Talk:Center for Security Policy/Archive 2

WP:FTN
This is to notify interested editors that this article is being discussed in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. - Location (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

POV Problem with User Lavabaron
This piece and a related piece about Frank Gaffney have been subject to series of unfair and biased edits by user LAVABARON. Let me explain.

Over the weekend, Lavabaron did a wholesale revert of all changes made over several weeks by different editors. He apparently did this when he returned from vacation since his user site said "on holiday until September 25." I'm not sure the revert function is supposed to be used to removed material from articles because an editor was on vacation.

Another editor and I reversed these edits which removed new, sourced material and made corrections. He reverted it back twice.

Lavabaron said the edits he disagreed with may have used an SPA account and asked for a sock puppet investigation of me. This investigation was declined. Next, he complained about my edits on a Wikipedia fringe theories discussion board. I'm not sure but I think these complaints were rejected, too. He then placed COI notations on this page and the Gaffney page.

Now he is editing this page to add attack-language at the beginning of the page. he also has added criticism of Gaffney that may be libelous.

Lavabaron made extensive changes to this page in July. I agree with many of them. For example, he seemed justified in removing text last July that appeared to be promotional. The edits I made this month removed little of his material -- my edits were mostly additional material to add balance and to update this piece. I also corrected some errors.

I have invited Lavabaron to edit this piece cooperatively. So far I am not optimistic. He has serious POV issues with Gaffney and CSP that it seems he cannot get over.

Where does this end? Is there anything Wikipedia can do to shut down an editor who clearly is a fanatic?Zeke1999 (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not use words like "fanatic" to describe other editors. Repeated violations of WP:AGF may result in sanctions. Note that the above editor, a likely COI editor, has been repeatedly inserting information claiming a large number of famous persons have accepted awards from the Center for Security Policy, an extremely controversial conspiracy theorist group, sourced only to the group's own website. This is part of a pattern of aggressive massaging he has done to this article. As connecting these living persons to a conspiracy theorist organization without RS confirmation is potentially defamatory, I have attempted to remove it, however the COI editor continues to revert. (Note, Zeke1999, as of yesterday, had made more than 80% of his 32 lifetime mainspace edits over 7 years on WP to the CSP article, or those of two bios of CSP staff members,  which has included removal of critical material sourced to the Washington Post, the majority of his edits were done on these lightly trafficked articles within 24 hours of an IP editor making substantially identical edits,  has repeatedly crossed several WP:PROMOTIONAL bright lines, such as inserting in-text links to te CSP website in violation of WP:EXT. .) There is currently a sockpuppet investigation of Zeke1999 active. LavaBaron (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)LavaBaron (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It gets worse. This claim about repeatedly adding names of famous persons is misleading since the list of individuals who received awards was in this editor's July edits. (I added a few names to update the list.) I did not originate this list. Lavabaron thought it was OK in July. Now LAVABARON has complained about this false issue to the BLP Wikipedia board. When will this abusive behavior stop?Zeke1999 (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is edited by volunteers, not by some mysterious force. As issues are noticed by volunteers, they are corrected. This issue has now been corrected through deletion. As the content is potentially defamatory, please do not reinsert it unless you can source it to a secondary RS. If you feel you need to take a break from editing for a bit to better familiarize yourself with WP P&P so you have a better grasp on why your edits are being challenged, you should feel free to do that. LavaBaron (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in an edit war with you. I have asked for a 3rd opinion to review our dispute over this article.Zeke1999 (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly welcome a third opinion reviewer, though I'm not sure what the opinion is you're asking for ... if we should allow BLP violations in this article? If we should allow unsourced statements in this article? If we should suspend the WP:EXT policies to allow you to insert in-text links to the CSP website? As a courtesy, I should direct any arriving third opinion reviewer to a fuller background of this complex and interesting WP:DUCK case involving Zeke1999, who is most likely a Center for Security Policy staff member or closely connected party: here. The case of Zeke1999 and his probable sock/meat puppets are currently under active investigation by multiple admins and editors; while any are welcome to join this inquiry, I do feel it is appropriate to give fair warning about the tendentious nature of Zeke1999's third opinion request so no one wastes their time. LavaBaron (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Other discussions about this dispute that a third party review may want to look at are at [Center for Security Policy sanitizing of article about Islamophobic hate group] and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999Zeke1999 (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC) One comment to Lavabaron's comment above. His or her sockpuppet puppet complaint was declined. See above link. Discussion of his or her complaint on the fringe forum was closed. I see he now has filed a "duck" complaint. How many more complaints is this editor going to file? Is this the way Wikipedia is supposed to work? Zeke1999 (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: I am not taking or reserving this listing to give a 3O, but merely noting that it would be helpful if the parties were to give a very brief summary of what content issues that they want a 3O on, avoiding all discussion of user conduct since 3O's will not be given on user conduct (per the instructions on the 3O page, and the same is true for the other moderated content dispute resolution processes such as DRN and Formal Mediation). (If you have issues with user content, speak to an administrator or file at ANI — being sure to read and carefully follow the instructions there — for assistance.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer)
 * No need for a 3O by me, thanks TransporterMan! LavaBaron (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. My concerns are mass deletions without discussion. Most of the text changed by another editor over the last 24 hours had reasons I thought were weak. I thought most of my sourcing was OK but it was removed anyway. If are sourcing problems, I am prepared to fix. I thought the edits I made a couple of weeks ago made this a more balanced and timely article. I believe the recent edits make this piece less objective and removed a lot of timely information, such as the Center's work with presidential candidates and the Iran nuclear issues. Thanks again.Zeke1999 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean your mass deletions? I fixed those already.LavaBaron (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion Non-Response
A third opinion has been requested. As User:TransporterMan has said, it is very hard to determine what content issue, if any, the third opinion is requested about. I see a lot of complaints about conduct, but the Third Opinion Noticeboard isn't for conduct issues. Take them to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Now: What is the content issue about which a third opinion is requested? Please state it as a content issue, not a conduct issue. Please be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Robert-- please see my comments on the Frank Gaffney talk pageZeke1999 (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

YouTube as a WP:Reliable source
WP:YOUTUBE, a guideline, states, "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content."

WP:ABOUTSELF, a guideline, states in part, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as [they abide by the exceptions]."

WP:Video links, an essay, states, "There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable sources, such as the Associated Press's channel. These official channels are typically accepted. Content from Vevo is an example of a primary source that might be used."

So contrary to popular belief, YouTube can be used as a WP:Reliable source on Wikipedia. And regarding this edit by LavaBaron, there is no valid reason to think that securefreedom, the official YouTube channel for Center for Security Policy, is not a WP:Reliable source for information about itself...unless it is skewing facts about other matters. I don't think that LavaBaron checked the YouTube sources to see what legitimacy they had; he simply stated "YouTube is not RS.", like a lot of other Wikipedia editors who assume that there is some blanket ban on using YouTube as a source. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit-Warring
Please be aware that this article is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions under the American politics case and that tendentious editing can be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. Since reliable sources have characterized this organization as a conspiracy theory organization, that characterization should not be removed without discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty certain I posted here a month ago yet the talkpage history shows now edits since October. Why were my comments deleted from the talkpage? Baramop (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your contribution list shows no edits to this page until the one above. BMK (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears that some editors are engaging in edit-warring to stress references to "conspiracy theories" while deleting references to the Center for Security Policy's history, leadership, programs, policies, influence, and other characteristics. Entire sections of new material are deleted, and not improved upon or discussed. I added a more neutral introductory paragraph and a section on the organization's more than 20 years of recognition from bipartisan U.S. leaders, but the re-edits keep reverting in a derogatory fashion. While there is no doubt that credible critics of the Center for Security Policy have described the organization as subscribing to "conspiracy" theories, the stress on those opinions appears to violate NPOV policy and seems to engage in disputes, rather than describe those disputes. I hope we can have some cooperation in describing the organization fairly and in a neutral fashion, and describing the disputes rather than engaging in them. Professor Mike (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

BBC Article
Following the controversy over Donald Trump's use of a poll released by the Center for Security Policy, I stumbled upon a BBC article which appears to have copy and pasted from Wikipedia. This is a sad sign of the poor state of reporting today a BBC chooses to plagiarize instead of do his own work. Might I suggest that anyone choosing to update Mr. Gaffney, or the Center's page - following the Trump thing - do so with caution regarding their sourcing. Perhaps this article (Not the BBC generally) should be barred from being used as a source? Thoughts? I posted this comment on Mr. Gaffney's talk page as well The Armchair General (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:The Armchair General Specifically what text please? Doug Weller  talk 08:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's the bit about a parallel legal etc bit, both the BBC and our articles used the Center's website.. Doug Weller  talk 08:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence: "Terri Johnson, executive director of the Center for New Community and J Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, called it "an extremist think-tank" led by an "anti-Muslim conspiracist". Very minor changes were made to the sentence, but you can tell is was directly lifted from the criticism section of the Wiki. It then links to the same source cited by us.The Armchair General (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, our article says "Terri A. Johnson, executive director of the Center for New Community, and J. Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, have characterized the group as "an extremist think tank"" The BBC article says "The CSP has been criticised across the political spectrum - by high-profile Republicans as well as Democrats - and by organisations which monitor extremist groups. Terri Johnson, executive director of the Center for New Community and J Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, called it "an extremist think-tank" led by an "anti-Muslim conspiracist".
 * But there aren't a lot of ways to say that. Sure, maybe the author looked at our article and then the sources, but it's accurate and I see no reason why it shouldn't be used as a source, and I'm not clear why you think it shouldn't be. It's not as though it was copying original research in our article. Doug Weller  talk 17:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are many ways to have cited the original source material. I'm not sure what the best answer is. I'm just concerned that if this article is used as a source then it will be circular reporting. There are plenty of other article's on the web that people can use to criticize this organization... This shouldn't be one of them.  My main, overarching, point is to caution people to inspect their sources that don't do this sort of thing, in order to make sure that situation of circular reporting doesn't arise. The Armchair General (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Should the BBC's description of the CSP be Included?

 * 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 BBC's description of the CSP as "not very highly respected" be included in the article lead, thusly: It has been described as "not very highly respected" by the BBC. (Edit - please note objections to this inclusion raised by another editor in the thread preceding this one.)  LavaBaron (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Include The BBC is a major, NPOV news source. The BBC article provides a useful and contextualizing summary overview of the CSP that is not UNDUE give content in the body. As CSP has self-branded as a "think tank", and we have empowered this word choice by identifying it as such in the article, it is vital we provide a contextualizing view for readers who might only read the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a standalone encyclopedia entry. (Edit - after reviewing the edit history of this article, in reference to another editor's objections, I don't believe there is any evidence the BBC plagiarized Wikipedia.) LavaBaron (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Include As said above, the BBC is about as reliable a source as they come, and there are no policy-related grounds for removing their evaluation of the organization. BMK (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Include I would certainly include the BBC before I included Salon, and the latter already seems to be present. For that matter, the BBC article has much more incendiary quotes one could use than "not highly respected". Timothy Joseph Wood  23:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do Not Include My objection is not the BBC's description of CSP, per se. My objection is to the specific article being referenced. Regarding LavaBaron belief that there's no evidence of BBC plagiarism: It is clear (at least in my opinion) that the sentence in the article: "Terri Johnson, executive director of the Center for New Community and J Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, called it 'an extremist think-tank' led by an "anti-Muslim conspiracist"  was directly lifted from the criticism section of the wikipedia with very minor changes. I know teachers who would fail students for taking such actions.  As far as BMK statement that the BBC is as reliable a source as they come, I wouldn't usually disagree with that statement, but in this case, the article is a bit bush-league.  The "reporter" clearly cut corners and I don't believe this particular article is up to the BBC's own standards. I have already sent emails to editors at the BBC about this issue. Hope to hear back soon.  There are a lot of articles out there criticizing CSP. I just don't believe that this should be one of them. I hope you take my objection into serious consideration. Thank you very much! The Armchair General (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea that the BBC would plagiarize from Wikipedia is inane. It's much more likely to have happened the other way around. In any case, edits by this editor are just another instance in the long line of attempts to white-wash this article, generally done by people connected to or politically in agreement with it.  That will not be allowed. BMK (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The BBC report came out after the sentence was written in Wikipedia. Reporters need to produce content and have tough deadlines. Sometimes they cut corners. The idea that a reporter - whether from the BBC or another outlet - would plagiarize from wikipedia should not be seen as inane. The Armchair General (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree with The Armchair General's analysis, however, I can't deny the sentences are structurally similar and the edit history shows that it was added to the article [by me, in fact] prior to the dateline of the BBC report (my disagreement is that I don't believe there are enough alternative ways to word this that it is probably coincidence). But out of a preponderance of caution I don't believe it could hurt to keep this omitted from the article at present until the RfC has run its course for the full 30 days. As AG has noted, he's contacted the BBC about it. If he were to hear back that they had concluded there was plagiarism, I will change my !vote and everyone who has !voted should be pinged with the opportunity to change theirs as well. I'd suggest to AG that, if he doesn't hear back from the BBC, it also may not hurt to drop a line to Poynter to see if they are willing to look at this. LavaBaron (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I disagree. It is standard that the article remains in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing and until a consensus is reached.  If The Armchair General reverts again, he will be violating WP:BRD and WP:EW. BMK (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically, at the point the RfC was opened, the BBC line was not included in the article which, I think, would seem to make non-inclusion status quo ante bellum? But perhaps I misunderstand. In any case, I received AG's revert of my own revert as a GF edit and don't consider myself a victim of edit warring. We've had absolutely vicious socks come to this and Frank Gaffney to whitewash these articles (socks I'm certain that are originating from the CSP itself; in fact I have another open sock case here). AG is clearly not one of them and has GF concerns (concerns with which I disagree but are nonetheless cogent). LavaBaron (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the status quo ante is the long-term status of the article before the contentious edits, not the status of the article at the time the RfC was begun. BMK (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * LavaBaron and I went back and forth on this once or twice about the inclusion of this piece, which led to the RfC. It was never my intention to start edit warring. While I disagree with LB's analysis, I will abide by the decision resulting from the RfC The Armchair General (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, TAG's contacting the BBC is worthless, unless the BBC contacts OTRS. WP:AGF doesn't require myself or any other editor to take the word of a POV editor concerning an article within the penumbra of their viewpoint.  Only a direct contact between the BBC and OTRS (or a published retraction by the BBC) can be considered to be reliable in this case.) BMK (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good point. I suppose the ideation of my comment was that there would be a reliable conduit of communication, such as via OTRS, not that AG would post a screenshot of an email. LavaBaron (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If I receive word back from BBC, I would happily provide a screen shot or try to figure out another way to provide proof.The Armchair General (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The BBC finally responded to my inquiry. There statement to me was: "Under the BBC's guidelines, this piece is now out of time, as the complaint was not registered within 30 days of publication." A bit bush-league if I do say so myself.The Armchair General (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Include In principle, however a better quote might be found, the BBC is clearly sceptical about the worth of the research in general and in particular. In context it is a fairly obvious 'turnaround' that the BBC's 'NOT very respected' is a response to DT's description as 'very respected'. A much more plausible explanation than plagiarism for a very ordinary phrase. Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Include. The BBC article seems fine to use to me.  They might have been inspired by what we wrote, but, if so, all they did was repeat a factual statement.  That wouldn't suddenly make the BBC article unusable.  If they perform an investigation and retract something, then I think we'd have more to discuss here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

References used in this thread

 * 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.

Charity?
An editor is insisting on adding categories to this article that define it as a charity, which it is not. It is a 501(c)(3) organization, but it is not a charity. Most charities (not all) are 501c3s, but not all 501c3s are charities. The IRS says:

"Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."

This is clear. There are many reasons why a not-for-profit organization can be a 501(c)(3), but beeing a charity is only one of them. BMK (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Where is charity defined in US law other than in Section 501? It does appear that the word "Charity" is not used as much in the USA as it is in other countries, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a category.  The article Charitable organization says, in respect of the USA  "in practice the detailed definition of "charitable organization" is determined by the requirements of state law where the charitable organization operates, and the requirements for federal tax relief by the IRS".  It goes on to say "The IRS, except in rare circumstances, refers to all organizations qualifying for exemption under 501(c)(3) as charities.[43]"  The list set out above (scientific, literary etc.) by BMK is an enumeration of different purposes accepted as charitable in US law. Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no other definition in US law. "Charity" can certainly be used as a category, the problem here is the CSP isnot one. It is a tax-exempt not-for-profit organization, which is  not  the same thing as a charity.  That's why the tax code has that long list of the types of organizations which can file for tax-exempt status ("charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals").  Only one of these is as a charity.  I would imagine that CSP qualifies under "educational", but if their activities are audited by the IRS and are found not to be "educational" in the public interest, they can take back the tax-exempt status.  (This has happened to other organizations which were deemed to be political and not educational.)  In any event, and this really is the last time I'm going to say this to you, being 501(c)(3) does not make an organization a "charity", it makes the organization a tax-exempt not-for-profit organization.  Please do not add a "charity" category to this article again unless you have a consensus to do so from this discussion. BMK (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your definition of charity is circular. What counts as a charity is defined in law in each country. Like you, I suspect, I am not sure I would regard this organisation as charitable, but the US government does, and that is what counts.Rathfelder (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the U.S. government does not regard it as a charity, it regards it as a 501(c)(3) organization, Period. If you try  categorize it as a charity again it will be reverted. I am not responsible for your inability to understand U.S, tax law. BMK (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't claim to be a charity so far as I can tell. It does file as an organisation exempt from income tax. I can't find anything official state states they are a charity, and we shouldn't use our own interpretation of law to argue that it is a charity. Doug Weller  talk 10:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * According to " Governing Nonprofit Organizations, Marion R. Fremont-Smith, Harvard University Press, 2004" as quoted in Charitable organization section 501 is the definition of a charity in US law. It appears that in the USA the word charity is not used as widely as in some other countries, but charity is still a legal status.  it doesn't matter what organisations say about themselves, if they are tax deductible under this section they are charities.Rathfelder (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely incorrect. If they are tax-exempt, they are tax-exmpt.  Some of those that are tax-exempt are charities, most are not. Quote me a precise except from that book please, because I am not disposed to take your word for it. BMK (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Take a look at CSP's Form 990, which all 501(c){3) are required to file. You see anything there that indicates it's a charity?  The stated purpose of the organization is to "STIMULATE AND INFORM THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL DEBATES ABOUT ALL ASPECTS OF SECURITY".  Does that sound like a charity to you?  I hope not, because it is not a charity, it is a tax-exempt educational organization.I have no interest in what other countries might call a charity, the CSP is an American-based organization, and American law applies. In the US, the CSP is most assuredly not a charity, which I've been telling you for a while now. BMK (talk)


 * And again, an interpretation of a book, an article, a law, etc by an editor can't be used. Doug Weller  talk 10:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you produce an alternative definition of a charity in US law? Giving your opinion that this doesn't sound like one is not really very helpful.Rathfelder (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Wording of Lede
this RfC it was determined that the specific description of the CSP as "not very highly respected" must be included in the article's lede. There is now disagreement as to where it should be placed in the lede between two alternate versions. Which of the two contested versions should be used?
 * Version A: The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a "not very highly respected" Washington, D.C.-based national security think tank that has been widely accused of engaging in conspiracy theorizing by a range of individuals, media outlets and organizations. Its activities are focused on exposing and researching perceived jihadist threats to the United States. The Center has been described as "disreputable" by Salon and the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the CSP as a hate group in 2016. It has faced strong criticism from people across the political spectrum, but has also had its reports cited by political figures such as Donald Trump and Michele Bachmann.
 * (sources obfuscated for ease of reading but viewable here: )
 * Version B: The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a Washington, D.C.-based national security think tank whose activities are focused on exposing and researching perceived jihadist threats to the United States. The Center has been widely accused of engaging in conspiracy theorizing by a range of individuals, media outlets and organizations. They have been described as "not very highly respected" by BBC News and "disreputable" by Salon. The Southern Poverty Law Center designated the CSP as a "conspiracy-oriented mouthpiece" in 2016. It has faced strong criticism from people across the political spectrum, but has also had its reports cited by political figures such as Donald Trump and Michele Bachmann.
 * (sources obfuscated for ease of reading but viewable here: )

LavaBaron (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Version A I believe Version A provides the most accurate summary for the reader who digests only the first sentence of the article (such as those reading the CSP's Google KnowledgeGraph) and displays appropriate inverse pyramid structure. LavaBaron (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Version B, although even this version needs a copy edit. It is undue to add that phrase to the lede sentence without attribution nor balance. Furthermore, Version B presents the institution's primary aim before any accusations are weighed, hence the undue nature of A. Their intelectual credibility has been put into question and this needs to be reflected in the lede, appropriately. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Version B, I agree with User:FoCuSandLeArN. Version A's phrasing is intentionally disparaging. The Armchair General (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
Version B: I think version B is best. The first sentence states what the Center is without value judgements. That's appropriate. I think, however, we need to make the endorsement by President Elect Trump stronger. He has cited one of the Center's studies as support for his policy related to barring Muslims from entering the US.  Much as it appalls me, that's a powerful endorsement of the Center. Accordingly, I would change the last sentence to read “US President Elect Donald Trump has cited one of the Center's studies in support of his policy goal of barring Muslims from entering the US “until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.'” --Nowa (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. He did not cite the center's study while President-Elect, rather while as a candidate. A one-off mention by a political candidate, who then never revisits the subject again, is not appropriate for the lede. LavaBaron (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it depends upon what you mean by "revisits". Apparently it was quite notable when in the past week the citation of the Center was first removed and then readded to the campaign web site.  Nonetheless, I agree with your position that we don't want to overdue it.  If president elect Trump truly endorses the Center I expect we will hear about it again.  We can then revisit the lede.--Nowa (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
Just another reminder to all that Discretionary Sanctions have been authorized for this article. See the top of this page: "Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence of the "Controversy" section . ..
should be removed for a number of reasons. A. It is polemical and unencyclopedic, particularly as opening sentence of an article or an article subtopic. B. Though obviously a put-down of the CSP its precise meaning is unclear. . "the Domino's Pizza of the policy business" means what here, exactly? C. Context is no help because the rest of the paragraph is about criticism of the CSP for its conspiracy theories; plainly not what Arkin had in mind with this appellation. D. The Arkin quote goes back twenty-two years ago (1995) to what was probably a very different CSP. All the other sources for the paragraph, for the section, in fact for the whole article are much more recent; none earlier than 2011. The sentence is inappropriate and out of place. Motsebboh (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't access the linked source, but I have reason to believe this content doesn't conform to the source and that the source is unreliable to boot. Here is a Highbeam snippet of the same article. It doesn't say that Arkin called the CSP "the Domino's Pizza of the policy business," it says that Gaffney called the CSP that. So our content is inaccurate, and obviously not a criticism that belongs in this section. Then there's the fact that the source is a journal column. Without seeing the rest of the article and can't be sure, but I suspect this is an opinion piece that hasn't been extensively fact-checked by the publisher. Hopefully someone has access to the full source and confirm, but my preliminary assessment is that the content should be removed. I have concerns about neutrality as well but those are secondary to the verifiability problems. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:V. The information doesn't have to be verifiable to you, it simply has to be verifiable. Similarly, that fact that Motsebboh doesn't understand what it means is irrelevant.  The issue here is not the verifiability, or one editor's uncertainty about what it means, but the content itself.  If DrF is right, and the quote is wrongly attributed, then that needs to be fixed, but it does not have to be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So, I've changed the quote to reflect the snippet DrF provided, and I'm on the lookout for the annual report Arkin says it appeared in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Arkin's full article is available here So, the now correctly identified quote is completely verified - that is, our statement that Arkin said that Gaffney said X in an annual report is accurate, and since Arkin is identified as a political commentator in our article, and as an "independent expert on defense matters" in gthe squib for the article, I see no problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * According to this, Gaffney's remark is in response to Richard Perle's comment that "What we need is the Domino’s Pizza of the policy business. ,,, If you don’t get your policy analysis in 30 minutes, you get your money back." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your edit largely fixes the main verifiability problem. But now the question is, what is the encyclopedic value of this sentence? What is it trying to say? And why is it the first sentence of a section called "Controversy"? At least before, it read like Arkin was criticizing the CSP. Now it doesn't, so I don't really get what the point is. Maybe instead of picking some random quote from Arkin's column, we should instead be relaying what Arkin was was actually trying to say about the CSP? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a much more informative line from that source is: "Gaffney, on the other hand, is pure advocacy and instant gratification, a techno-boob who has never met a flag-waving, pro-defense, anti-Democratic idea he didn't like. Gaffney's undisciplined and unaccountable demands and attacks serve as a constant media magnet." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Which helps to tie it together with the Dominos quote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But it also gives an awful lot of weight, maybe undue weight to Arkin who appears to something of a left-leaning foreign policy maverick. Motsebboh (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * So he can't comment on CSP, because his politics are somewhere to the left of theirs? (Which wouldn't be difficult to do.) Nope, it doesn't work that way.  He's an independent policy expert on defense matters, his views are therefore germane to the subject. And please don't remove the material until you have the consensus to do so, which you do not have at this time. As I said before, this article will not be whitewashed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He can comment all he wants and I'm sure he has over the last 22 years, but we aren't obliged to include his quotes: particularly long, highly opinionated ones to start off a section. You are claiming a consensus on your changes. That would a be consensus of one. Motsebboh (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a "controversy" section, after all. The weight is just fine -in fact, it's better now that the context of the remark has been explained, and properly attributed. You just don't like it, and, last time I checked WP:IDONTLIKEIT was not a Wikipedia policy. So, it'll stay in the article as propoerly sourced and verified, until you get a consensus to remove it, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And just a reminder one more time that discretionary sanctions are in effect, and a removal without consensus would definitely be grounds for a sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Worry about yourself, Dude. I see you have a long and dense history of being blocked. What you've removed is actually the last consensus version. I had merely restored it. Motsebboh (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really the case. There are three people in this discussion. My edits were in response to requests by one of them, so there exists, right now, a consensus of two people against one, which means that how the article stands at the moment is the consensus version. Now, consensus can change.  Other people can enter the discussion.  DrF may express his agreement with you.  Whatever the consensus view is, I will not go against it.  But at this moment, the article is in the consensus state.And now I feel compelled to warn you about WP:CANVASSING. If you haven't read that policy lately, you probably should take a look at what you're allowed to do in notifying other editors about this discussion.  The executive summary is that you cannot notify only one side, you must notify all sides, and all notifications have to be strictly neutral.  So, if you go to a handful of your friends and say "Come help me with this", you would be violating the policy on canvassing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Any frigging evidence that I have been canvassing anyone???? No wonder you get blocked so much! Motsebboh (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but considering your willingness to violate WP:CONSENSUS at the drop of the hat, I thought it was worth reminding you that there are rules here that have to be followed, even by you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a curious idea you have about consensus. Possibly a bit self-serving?? The fact of that matter is that you did not wait for DrFleischman to agree. He might have gone out to dinner for all you know. You simply took the better quote that he suggested and tacked in on to the Domino's Pizza crappola and then claimed consensus. DISINGENUOUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motsebboh (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Try to remember to sign your comments, and try to refrain from personal attacks, such as calling another editor a liar. Not that it really matters, because the record is above for all to see.  Suggestions were made by DrF, and I agreed with them, so I put them into the article.  Now why would I have to wait for DrF to agree with what he himself had suggested? Does that make any sense? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice that DrFleiscman suggested using a different quote from the Domino's Pizza quote then in the article. He did not say "take the quote I have suggested and add it add it to the stuff about Domino's pizza which, of course, is what Beyond My Ken did. So there is, as yet, no consensus for the version that BMK is claiming consensus for. Motsebboh (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * BMK, you still haven't answered my questions: --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's saying (not "trying to say") that CSP deals with policy like fast-food - no serious thought, no research and exploration of the subject, no possibility of their ever saying anything different from what they always say, none of the things one would ordinarily expect from a serious policy think tank -- just slap the pre-fabricated policy into the oven and deliver it in 30 minutes or your money back. Now, that is perfectly clear to me, and seems clear to a lot of other people, but perhaps it's more esoteric than I thought, so perhaps it shouldn't lead off the section, but it is a coherent and cogent criticism of CSP, and therefore deserves to be in a "controversy" section.  I am opposed to removing it, but I am agreeable to giving it somewhat less weight by moving it down in the section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean Dr. Fleischman hadn't actually agreed with your edit before you made it!! I'll have to absorb that one first before I go on. But I recommend we avoid any hasty assumptions about consensus changes. Motsebboh (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment - here is the full context of the quote from the BAS if anyone's curious (like I was):

Seems clear that the origin of the comment is Gaffney himself, but the source also says that he made the comment "with no hint of irony" and that he's a "maestro of bumpersticker policy." The general argument does seem to be that this is a low-quality, quick-fire, fast-food style method of disseminating opinions and trying to influence policy (basically: mudslinging). That's how Arkin's article reads to me anyway. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's how I read it. If the paragraph in the article needs adjustment to make that clear, I have no objection to that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating for the most boring kind of writing possible but giving Arkin's comments this much play is inadvisable. They are 22 years old as compared to the rest of the criticism which is all within the last six years. I'm sure Arkin is a smart guy who has given foreign policy a lot of thought but he is not a mainstream foreign policy analyst (Greenpeace!!), has zero academic qualifications, and probably has made the same kinds of comments against all sorts of individuals and groups considered quite FP mainstream. Moreover, we are not trying to produce a polemic against the subject of our article. Also, Arkin is merely borrowing the "Domino's Pizza" bit from Gaffney who borrowed it from Perle so I'm not sure he deserves the credit as a wordsmith. Motsebboh (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You gotta keep up with the times. I think everyone agrees that the original statement was incorrect, that Arkin himself was not calling CSP the Domino's Pizza of policy, but that he was quoting Gaffney as saying that in a CSP annual report.  That's been fixed, now, and the information in the article currently is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Domino's Pizza" quote itself isn't a criticism. Rather, as explained well by Fiddlestyx, the criticism is the notion articulated by the "bumper sticker" language. Arkin used Gaffney's own words to buttress his argument (and arguably to mock him). If we want to give voice to Arkin's criticism, and I think we should, then we should state it explicitly. But this weird reference to Arkin quoting Gaffney to imply some sort of unstated criticism is confusing and non-neutral. I'm sure that Gaffney wasn't intending to criticize the CSP when he referred to it as Domino's Pizza. If we're going to use this quote-within-a-quote, then at a minimum we need to explain what Gaffney meant. For all we know Arkin took Gaffney's quote completely out of context. Maybe Gaffney was simply saying that the CSP was a good at marketing policy proposals to ordinary Americans. That's nothing to scoff at; it's something that many groups that oppose the CSP's policies could arguably be better at. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you come up with a POV-inline tag, as Arkin is reporting Gaffney's own words. How is there a neutrality issue about that?The timeline is this: Gaffney was Perle's top aide when Perle was Asst DOD. Perle quit, and Gaffney was forced out by his successor.  Perle made a comment that what was needed (presumably he meant for the neo-cons) was a "Domino's Pizza" for policy, if you don't get your policy quote in 30 minutes, you get your money back, and, likw all fast fast, you know exactly what you're going to get.  Very shortly thereafter, Gaffney creates the CSP, and calls it the "Domino's Pizza" of policy.  Arkin points out the lack of irony in Gaffney's words, that he clearly thinks delivering pre-fab policy quotes like fast food is a good thing.  Yes, Arkin's comment is his own take on what Gaffney said, but we're allowed to quote experts in their field on matters in their purview, as long as we make it clear -- as is done in the article now -- that it's commentary.  So the "Domino's" line is criticism in two separate ways, one, that policy debates shouldn't be pre-fabricated and fast-food like, and, two, that Gaffney seems blissfully unaware that this is the case: to him, delivering the fast food in 30 minutes is a good thing.Now, given all that, how would you suggest that the information be put together? I'm all in favor of any kind of rewrite that keeps these facts but makes it clearer to the reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've searched, and have only been able to find one CSP annual report online (for 2001). Presumably, Gaffney made his remark early in the existence of CSP (since the creation of CSP was in some respect a response to Perle's comment), so I think we're looking for a 1988 or 1989 annual report. I've found neither.  As a 501(c)3, I believe they're required to file them and make them available to the public, so perhaps contacting CSP and asking for those reports might help give some context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * CorrectionL My source at a 501(c)3 says they're required to have an annual audit and file a public 990 tax return if their budget is over a certain amount, but an annual report is not required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking what I would do. I would scratch the confusing "Domino's Pizza" quote-within-a-quote, which requires extensive explanation just to understand, and replace it with something like (paraphrasing), "In 19__, national security expert Arkin wrote a highly critical column in which he described Gaffney as a "maestro of bumpersticker policy" who "specializes in intensely personal attacks" and who has "never met a flag-waving, pro-defense, anti-Democratic idea he didn't like." The first paragraph of the "History and programs" section should have additional language that relays Perle's and Gaffney's comments about Domino's Pizza (explaining the backstory of why Gaffney founded the CSP). If we can't find the CSP's annual report itself, or any other source, I'll grudgingly accept the Arkin column as a reliable source for the fact that Gaffney did say that in the report. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * DrF: I think that plan would be appropriate. I've made an inquiry to CSP to see if their annual reports are available.  I'll report back here if I get a response from them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the information that the Domino's Pizza information NOT "be put together". Arkin doesn't need a whole paragraph as if he were the most significant critic of Gaffney and his organization which he is not. I would simply mention him as a critic along with SOME of the others. I say this because that list should be cut down in size to include only a few representative samples left, right, and center. Motsebboh (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what your opinion is. Again, this article will not be whitewashed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with BMK that that would be pretty blatant whitewashing. It's not helpful to readers to tell them that the subject was criticized. What's helpful is telling them what the substance of the criticism was, and allowing the subject a rebuttal (if available). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nor should it be blackwashed, if that is an acceptable term to use. But you haven't addressed my specific points. Motsebboh (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm proposing a single sentence, and it's a criticism from a notable person and not otherwise covered in the article. How is that undue weight? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

My comment was intended for Beyond My Ken. If we do quote Greenpeace's FP expert we should dispense with the pizza stuff, and use something like this except we should tell readers that Arkin is definitely on the left side of the US foreign policy debate. Motsebboh (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is he? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Which is not to dismiss his criticism but to put it in context. Motsebboh (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Look the fellow up on Google or take a good look at his wikipedia bio. Here's something from his blog . No, he would not be considered mainstream now, although he may have been back in 1996 where the quotations in question are coming from. He's not an academic, by the way, bu a self-educated FP maverick. Motsebboh (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC) PS On the blog page note the recommended contribution to KPFA radio for a free copy of his book. Motsebboh (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Since when does one have to be an "academic" in order to have one's opinions counted in the foreign policy debate. I would venbture to say that the vast majority of people in that debate are not "academics". His credentials are sufficiently good enough for him to be accept as an "independent expert" by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. And, by the way, simply because the right-wing has managed to move the  debate to their side (or convince the world that the debate has moved, which is more accurate) doesn't move the center line - it stays where it was.  Arkin doesn't all of a sudden become left wing because of it, or because right-wingers call him that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OMG! KPFA!!! He must be an out-and-out Commie, maybe even a Commie-faggot-junkie!!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Jeez, If you think he's a Commie that 's good enough for me. Motsebboh (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Let's say that he is at least as far to the left in the current FP debate as Gaffney is to the right. Motsebboh (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, if anything I say is good enough for you, than I think he is an "independent expert on defense matters", per the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and his opinion is a valuable addition to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And Gaffney is so far to the right that he's swimming in the "Lunatic Fringe Only" pool, and couldn't see the center of the debate with a telescope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * With those kinds of sentiments openly expressed perhaps you should recuse yourself from participating here. Motsebboh (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC) PS:This article will not be blackwashed. Motsebboh (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, not a fucking chance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Motsebboh, when I asked for sourced it wasn't because I was doubting the claim, it was because I wanted sources. We can't say Arkin is left-wing unless without citing reliable sources expressly saying he's left wing. Get it? No sources, no left-wing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, although my intention wasn't necessarily to label him "left-wing" per se. Noting the kind of organizations that, at least currently, favor and publish his views would give most readers the idea. But I'll work on it. Motsebboh (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I guess it depends on whatever you come up with. But if it's more than a few words then it's definitely undue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, using this guy at all could be considered undue. I'm sure there are all sorts of sources far better known than Arkin who have been sharply critical of Gaffney and CSP. Motsebboh (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then we should consider them and decide what's most noteworthy. But that has nothing to do with how we describe the critics. These descriptions should be extremely short. Readers can always click through if they want to know more. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Convenience break
For the time being, at least, how about something like this. Since Arkin's comments go back to the mid 1990s, much earlier than anything else in the criticism section, we should probably start the section with it:


 * In the mid 1990s foreign policy/defense commentator William Arkin disparaged CSN's Gaffney as a "maestro of bumper-sticker policy" who "never met a flag-waving, pro-defense, anti-Democratic idea he didn't like."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Motsebboh (talk • contribs) 20:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That would put "disparage" in Wikipedia's voice, and we don't offer interpretation or analysis which is not supported by a reference from a reliable source. DrF.'s suggestion above is much more neutral and apt. I suggest the form:


 * "In March 1995, William M. Arkin, who is described as an "independent expert on defense matters", and who has served as a military affairs analyst for the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and The New York Times, wrote a highly critical column for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in which he described CSP's Gaffney as a "maestro of bumper-sticker policy" who "specializes in intensely personal attacks" and who has "never met a flag-waving, pro-defense, anti-Democratic idea he didn't like."


 * Then, for the "History" section:


 * "In April 1987, during the Reagan Administration, Gaffney was nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. He served as the acting Assistant Secretary for seven months under Richard Perle, during which time he earned the nickname "Perle's bulldog". When Perle resigned, his successor, Frank Carlucci, eased Gaffney out of his post.  In a meeting with former Department of Defense officials after Gaffney's ouster, Perle said "What we need is the Domino’s Pizza of the policy business. ... If you don’t get your policy analysis in 30 minutes, you get your money back." Shortly after that, Gaffney got a starter grant from the Olin Foundation and founded the Center for Security Policy.  William M. Arkin quotes Gaffney as saying, in one of the Center's annual reports, that the CSP was "the Domino's Pizza of the policy business."


 * With supporting references for everything, of course. DrF, what are you thoughts about that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It depends on the sourcing, but at first blush it appears to be an improvement. I'd put it in and then we can tinker. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What source describes Arkin as an "independent expert"? I'm not fond of "expert" because it gives off a false connotation of objectivity in an area that is highly subjective to say the least. By the way, what is the difference between "disparaged" and "wrote a highly critical column" except that disparaged is more concise? Both make an utterly obvious "interpretation or analysis" of what Arkin said about Gaffney. Motsebboh (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The source we're using, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. And there is a distinct difference between "disparaged" and being "highly critical". "Disparaged" is a value judgment, and also carries the connotation that the party being disparaged did not deserve it. It's a very negative word. "Highly critical" is a straight-forward description and makes no value judgment about either party.  One can write a evaluation of an employee which is highly critical without ever disparaging them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Except the language Arkin used clearly was disparaging not merely "highly critical", otherwise you wouldn't be so fond of it. As to whether it tends to evoke sympathy for the disparaged party I'll concede that it can, but other near synonyms which convey the flavor of Arkin's comments better than "highly critical" don't, and could also be used. As to the other point, publications always say nice things about their contributors so it is really much like self-sourcing. The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists stands by its expert's criticism of Frank Gaffney. Try a description from a reliable third party. Motsebboh (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I took your advice and added the above text to the article as described, with a few minor changes. Take a look and see what you think, especially where there are holes that may require additional referencing. Incidentally, if you are in doubt of Arkin's bona fides, take a look at his Washington Post bio from 2007. I think it's clear he's not a lefty and not a fringe character. He has written for all sorts of periodicals and worked for numerous policy think-tanks and other relevant organizations. He's hardly a "maverick", he appears to be right in the mainstream. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, had to ping you again as I screwed it up last time. Please see the comment just above this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that the edits I made were the results of consensus between us, Motsebboh chose to go against that consensus and remove them. I reverted, but I certainly hope he doesn't do that again, since deliberately editing against talk page consensus is a pretty serious thing to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But not as seriously bad as being you. Here's what DrFleischman said:


 * ::It depends on the sourcing, but at first blush it appears to be an improvement. I'd put it in and then we can tinker. --Dr.Fleischman (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: "It depends on the sourcing . . . we can tinker." All your sourcing for factual information comes from opinion pieces. That, and your piss-poor writing, is why I was "tinkering." If YOU immediately start making changes big changes because you think you've got the go-ahead, then I can start tinkering on the same basis. Motsebboh (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not really interested in your opinions about anything, including the sourcing, since you really just want the material to disappear, in your zeal to push your POV. (See this from December where you tried to add crap criticism to denigrate the Southern Poverty Law Center and were called out for your POV editing by Drmies.) But, just in case it might be useful to you in the future, please note that opinion pieces and commentary (and personal blogs, for that matter) are reliable sources for the views expressed, and that it how they've been used. The single piece of information that is at all iffy in its sourcing, is Arkin's report that Gaffney said "Domino's Pizza" in a CSP annual report, and I'm working on that. If DrF (not you - your judgement is biased and suspect) wants to tag that with the "better source" tag, that might be reasonable, however, the article already says "Arkin quotes Gaffney as saying", so we're not saying it in Wikipedia's voice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember trying to denigrate (or was it disparage?) the SPLC by having the nerve to think that reliably sourced criticism of it by Israel's ambassador to the USA was worth a mention in its article. Of course Ron Dermer is not nearly as important a figure as William Arkin but I tried to get away with it. Motsebboh (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but I've looked at your edits, and I know what you do to articles, so don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. I know POV editing (left or right) when I see it, and your bias is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to look closely at your edits.  I'm inclined to take the judgment of Drmies, a very well-respected editor and currently an Arbitrator, over your self-serving comments any day. Your talk page is rife with warnings to you about your POV editing, so when I have enough time to waste on trivialities, I might assemble a sampling of your biased editing and bring it to one of the noticeboards. In the meantime, do not edit against the consensus on this talk page, or that noticeboard thread may come up sooner than you think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of biased editing:


 * And Gaffney is so far to the right that he's swimming in the "Lunatic Fringe Only" pool, and couldn't see the center of the debate with a telescope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

So go right right ahead, Bucko. Motsebboh (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Gee, did I put that in an article? Oh my god, how could I do that?  That's so unprofessional.  Oh, wait, it was a personal opinion expressed in a comment, and not an article edit, the way your biased edits are in articles?  Gee, does that make a difference?  I dunno, maybe I am a rabid far-left wing editor, and my editing shows that. OMG, we've got to look into this.


 * So, OK, let's play your silly game of "who's biased". Let's look at the top ten articles you've edited:


 * Crisis pregnancy center — 99
 * Planned Parenthood — 48
 * Maafa 21 — 37
 * Paper abortion — 28
 * Abortion — 28
 * Southern Poverty Law Center — 26
 * Black genocide conspiracy theory — 25
 * Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy — 18
 * David Suhor — 18
 * Feminist Majority Foundation — 14


 * Hmmm. Seems to be a lot of political topics - and if you look at the edits themselves, you'll see that many of them are subtly pushing a particular point of view, that is, anti-abortion, anti-feminist, anti-liberal, and ... dare I say it? Right-wing.  The evidence appears to show that you are a right-wing POV editor.  You think you're subtle about it, but the pattern is clear.


 * So, let's take a look at my far left-wing edits, shall we?


 * Irvington, New York — 921
 * Commissioners' Plan of 1811 — 625
 * The Godfather — 544
 * Führermuseum — 493
 * David Gordon (choreographer) — 486
 * Madison Square — 450
 * Gramercy Park — 435
 * Flatiron Building — 387
 * Times Square — 341
 * Flapper — 317


 * What's this? No poltical subjects?  Articles on places in New York?, historical subjects?, a film?, modern dance?  But where's the left-wing bias?  Surely if we look at the edits, they will betray a far-left POV?


 * No, they won't. Because unlike you, I don't edit Wikipedia to right a great wrong and "correct" a perceived "liberal bias".  I edit it to help make and expand articles that are accurate and informative, and that means going wherever the available sources take me, and writing (as much as humanly possible) in a neutral way.


 * So, I'm happy to work with other unbiased editors to help make this article better, and make it more accurate, and clearer to the reader. What I am going to do is to totally ignore anything else you might have to say, as editors such as yourself, who sacrifice accuracy and neutrality for ideological ends, disgust me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm completely fed up with your inability to edit collegially by following consensus, so I've reported you to AN/I.  I'm fully aware that AN/I is a crapshoot, and is as likely to criticize me as it is to sanction you, but your antics are just impossible to ignore anymore, and you don't seem to be inclined to follow the consensus on this talk page, preferring instead to continue following your POV and attempting to subvert this article. If AN/I decides to ding me instead, well, those are the breaks, and I'm willing to take that risk.  It's worth a potential sanction to put a stop to your POV editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The new first sentence of the controversy section ..
begins "The Center's views have caused it and Gaffney, the Center's founder and president, to be criticized for propagating conspiracy theories by Dana Milbank . . ."

That's pretty awkward and not so subtly POVish because we editors are basically saying that the Center has brought this criticism upon itself rather than simply saying that it has been criticized by a bunch of folks. I suggest an opening sentence which starts"

''The Center and Gaffney have been criticized for propagating conspiracy theories by. . . '' Motsebboh (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought you two were taking a break from the article, but I see your last edit and am confused... El_C 03:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Awaiting possible sentencing, I'm out on personal recognizance. Motsebboh (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you present the changes here, first? So long as Beyond My Ken and others do not object to that edit... El_C 03:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No, but it was a good edit. However, before I did anything more on the article, I thought I'd better present it at Talk first. Didn't want to press my luck. Motsebboh (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like it was a noncontroversial edit, so there's no problem. El_C 09:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Re-assessing the BBC Description in the Introduction
I feel very strongly that the BBC description has no place in this article. The sentence reeks of bias.

Who appointed the BBC as the arbiter of what is "very highly respected"? Some might say that the BBC is not very highly respected.

If Fox News described the Center for American Progress as not respected, would that be included in the introduction to the article? I don't think so.

Also, the "Conspiracy Theorists" category also seems inappropriate since it seems to be designed for individuals, not organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zime2005 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You may feel strongly about it, but the consensus of editors who have worked on this article is that it should stay in the article. The BBC, as an extremely reliable source of information, is certainly qualified to have its expressed opinions relied on by Wikipedia. And, yes, you're correct, Fox News' opinion would not have been included, because it has shown over and over again that it is a biased news outlet which will say anything as long as it accords with its ideological predilections. Time after time, Fox "news" reports have been shown to be inaccurate and untruthful. Like The Daily Mail, they should probably be banned from being used as a reliable source, but the blowback to that would be  significant, because of the Wikipedia editors whose biases aligns with the bias of Fox.  Be that as it may, Fox didn't say it, the BBC did, so unless you want to go to WP:RSN and try to get the BBC banned as a reliable source (good luck with that), the information is going to stay in the article, and you may as well stop trying to edit-war it out, which will only get you blocked from editing, eventually.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Zime2005 has been notified on their talk page about the existence of Discretionary Sanctions for this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You have provided absolutely no evidence for your laughable claim that the BBC is a beacon of journalistic. The notion that the BBC holds left-wing bias is most certainly not a fringe allegation. . Additionally, Joel Gunter, writes for the Guardian . Is the Guardian also an "extremely reliable news source"? When you look at Gunter's Twitter feed, it is fairly obvious that he makes no claim of objectivity .   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zime2005 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow, two blogs and an off-topic article in The Telegraph, now that's what I call  proof . Whatever, enjoy yourself attempting to convince Wikipedia that the BBC is a leftie news outlet. I will admit that it is biased: it only presents actual, real, verified news; in other words, it has a bias in favor of reality. Anyway, anything more of this sort posted here will be deleted, unless and until you return with a judgment from WP:RSN that the BBC is no longer considered a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Having overlooked this TP thread, I edited the two sentences in question to remove the first one. The BBC article does not refer to the CSP per se, and only mentions another source (the SPLC). I believe the edit is sound. – S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You think that the BBC is "as a reliable source as they come, I think that it is a leftist rag. We will not come come to terms on this matter (though I could come up with numerous other examples of BBC bias). At the very least the author's name should be mentioned in the sentence for full transparency as to where that quote came from.   Zime2005 (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not, as the statement is a summary of what's in the body of the article. As I'm sure you are aware, information in an article's lede does not have to be sourced, as long as the information in the body it refers to is sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with everything BMK has written so far in this thread. Zime2005, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. And the conspiracy theory sentence appears to be very well sourced in the article body. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The statement in question is not a statement of opinion because the article is not an opinion column, but rather a factual news story; we do not attribute facts as opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Due to broadcasting rules, the BBC doesn't editorialise like the US media. A "BBC News story" will not feature the name of the author of the article. Besides being inaccurate, presenting the views expressed in a "fact check" article as though "BBC News" have condemned the organisation actually does a lot to discredit the source. Unfortunately there is often too much agenda-driven editing on both sides. (Doesn't take responsibility for previous edits from this IP address) 85.255.235.32 (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's fine, this has been discussed many times before and consensus is that the BBC article is a valid source for the statement. I don't see that changing. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)