Talk:American Muslims for Palestine

Why have edits been reverted
Can someone please explain to me why my edits to the page have been reverted? I spent an extensive amount of time cleaning up the page in as neutral a manner as possible. The article's reverted format includes a lot of non-relevant information that should be fixed?

Gobulls (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Blanking most of the sourced content of the article and replacing it with what appears to be from a non-independent source is far from neutral. Icewhiz (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what do you mean by blanking the page. I cited a lot of my information with proper sources, unlike with what is currently written. Please look below at an example of uncited information. Gobulls (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Removing uncited information
I'm sorry, but I don't think some information should be included if they are not sourced. Take for example:

"There are several members with particularly questionable backgrounds prior to the formation of American Muslims for Palestine. Salah Sarsour has been named in law enforcement documents as assisting in raising money for Hamas. Sarsour's brother Jamil was arrested by Israeli authorities in 1998 for providing military support to Hamas. Upon his arrest he detailed Salah's involvement in Hamas fundraising through a Holy Land Foundation branch in Texas. Salah and Jamil also raised money for Hamas through a furniture store that they owned in Milwaukee. The money, as well as military support, went to Adel Awdallah who was wanted and killed by Israel in 1998."

That's unsourced information and has nothing to do with the organization and involves a lot of personal research, that's not referenced.

Gobulls (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Major problems with the article
In summary, this article has original research, sources that have nothing to do with the article, sources that are not reliable, the article lacks verifiability, and the article lacks neutrality.

Wikipedia's policies are clear. Original research in the article is not permitted. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Using sources such as the Anti-Defamation League (which is an opponent of the political interests of AMP) is an example of using a source that is directly involved and also a clear violation of the article's neutrality policy. Using archived versions of the AMP website page is another clear example of a primary source. In WP:FORUM, it is stated that "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought"

The current format of the entire article is premised on four sources: archived versions of AMP and Investigative Project on Terrorism website; a Vogue article that has nothing to do with the webpage; and an ADL pdf. None of these sources are reliable, verifiable, or have any scholarship on the matter.

There are a lot of names of living people in this article and the allegations brought by the original research are based on attempting to frame by guilt by association. Examples of living people mentioned in this article are Hatem Bayan, Munjed Ahmad, Salah Sarsour, Sufyan Nabhan, Mamon Hussein, Yousef Shahin, Sana Daoud, Hussein Al-Khatib, Abdel-Illah Nofal. Psa,aj Abuirshaid, Shakeel Sayed among others. There are absolutely no news articles or articles of scholarship that show these people have anything to do with AMP. This is wrong and a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy by placing names that do not belong there on the article. Not to mention, there is a major accuracy dispute because the information is likely completed outdated, because the content is taken from an archived webpage published more than a decade ago and was taken down.

This article has multiple demonstrations of point of view content forking. There is an undue effort to highlight negative controversies that have little or no connection to AMP. There are nearly 1200 words in the current format of the article. Of these, over 1,000 are directly dedicated to linking AMP to terrorist organizations and anti-Semitism, with little or no citations. That is wrong and absurd.

Gobulls (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality is compromised
Everything that our readers can see, including articles, templates, categories and portals, must be written neutrally and without bias.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes. Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. It is inappropriate behavior for an online encyclopedia. A Wikipedia article, page, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject is an "attack page". These pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time.

The recent edits to the page could undermine the integrity of the article.


 * Take for example, "Asaf Romirowsky describe the organisation as "racist and eliminationist". This is as blatant a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy as possible. Quoting a single person and calling an organization racist in the lead paragraph of a Wikipedia article takes gall. I am honestly surprised that these kind of edits are taking place in Wikipedia. This all came from a primary source and is original research.
 * "rise out from Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and have an Islamist view on the Israeli–Palestinian peace process" Wikipedia's policy is against hoaxes. A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. Since Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit", it can be abused to create hoaxes. The attempt to lump topics as wide-ranging as BDS, CAIR, ISNA, Muslim Brotherhood, AMP, JVP as one giant organization is as clear example of a hoax. It violates Wikipedia's neutrality, it is based on no evidence other than one person's opinion. This is not the type of content Wikipedia publishes and greatly undermines Wikipedia's credibility.
 * using the quote of Jonathan Schanzer is an example of placing undue burden to a single point of view. Jonathan Schanzer has said himself "that attempts to smear Students for Justice in Palestine and American Muslims for Palestine as linked to extremist Islamic terrorism have failed to gain traction." Gobulls (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Quoting Romirowsky is very precise. Instead of generalizing, a reliable source is directly quoted. Nothing wrong with that.
 * "rise out from Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and have an Islamist view on the Israeli–Palestinian peace process" : Which source is not good?
 * Schanzer: Source? --1l2l3k (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All the source are quoated are WP:RS from scholarly publishing house so they WP:DUE TO include you simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT --Shrike (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "According to Ron Young for majority of Jews that would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state"... this statement has nothing to do with American Muslims for Palestine. If anything, this belongs in an entire another article.
 * "The organization rises out from Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and has an Islamist view on the Israeli–Palestinian peace process" This is an example of guilt by association. The author provides no evidence to make such a hefty claim. The author implicates BDS, CAIR, ISNA, Muslim Brotherhood, AMP, JVP all as branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. For years, anti-Muslim groups have tried to claim that these organizations are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and this is just not true. Its a hoax.
 * Jonathan Schanzer is a leader of a pro-Israel think tank. He is vice president for research for "Foundation of Defense of Democracies". It is a relatively small Washington think tank that has devoted itself to defeating the Iran deal. Source. Schanzer "laments that attempts to smear Students for Justice in Palestine and American Muslims for Palestine as linked to extremist Islamic terrorism have failed to gain traction". He is reported to have said "Personally I think anti-Semitism as a smear is not what it used to be.” Its not hard to come to the conclusion that Jonathan Schanzer is not at all neutral and is one-sided on the issue. To use his characterization of AMP in blockquotes can be constituted to violate the neutrality of the article.
 * I want to caution you that pushing such a POV in this article really undermines the credibility of the page as one-sided. That's something experienced editors such as you two would want to avoid. That kind of stuff doesn't belong in the lead. Gobulls (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * He tells in contecst with the goal of the organisation so it WP:DUE here
 * The author is a scholar published by scholarly publishing house and hence is WP:RS contrary to EI that is not WP:RS to anything but partisan website that like to smear scholars they don't like.
 * I only report what scholarly WP:RS but deleting this we give WP:UNDUE to whitewash and incomplete information--Shrike (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it is NOT given due weight. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ. Gobulls (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, its not a scholarly reliable source. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobulls (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you also please explain why the below information was removed. This is sourced material that belongs on the page. AMP works with Jewish Voice for Peace to bolster Palestine solidarity campaigns. AMP co-signed a letter with JVP in 2012 calling on the University of Calfornia system to protect student civil liberties from efforts to censor Palestine-related activism. Gobulls (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because mondoweiss is a propaganda site and what qualifcation does Ali Abunimah have to be WP:RS and WP:DUE?.--Shrike (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Explaining the problems with the article
Currently, the article is in the middle of heated discussion of myself against Shrike, IceWhiz & 1l2l3k. I would love to see administrators and arbitrators get involved to help resolve this issue. I don't see them budging on the issues at hand, nor have they addressed the numerous concerns I have brought up.

Their version's first paragraph tries to link AMP to Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood via an alleged association of several founders to Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine. The language makes it sound like a proven connection existed. But the actual cited sources do not make that connection. It also uses uses loaded words such as "Islamist", "racist", "eliminationist", and stating that its mission "for majority of Jews would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state". I don't think that this attempt to draw an indirect link between the groups belongs in the lead. I want to strike it from the article due to its speculative, contested nature, and dubious citation.

I think we can all agree that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and we should avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes. Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. A Wikipedia article that exists primarily to disparage its subject is an "attack page". Wikipedia's policy is against hoaxes. A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. Since Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit", it can be abused to create hoaxes. The attempt to lump topics as wide-ranging as BDS, CAIR, ISNA, Muslim Brotherhood, AMP, JVP as one giant organization with guilt by association is bread and butter of Islamophobia. For years, anti-Muslim groups have tried to claim that these organizations are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ. Their version of the page has a total of 245 words, and the first 140 words are problematic. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader.

I am even willing to explain the problems of the article line-by-line:
 * "According to Ron Young for majority of Jews that would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state"
 * "The organization rises out from Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and has an Islamist view on the Israeli–Palestinian peace process."
 * "Asaf Romirowsky, a Middle East historian, described the organization as "racist and eliminationist"."
 * "Terrorist finance expert Jonathan Schanzer in his testimony to United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has said at least seven individuals who work for or on behalf of AMP have worked for or on behalf of organizations previously shut down or held civilly liable in the United States for providing financial support to Hamas: the Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and KindHearts."

For perspective, an average reader would be wondering who is Jonathan Schanzer? Jonathan Schanzer is a leader of a pro-Israel think tank. He is vice president for research for "Foundation of Defense of Democracies". It is a relatively small Washington think tank that has devoted itself to defeating the Iran deal. Source. Schanzer "laments that attempts to smear Students for Justice in Palestine and American Muslims for Palestine as linked to extremist Islamic terrorism have failed to gain traction". He is reported to have said "Personally I think anti-Semitism as a smear is not what it used to be.” It's reasonable to come to the conclusion that Jonathan Schanzer's characterization of AMP in block-quotes as an objective unbiased neutral expert can be constituted to violate the neutrality of the article. I want to caution that pushing such a POV in this article really undermines the credibility of the page as one-sided. That's something experienced editors would want to avoid. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. We want to avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields.

Gobulls (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Jonathan Schanzer is biased, but so is AMP itself. According to your logic we cannot trust AMP's own site for objective information about it. This is not how Wikipedia works. We take information from different reliable sources, preferably seconary sources - although for some non-controversial facts AMP's own site can be used. Most of the sources are biased one way or the other, so the trick is to balance them. This article cannot be just pro-AMP since wikipedia is not a propaganda tool. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that we must balance information and not use the article as as a propaganda tool. I am glad you mentioned AMP's own site as a source of objective information. An example of how poorly worded their version of the article, their version says AMP supports the one-state solution. That is not true. This is from AMP own's web-page: "The American Muslims for Palestine does not take a position on the resolution for Palestinian self-determination. We respect and support the right for Palestinians to choose for themselves.". To further substantiate my wording and refute their wording, their official page says, "We are an independent, American organization and not affiliated with any foreign entities or organizations." Gobulls (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Foundation for Defense of Democracies has its own page. Notice it funders, Huldra (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. As you can see from their below arguments, they have a reliance on self-published sources or questionable sources. According to Wikipedia's NOTRELIABLE policy guidelines, questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Regarding their push to post ADL's self-published material, Wikipedia's policy is clear: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable as sources. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Gobulls (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Now, the description of AMP in the lead as "a national nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to advocating for the rights of Palestinian people and an end to the occupation of Palestine" in Wikipedia voice is unacceptable. Wikipedia voice should be used only to state facts that everybody agrees on - such is that AMP is an organization active in the Muslim community based in Illinois, with several chapters across the the US and that it was founded in 2005 or 2006. Then we should quote their stated goals - marking clearly that this is a direct quotation. For example: AMP's stated mission is "to educate the public about the just cause of Palestine and the rights of self-determination, liberty and justice" Then we should quote how they are described by opposing sources - such as ADL: According to Anti-Defamation League, AMP "promotes extreme anti-Israel views and has at times provided a platform for anti-Semitism under the guise of educating Americans"

This way we provide the readers with all the objective facts and various opinions, allowing them to decide for themselves what to believe. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Schanzer quote is published in WP:RS its clearly attributed to him.So I don't see any policy objection why he should be excluded.Per WP:MISSION and WP:PRIMARY we shouldn't quote AMP but instead find secoundary sources that discuss it.And that exaclty what I did. --Shrike (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Schanzer is definitely better than what various AMP members say about themselves. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, I agree. As of now, the article indeed deserves all the tag bombing. Gobulls doesn't have consensus and is making a mockery of an article. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

(unindenting) I reinstated the criticism portion into a last paragraph. I plan to grab some pointers of that in the lead but will await reaction of other fellow wikipedians first. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Asaf Romirowsky, a Middle East historian, described the organization as "racist and eliminationist"." This is not mentioned in the source at all. This quote is completely made up. Gobulls (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Page 93: "So the American Jewish intellectuals of the Third Narrative group have given their tacit blessing to the tactics of the racist and eliminationist Students for Justice in Palestine, American Muslims for Palestine, and the Muslim Brotherhood" &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "The organization's advocacy for Palestinians' right of return and for the One-state solution would mean for most Jews the end of Israel as a Jewish state[13]." AMP does not support a one-state solution. |title=Statement%20of%20Principles AMP's website says it does not take a position on one-state solution or two-state solution as a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This should at least be contextualized, instead of one-sided. Gobulls (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned right after "grassroot organizations, that focus on supporting Palestinian refugees' right of return" which you did not feel any need to contextualize. So why sudden change of heart ? Is this source neutral and reliable enough to repeat in wikipedia voice or not ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the source highlights a simple point. Despite the dis-agreements between the author and AMP, even the author recognizes that AMP supports Palestinian right of return and is a grassroots organization. The source conflicts with AMP in regards to AMP's support of the one-state solution. So if a critic can agree that AMP is a grassroots organization that supports Palestinian right of return, so can we. Gobulls (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "According to critics, EMP uses education as a cover for promoting anti-Semitism". What is EMP? Why isn't it quoted? And what critics say it? Nothing is specified. Sounds like an attack line in the article's lead paragraph. Gobulls (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it should be AMP, fixed. The sentense is attributed to critics, so it is not an objective fact in wikipedia voice. Yes, an attack line right after a praise line, in an attempt to achieve balance.
 * The source does not say critics. The source says that is ADL's viewpoint. We can easily use more reliable sources than ADL's self-published source. Gobulls (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "AMP uses education as a cover for promoting anti-Semitism" The ADL webpage does not say this at all. In fact, the webpage says, "AMP promotes extreme anti-Israel views and has at times provided a platform for anti-Semitism under the guise of educating Americans about “the just cause of Palestine and the rights of self-determination." Gobulls (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "The organization is also accused of rising out from Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and having an Islamist view on the Israeli–Palestinian peace process." Who accuses? Gobulls (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a long list:   . Currently the article only cites Asaf Romirowsky, but it's really easy to add more references. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are all self-published primary sources. Wikipedia's policy is clear: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable as sources. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. You can read more about it here Gobulls (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:ABOUTSELF : self-published sources can be used to describe the opinion of NGOs, as long as they are attributed and never presented in wikipedia voice as an objective fact; just like AMP's and ADL's websites are good sources to support their positions.
 * Yes. We can use self-published sources in articles about themselves. Under the reference, Wikipedia says... "so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim and it does not involve claims about third parties". Gobulls (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Suppose that X makes a statement about Y in a self-published source. It is a fine source to support that X says that about Y, since the claim is not about Y but only about X's opinion regarding Y. Of course it is an unacceptable source to repeat the claim about Y in wikipedia voice. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You did a good job with your recent edits, the article is much more balanced now. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Gobulls (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Take a look at Anti-Defamation League Wikipedia page. There are a LOT of organizations that criticize ADL, and none of their criticisms are in the lead of the ADL article. Gobulls (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD serves to summarize the article, so it is justified to have a sentence in the lead summarizing the criticism. The problem is that I don't see a single issue that many critics agree on that can be described succinctly. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The ADL is one of the leading anti-hate speech organizations in America, and their opinion is DUE for the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was referring the ADL article. For this article of course the criticism should appear in the lead, it is concentrated on two very specific issues - AMP is allegedly promoting antisemitism and grew from a know terror group. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ron Young is a nobody

 * This is how Young is described on his book's Amazon page:


 * Ron Young is a consultant to thirty American Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religious leaders working together for Israeli-Palestinian peace. In the 1980s, Ron and his wife Carol Jensen lived in the Middle East while pursuing a Quaker assignment of listening to Arabs and Israelis. During the Vietnam War, Ron resisted the draft, visited Saigon and Hanoi, and coordinated peace marches on Washington in 1969 and 1970. Ron also worked with Rev. Jim Lawson in a black Methodist church in Memphis in 1962, and with Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma in March of 1965. Ron remains a popular and inspiring speaker at colleges, high schools, congregations, and community forums.

I.e he is a nobody. :) I really cannot think of a more clear-cut case of WP:UNDUE and WP:ONUS than this paragraph long quote of his. ImTheIP (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A popular speaker, published by Wipf and Stock. Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. We obviously do not disagree on the factual circumstances here. Ron Young has published less than a handful ebooks, has a short bio on Amazon and claims to be a popular speaker. That is not sufficient to make his opinions noteworthy. ImTheIP (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Asaf Romirowsky
What was the point of this half-revert of yours? In other articles you have favored the view that long quotes should be trimmed, why not here? Furthermore, why did you remove the description "Middle East historian"? ImTheIP (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We have an article, no need to have a title - though we could prefix historian. The summary did more than just summarize, and AMP's response did not pass V.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course we should describe how he is. How else would the reader know whether to take his opinions seriously? Describing sources of quotes is well-established practice on Wikipedia. ImTheIP (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC on the inclusion of the Ron Young quote

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the quote by Ron Young, found here and discussed above be present in the this article? ImTheIP (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No: Accoring to Young's Amazon bio he is "a consultant to thirty American Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religious leaders working together for Israeli-Palestinian peace. In the 1980s, Ron and his wife Carol Jensen lived in the Middle East while pursuing a Quaker assignment of listening to Arabs and Israelis ..." His Kindle book Crossing Boundaries in the Americas, Vietnam, and the Middle East: A Memoir is, as far as I can tell, his only claim to fame. It is published by a small publishing company called Wipf and Stock, named after the founders last names. I think you need to be a bit more notable than that to have your personal opinion included in Wikipedia... The article is not lacking in criticism even without Ron Young piling on. Even without Young's section with a long quote, the article contains a lot of criticism of the American Muslims for Palestine org. More of the same isn't really needed. ImTheIP (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably no per WP:UNDUE. Young doesn't seem to be a notable commentator and I couldn't find any other sources that mention or respond to his claims. Kaldari (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No - We don't need quotes from rando's! NickCT (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - notable published (Wipf) crticism. The article isn't at a size we should be paring down, but rather building it up. Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, and the entire section should be revised per WP:CSECTION. A criticism section as a dumping-ground for random quotes criticizing the article's topic is not a neutral or appropriate way to approach a controversial topic - instead, relevant criticisms (especially ones established as important by WP:SECONDARY coverage, widespread repetition, or coverage by extremely high-profile critics) should be included in the appropriate part of the article, eg. responding to the aspects they criticized rather than all dumped into one big wall of criticism.  The accumulation of random quotes like this is part of the problem with criticism sections like these - they encourage users to drop random quotes in simply because they agree with them or find them snappy, effectively debating the topic by proxy rather than covering it in a neutral fashion.  --Aquillion (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, criticisms should be covered by high-profile critics and included in the appropriate section of the article. Barca (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.