a paraphrase.

Gatesone's Kern didn't coin "no-go". Our No-go area article includes a dictionary link [13] which has a broad definition (a place with a "reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there") and a strict definition (a district held by force "within which the police, army, etc, can only enter by force"). Bloomberg refutes the strict sense as advocated by Emerson. It's clear that Bloomberg's description of areas where non-Muslims or the police fear to enter is a "no-go" area in the weak sense of the definition. Thus, it is fair to say that Kern exaggerates by saying "largely off-limits" when there is only fear of entry. It is Emerson, not Kern, that is "totally false." We should report Kern as an inaccuracy. I'd prefer a paraphrase but what you have is still good. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to report "fact checking" on Gatestone we should at least address if the mistakes are significant or merely on par for the profession. I'll let Gregcollins11 speak for himself. 14:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Btw, guys, isn't this also a reliable source? Opendemocracy doesn't seem like a reliable publisher, but the authors look good: "professor of sociology at the University of Bath" and "lecturer in sociology at Aston University".VR _talk 06:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Unnecessary details

I'm removing irrelevant details from this article. Currently it says:

Yves Mamou, a French journalist who "worked two decades at Le Monde", published a November 18, 2016 article on Gatestone Institute's website entitled "European Unions Orders British Press NOT to Report when Terrorists are Muslims". Snopes, a popular website "covering urban legends, Internet rumors, e-mail forwards, and other stories of unknown or questionable origin"

This article is not about Le Monde nor about Snopes and we shouldn't go into too many details about either.VR _talk 19:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd go further and remove the whole paragraph. It's is about trivial copy-editing mistakes. The original headline used the word "orders" when it should have used the word "recommends." The Scope article has a screen-shot which shows the mistaken headline [14] with the word "orders" but notice that the screen-shot shows the lead of the article with the words "by following these recommendations ..." Thus, the headline (which is often the choice of the editor) didn't properly reflect the story. This is just sloppy copy-editing and should not be given "undue weight" in an encyclopedia article. We should remove the whole paragraph. This is silly. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jason. David A (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

But that's not what Snopes says. Snopes points out 4 incorrect things Gatestone says: 1) EU vs Council of Europe, 2) recommends vs orders, 3) that Gatestone portrayed the report as being anti-media, whereas the report actually presented a balanced view of the media, and 4) that the report actually defended media's freedom from government encroachment. This wasn't just one typo.

Not to mention the part about "NOT to Report when Terrorists are Muslims" wasn't even in the report. Gatestone made that up.VR _talk 15:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Your reading of Snopes also has inaccuracies. (4) Snopes points out that "the ECRI did call for an 'independent press regulator,'" as well as "it did not want government officials 'encroaching on [media outlets’] editorial independence.'" It is making a more subtle distinction than we are making and suggests that Gatestone isn't exactly wrong but not nuanced. This is clearly quibbling over degree, method, and intent. (3) Scopes says "the institute portray the report as pinning the blame on the media for an increase in hate crimes and hate speech across the United Kingdom." It quotes the report "certain tabloids continue to publish offensive material." Thus we are talking about anti-tabloid vs. anti-media? This is quibbling. (2) The body of the Gatestone report uses "recommends" but the editor's summation in the title was incorrect which was fixed. This is not unusual. (1) EU vs Council was an error but not worthy of an encyclopedia. If we included all the errors the major newspapers made, we'd be overwhelmed. This is clearly "undue." Jason from nyc (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"suggests that Gatestone isn't exactly wrong but not nuanced." That's your OR and in direct contradiction with Snopes. Because Snopes gave Gatestone a "false" rating, even though they have things like "mostly false", "mostly true" available.

"Thus we are talking about anti-tabloid vs. anti-media?" No. The report clearly praises the media (eg following the Sydney attack) but also offers some criticism. Snopes notes that. By contrast the Gatestone article paints the report as not just anti-media, but anti-freedom. It uses outlandish language: "perfect totalitarian information order", compares the report to "the former Soviet Union censor[-ing] the truth", the report "attack[s] freedom of the press and freedom of speech", and "Council of Europe will... submit to the values of jihad".

By contrast, ECRI says "Freedom of expression is a fundamental right, protected under the Human Rights Act 1998 and under common law. This can extend to the expression of views that may shock, disturb or offend the deeply-held beliefs of others." Snopes also notes that ECRI is against gov't encroachment upon the media (point #4 above).

(2) actually even after the so-called correction, the article still says 'Prohibiting journalists from naming "Islamic terrorism"'. And there's a world of difference between recommending something and banning something.

(1) Its just one error in a list of errors.VR _talk 04:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It just occured to me that by analyzing the articles, we may be going into OR territory. Its not our place to determine if Gatestone's article was "slightly false", or simply "false" as Snopes claims. We just report the facts neutrally (i.e. with attribution). We say what we need to and let the reader decide. Also, I'm open to trimming this down for the sake of WP:UNDUE. That was actually my original proposal above.VR _talk 04:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Understanding the source is not WP:OR but our obligation as editors. There is no way to address the question of WP:UNDUE without determining the importance of the content. How would we reject the complete inclusion of every article in every journal, newspaper, and website if we don't use editorial judgment? Every newspaper, including the New York Times, has copy editing mistakes and they post retractions or apologies on a regular basis. If we address the subject matter in the article we should do it in a balanced manner. For example, we have the incorrect headline and the corrected substitute. We should also have the incorrect blanket statement about "the media" replaced with "tabloid media." I'll put that in. Do you really want such petty complaints in the article? It suggests that inaccuracies of Gatestone are minor. Why argue that Gatestone makes minor copy-editing mistakes like all newspapers? That's a given. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

But it's not simple copy-editing mistakes. If it was a typo, I'd agree with you. Gatestone made false allegations, namely that there was an attempt at censorship. There was no such attempt, as Snopes points out, and as a reasonable person who reads the report can see.

re: "tabloids", Snopes says that Gatestone accused the report of "pinning the blame on the media", not "tabloids". The whole tabloid vs non-tabloid issue is something you are dwelling on. From Snopes' view the issue was not "tabloid vs non-tabloid", but the report praising some reporting while criticizing others and Gatestone only mentioning the latter.

Finally, the more you add, the more UNDUE weight you give. I'm happy with a short, one sentence on the issue. If you expand the text, then you are the one giving this UNDUE weight, not me.VR _talk 06:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Our version currently reads "it portrayed the report as blaming the media whereas the report gave both good and bad examples of reporting." If Gatestone only reported the blame and not the praise, it wasn't wrong, just incomplete. There's no error here. Why don't we reduce the paragraph to a single sentence:

On November 18, 2016, Gatestone originally published an article that said the British Press was ordered to avoid reporting the Muslim identity of terrorists by the European Union but changed its headline when Snopes pointed out it was only a recommendation issued by the Council of Europe.[15][31]

Jason from nyc (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Before we talk about the changing of headline, can you respond to my concern below? It seems Gatestone has removed the entire article now. That's more significant than just changing the headline.VR _talk 02:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I find that's significant. I noticed from the web archive that it was the only one of Mamou's 25 articles that was removed. While we can't speculate on the reason, I wouldn't oppose mentioning that it was ultimately removed. I think the "correction" was posted first because it is in the web archive. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My point is that it would no longer be appropriate to make the claim that Gatestone "changed" its headline. I suppose we could say they "first changed their headline and then removed the article entirely". But isn't that a bit of OR of web archives on our part? Also "changed its headline when Snopes pointed out" implies that the change was in response to Snopes. Is there any evidence of that? If not and if we do mention the changing headline, we should state it in another sentence.VR _talk 04:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I see your point about original research. We don't have to mention that the article was removed as we are clearly linking to an archive version and that's apparent. However, the article itself was changed and they noted inaccuracies were brought to their attention. Let's merely note the timeline by changing "when" for "after" in my proposed summation above. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. I still disagree with your proposed summation. I was going to make a counter-proposal, but first I wanted to get this little obvious thing outta the way.

"We don't have to mention that the article was removed". Ok, but that seems a bit distorting to mention the apology then. Because the removing of the article is a way bigger deal than correction. It can signal a potential retraction. In fact that's how people behave when confronted with controversial material, they just quietly take it down. I'm not saying that's necessarily what happened here, but if we note the apology than we should also note that the "page was later removed".VR _talk 23:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• BTW, has Gatestone taken down the article? If so, we should note that instead of the apology, because, presumably, the apology was also gone when it took down the article.VR _talk 04:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

"approvingly"

What does it mean that "Gatestone writers have been cited approvingly"? I see they've been cited. But the sources don't really use the word "approvingly". Nor have I ever heard of "cited approvingly" being used (people simply say "cited"). Finally, is this really relevant information?VR _talk 05:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is relevant to show that they have been considered a reliable resource by several prominent newspapers, and are not simply some kind of fringe organisation, but I suppose that the word "approvingly" itself may not be necessary. David A (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between considered a reliable or useful source (not the same thing) and a Gatestone writer having something they wrote published in the media. That doesn't speak to reliability, just to the fact that an editor thought it might be a good idea, either to give balance or just sell papers. But yes, "approvingly" is definitely not a term we should be using in this case. And I don't see it as relevant either. There's a much larger list of media outlets that haven't mentioned them, let them write for them, etc. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"Approvingly" is necessary if the "The Hill criticized Gatestone as "paranoid" for claiming that immigration to Europe was “civilization jihad” and a “Muslim invasion” is left in. This biased sentence does not mention that Gatestone has been cited -- approvingly -- in mainstream media organizations with a wide range of political perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcollins11 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding of how we work. We can't interpret our sources. If they don't say "approvingly", we can't claim they do. If you don't like what a source says you might be able to find other sources with a different point of view and use them, but your rationale doesn't work here. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, they didn't cite Gatestone (at least not those I checked). They published writers that have also written for Gatestone, and that's a world of difference. Sjö (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That's true. They used Gatestone more as an affiliation. But most didn't cite an article in the Gatestone.VR _talk 23:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Disappearing

The following keeps disappearing:

The Gatestone Institute has been accused of making false claims about Muslims.

Its sourced, and it briefly summarizes some of the criticism. So it belongs in the lead. Some of the people who remove this from the lead don't even give an explanation for why they're removing it.VR _talk 06:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made this edit to the lead. But I don't like it. I think we should be concise in the lead. But some users insist on giving more and more details in the lead. I think that's WP:UNDUE. But as a compromise I'm willing to let the details stay. But if we are to give details, they should be stated truthfully. Snopes clearly called Gatestone's claims as "false". No need to whitewash that. Bloomberg said no-go zones simply don't exist. That Pipes retracted his claims is secondary to the actual non-existence of the zones.VR _talk 06:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Opendemocracy and Euractiv are reliable sources + The lede should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

One user persists in removing columns written by academics for Opendemocracy and a news report by Euractiv. The same user also scrubs any content that reflects negatively on the Gatestone Institute from the lede even though the lede should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" per Wiki policy. I question the good faith of these edits, as the same editor keeps re-adding a transcript from a Fox News TV interview and the source Le Matin Maroc (which I assure you none had ever heard of before), while removing the respectable Opendemocracy (which publishes columns by academics and activists) and Euractiv (a reliable news source with an emphasis on European news). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

As our Wikipedia article on no-go zones notes, [15], the idea of no-go zones is controversial and by no means restricted to anti-Muslim writers. If that's the basis of criticism, it is appropriate that we use attributed quotes and sources and present the conclusions as opinion. Let's leave out the repeated name-calling. How many times are we going to express fear-mongering (paranoia, Islamophbia, etc.) to get the author's point across. We have it 4 times in that first paragraph and misinformation/falsehoods twice. This is excessive. Once for each should be enough. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If you can show Wikipedia policy citation of Euractiv and Opendemocracy as reliable sources, rather than simply being activist mouthpieces, I am willing to reevaluate. However, I kept all of the news sources that I know of as considered reliable, while editing out your insertion of Twitter comments, sweeping generalisations of anything whatsoever that the Gatestone Institute publishes as automatically inaccurate, and POV condemnations outside of the criticism section. However, I am fine with the current version of the article. David A (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You can check here for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources David A (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Bloomberg and Snopes are reliable sources. I agree that OpenDemocracy is not as reliable, but we are only using it to supplement claims that Bloomberg already makes, so it should be fine. The origin of Gatestone's claims, Daniel Pipes, has himself retracted his claims regarding no-go zones. So is there any doubt that the claims were false?

I have removed the allegations about conspiracy theories and Islamophobia. None of the sources I saw actually said that. I'll change my mind if I see something else.VR _talk 02:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have removed from the lead, not lede, some recently, 4 weeks ago, "material" that is undue weight. What do others think? There really should be consensus for this. --Malerooster (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Utterly agree that this is painfully UNDUE, especially the snopes. When the object of criticism is a far leftist, no amount of top-quality sourcing from admittedly left-leaning outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post is good enough—the criticism will be declared UNDUE. When the target is a conservative, any old self-published crap or blog post by an uneducated non-journalist must be included along with whatever inflammatory POV rhetoric it uses. I'm only playing along with edit warriors here because they're edit warriors and there's little choice but to cooperate, not because this material in any way belongs in the article. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"Inaccurate" vs "false"

There seems to be two different versions of the same sentence we are disputing on. Snoogan's

Gatestone has been criticized for publishing articles which were "demonstrably untrue" and "false"

And Jason's:

Gatestone has be criticized for inaccurate articles on Muslim related issues.

.

Jason further defended the edit over here.

I know we discussed this above, but it seems to have kinda gotten lost in the other discussion. So I'm making a section once again. I think both are pretty similar.VR _talk 06:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)