Talk:Gatestone Institute/Archive 3

Non-partisan and right-wing are not mutually exclusive
"Non-partisan" merely means not affiliated with a political party. You can be non-partisan and still hold right-wing positions on immigration, Muslim issues, security etc. which is exactly what Gatestone does. Now, if Gatestone called itself "centrist", that would be a direct contradiction of sources describing it "right-wing".VR talk  03:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * is absolutely right. "Nonpartisan" means "having no political-party affiliation" not having no political view/orientation. It's very typical for a group to be both nonpartisan and left-wing/right wing. Neutralitytalk 13:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where this is going. Are you saying this justifies last night's removal of Gatestone's own description of itself as "nonpartisan"—while leaving in the "right-wing" descriptions that have been published by decidedly left-wing newspapers and one assistant professor of educational leadership at Montclair State University?  Fact checker _ at your service  17:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't been involved in this article, but are you seem to be referring to the citations to a news article in The Guardian, a news article in The Independent, and a 2016 book published by Stanford University Press (an academic press). Those are all reliable sources (The Independent can get clickbaity, but the other two are very high-quality). I haven't made a deep study of the article, but it seems perfectly sensible to me to both describe the organization as right-wing and note that the organization describes itself as nonpartisan. Neutralitytalk 18:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * So in other words "No" ? Fact checker _ at your service  18:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that we should describe Galestone as a right-wing think tank, but also note that the organization considers itself nonpartisan. Neutralitytalk 20:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ^what Neutrality just said.VR talk  05:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok then, maybe one of you can add it back to the article. Fact checker _ at your service  15:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

please self revert this obviously improper removal  Fact checker _ at your service  15:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability
I noticed that a lot of people are spending a lot of time on this article. I'm wondering if it gotten enough coverage to even merit existence. If it has, I'd be thankful if someone could point me to the relevant sources.

Notability_(organizations_and_companies) says that something is notable "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". I see plenty of sources mentioning Gatestone in passing. Most give Gatestone one sentence coverage. The most I've seen is Gatestone getting 2-3 sentence coverage. I have not even seen a single article dedicated to Gatestone, even though WP says "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization".

Thanks, VR talk  03:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've been wondering the same thing. I thought that also about the Nina Rosenwald BLP and proposed a merge into this article in an AfD; it was rejected. Perhaps I should have proposed the opposite merge. One of the problems with barely notable organizations is that too much falls on the accidental coverage by one or two reports, and some just mentioned Gatestone in passing as you note. These article can drain important manpower from more important articles. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that it is definitely notable enough, but that the constant relentless attempts to slant the article in a POV direction are turning into a tiresome problem. David A (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with a merge, although I daresay our coming to a consensus on how to describe the various aspects of the lady's think tank could be aided by keeping the articles separate for another couple of weeks. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I see a rationale for deleting but my primary concern is the resolution of POV issues. Fact checker _ at your service  17:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am finding some articles that do give Gatestone more coverage. For example, this one is entirely about one Gatestone article, and keeps mentioning Gatestone as opposed to another author. This one by Washington Post is 40-50% about Gatestone Europe. Both articles are critical, though.VR talk  05:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , for their opinions.VR  talk  05:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Uhhm ok. Let's take a look at these sources.
 * (1) First, let's note right off the bat that Morocco World News is a low-quality, non-mainstream source. Second, I don't actually see any criticism of Gatestone.
 * (2) The Washington Post article contains a single statement that seems relevant to this article: "[M]any of Gatestone’s posts are based on true events, spun aggressively to feed the narrative that mainstream, pro-European Union politicians are selling out their countries to immigrants." I have no objection to quoting that statement verbatim, or paraphrasing it in a way that isn't completely misleading.  Fact checker _ at your service  15:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) The source covers "Gatestone Europe" in detail. I think we can all agree that Gatestone Europe belongs to GI.
 * Any way, that's not the point. Should we have this article or not? If this article is deleted, there obviously won't be anything left to argue over, including POV issues.VR talk  21:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * What do you want to say about Gatestone using this source? As I've said there seems to be a single statement about Gatestone and I have no problem with including it.  What exactly are you talking about?
 * It's not up to us to decide whether to delete the article. It survived a deletion discussion and currently exists.  So long as the article exists, it is subject to various policies such as NPOV and WEIGHT.  Fact checker _ at your service  15:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of names of authors
Snoogans removed a listing of a few of the authors that write for Gatestone.

Snoogans removed this as "self-sourced BS", but this kind of material is commonplace in these types of articles, and it is clearly allowed under SPS. Moreover, it seems unlikely that a secondary source would publish a list of authors that write for a think tank. Fact checker _ at your service 18:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is anything notable about these writers writing for GI, then secondary RS will report it. As it was written, it was just a cavalcade of names intended to bolster the notability of the think tank. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please step back from the battleground mentality that others are out to advertise or promote this entity? I'm here because I noticed the claim "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues", which was an opaque statement that sounded more than a little fishy, and subsequent investigation revealed that this was an axe-grinding interpretation based on flimsy sourcing, and putting words in the sources' mouths to boot.
 * And back to the subject of the article, and bearing in mind that you should AGF because I'm not here to advertise Gatestone, as I said just hours ago this kind of material is commonplace in these types of articles. Please go look at some other think tank articles such those on The Century Foundation, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Hudson Institute, and the Hoover Institution.  You'll see extensive background information sourced to SPS matter on their websites, including histories, founders, leadership changes, and lists of contributors.  These things are all useful encyclopedic descriptive content even if they haven't been commented upon in the press or elsewhere, as is apparent from reading the articles, and in most instances the organizations themselves are the best sources.  Again, just hours ago, I observed that this type of content is clearly allowed per SPS.
 * Please AGF and conform your comments to policy. Fact checker _ at your service  00:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Also please self-revert this ASAP, also please see other request above for you to self-revert an obviously improper removal. Fact checker _ at your service 16:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Important claims require multiple high quality reliable sources
There's no sense in debating the passing 10th-paragraph mention of Gatestone in a Bloomberg article that doesn't actually make any claims about Gatestone.

Even if Ms. Carol Matlack had written, "I, Carol Matlack, on behalf of Bloomberg News service, do formally declare that Gatestone has made false claims about alleged 'no-go zones' in France", that still wouldn't be enough because WP policy requires multiple high-quality reliable sources for any important claim.

Even in the case of public figures, who are obviously subjected to loads of critical commentary, the WP:WELLKNOWN policy says:

" If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Here we don't even have one source actually making the claim. That's a failure of basic verifiability. No verifiability, no inclusion. Fact checker _ at your service 17:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's for BLP. Gatestone is not a person. The more important question is: are there enough sources that have significantly covered Gatestone to even merit an article on Wikipedia? If not, we should discuss if this article should maybe be deleted.VR talk  06:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken; BLP policy tells us to treat organizations on a case by case basis, with particular attention to the size of the organization and the risk of harm to individual reputations. Gatestone is a small organization, and corporations don't write papers—human authors do.  Case in point, Bloomberg explicitly discusses Soeren Kern, the individual author of the report mentioned in the article.  And of course such claims carry with them the implied accusation of racism.  Fact checker _ at your service  18:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As usual, I agree with Factchecker. David A (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. First of all, our claim isn't about Gatestone, its about no-go zones. The only thing we are claiming about Gatestone (or Kern) is that they have advocated the idea of no-go zones. That's plain for everyone to see. We do this all the time on Wikipedia: "Person X says A is true (where A is a generic statement unrelated to person X personally); but person Y says A is false." Its done in the context of science, history and politics.
 * Secondly, we're not mentioning Kern in the article.
 * Thirdly, the whole racism thing is something you're bringing up out of nowhere.VR talk  04:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Our claim also isn't supported by the source, which is a complete deal-breaker because it violates the first rule of Wikipedia. Fact checker _ at your service  18:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Let’s review the Bloomberg article. (a) It starts “Entire neighborhoods of Paris, … have become Muslim-run ‘no-go zones,’ off-limits to law enforcement and governed by Islamic sharia law … and [are] demonstrably untrue. It mentions statements by Emerson, Farage, and Fox’s Peterson before focusing on Pipes’ original thesis that a no-go zone “is a place where the government has lost control and cannot enforce the rule of law” and how in that sense there are no such zones. (b) After those 9 paragraph it has only one on Kern and that is that Kern has his definition—“Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off-limits to non-Muslims”—which France is “trying to ‘reclaim’.” (c) It then discusses Peterson version again and says “there are grains of truth in this one.” We have Gatestone’s view (b) sandwiched between (a) those that are called “demonstrably untrue” and (c) those that have “grains of truth.” But Bloomberg doesn’t tell us what they think about Gatestone’s view. We have no judgment of their view. You just admitted in the talk about that “The only thing we are claiming about Gatestone (or Kern) is that they have advocated the idea of no-go zones.” If that’s the case then that’s the only thing we should say. I propose a single sentence:"In an article critical of the existence of No-go zones, Bloomberg notes that Soeren Kern of Gatestone wrote that there are “Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off-limits to non-Muslims” through out Europe."The rest isn’t about Gatestone and shouldn’t be in the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It sounds good to me — do you really find this prose objectionable?  Fact checker _ at your service  17:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Is that the entirety of what you want in the article, or just the first part? What about what Miller says? Miller's words are: "Within the Counterjihad movement, the major propagator of the Islamic 'no go zones' myth has been the New York based think tank, the Gatestone Institute, an organisation chaired by the Bush era diplomat and foreign policy hardliner, John Bolton." He clearly accuses Gatestone of propagating a "myth".
 * I'm open to compromise wording and would even propose my own, but I want to clarify this up first.
 * Secondly, Bloomberg does note Gatestone's claim in the context that the idea of no-go zones is false. We can't omit that context.VR talk  04:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Jason's prose makes clear that the Bloomberg article questions the existence of no-go zones. As for Miller—it's a self-published accusation on a frothy political activism website.  Not proper sourcing.  Fact checker _ at your service  17:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is about the best we can do as Gatestone is mentioned in passing in just a single paragraph. That about sums up the Bloomberg coverage. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I propose this, which I've also put on the article:"In 2011 and 2012, Gatestone published articles claiming that Europe had Muslim 'no-go zones', describing them variously as 'off-limits to non-Muslims' and 'microstates governed by Islamic Sharia law'. The idea that there are areas in European cities governed by Sharia is false, although many of the areas listed by Gatestone have high levels of crime."
 * Let me know if you see even a single claim in the above that is not reliably sourced.VR talk  21:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Uhh no that's absurdly improper. Go read SYNTH and learn what "Wikipedia's editorial voice" means, please. And when you're done you should go review WP:WEIGHT and WP:REDFLAG.  Fact checker _ at your service  15:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Jason: can you please respond to the comment above? You reverted that change, but didn't explain exactly what about that wording you don't like. Note, I've introduced one new reliable source for backing.VR talk  15:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure where to mention this, but I'll mention it here. In this edit summary, I claim that Jason "removed several sources that mention Gatestone". What I meant was that Jason removed the content from those sources, not the sources themselves, as they are still citations after his edit. Wish there was a way to edit my summary.VR talk  16:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Intro
I added a sentence to the intro, calling GI "pro-Israeli" based on my readings of several article on its flagship website. I also moved around a bunch of sentences, which left a bit of redundancy ("think tank" appears twice).

Next chance I get, I'll try to tackle no-go zones. It appears the issue is less whether such zones exist at all, as to the DEGREE to which it is fair to label them as "no-go". Pipes himself has wavered or backtracked on this. We might say, "Police are reluctant to go in?" But that could describe areas of New York City, too (certain gang-controlled housing projects). The idea that the federal government has given up sovereignty is someone's exaggeration, whether headline-grabbing journalists in the daily papers or GI, I haven't figured out yet.

I have a busy class schedule, so I can't always respond instantly. Cheers to all! --16:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the help to clear this up. David A (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks much. Ed, I wonder if you are comfortable saying where you are leaning on pithy statements like "Gatestone has been accused of making false claims about Muslim issues" ?
 * As I've argued, it seems to be a misleading characterization of one good source containing only a tangential discussion of Gatestone, and one bad source that seems only to make one or two trivial claims about Gatestone. The opaque statement conveys no real information and doesn't even fairly summarize the sources, and unless I'm mistaken, WP policy tells us to remove conjectural interpretations of source material any time they pose a risk of reputational harm to living persons.
 * That has really been my main complaint about the article, although I also agree with Jason about the weight issues; either way I am eager to withdraw from this discussion. Fact checker _ at your service  18:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"calling GI "pro-Israeli" based on my readings of several article on its flagship website"

To avoid original research, are there specific third-party sources commenting on Gatestone's political stance regarding Israel? Wikipedia editors' views are useful in talk pages but should not be the main source in the article itself? Dimadick (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Constant reverting
VR, could you please stop edit-warring while others attempt to hash out these issues using the talk page. You're doubling down and making things worse, with your latest edits putting claims in WP's voice while still presenting the axe-grinding interpretation of the Bloomberg source, meanwhile you're using an activist blog as fact sourcing on an extremely contentious issue. This is failure on a basic policy level. Meanwhile you're restoring disputed BLP claims that are based on ridiculous interpretations of flimsy sourcing. BLP makes clear that these claims are supposed to be removed without discussion until it is clearly established that they are proper. Just stop and wait for consensus (or at least some direction) to emerge from talk page discussions with Ed. Fact checker _ at your service 15:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The above comment is not true. Please note that I previously pointed out Factchecker's misleading comments here: Talk:Gatestone_Institute.
 * The comment "VR, could you please stop edit-warring while others attempt to hash out these issues using the talk page" is false because:
 * in the last day or so, Factchecker's edits have been reverted by 3 different users (, and me). So if anything, its Factchecker's whose edit warring.
 * I am one of the more active users talking on this page. A quick look a this page history will show that.
 * The rest of his claims have been addressed in other sections (e.g. Talk:Gatestone_Institute).VR talk  19:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never said anything false or misleading, but don't let that stop you from claiming otherwise. When Ed showed up I stopped reverting everything except the axe-grinding lead summary and began to engage Ed on how to work through the content dispute.  Meanwhile I reverted Gregcollins on issues that you care about to try to keep the article in a state that didn't drive anybody nuts while the discussions unfolded.  You, by contrast, have continued editing without any effort to develop consensus for your edits, and your latest revision was worst of all.  Fact checker _ at your service  19:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks as though we still do not have consensus for "right-wing" in the lead. Since the lead does say "publishes articles with a mainly conservative perspective", should that not be enough, and the exact (not summary) aspects of their publishing can be discussed in the text. --Bejnar (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well we have sources that call it right-wing, though I'm not sure if those sources also say publishes articles with a mainly conservative perspective".
 * In any case, do you disagree with the right-wing categorization? If so, why?VR talk  03:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not object to a discussion of the ideologies expressed in the materials published by the Gladstone Institute, including all of the sources that use the term "right-wing". However, it is an overly simplistic characterization, and probably doesn't belong in the lead. Some of the issues addressed in the published material don't seem to be from a "right wing" perspective. Over-polarisation should be avoided in accordance with the policy Neutral point of view, see also Describing points of view. --Bejnar (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it belongs in the lede as it summarizes the institute's positions. NPOV is what reliable sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead is to summarise the article, not partricular sources. Unfortunately, as the article lacks the discussion of the various points of view taken by the authors of the material published by the institute, such a summary is not possible. Expand the article in an NPOV way, then summarise. --Bejnar (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead can include things not discussed in detail in the article, for example the city where Gatestone is located, the year it was founded, etc. But we can also include the right-wing stuff in the article body if you wish.VR talk  02:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Third-party sources tag
The article relies extensively on the sources published by the institute. I removed a couple diff, but many still remain. I tagged the article accordingly. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Number of Articles
On Gatestone's archive page, there's a table of all articles; pasting it into Google Sheets shows a count of 5,687 articles. Of these, three have been cited for factual innaccuracies, while many have been cited by outside media. I think this should be acceptable under the WP:OR exception for basic calculations and plainly evident information, and in any case is important information for any reader wondering about the accuracy of Gatestone overall. Of course I welcome the opinions of more expeienced editors. 20:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woshiwaiguoren (talk • contribs)
 * This is misleading. Nobody is going to bother to fact-check every Gatestone article, because frankly, who gives a crap about this fringe group? This is akin to saying "Of the thousands of articles posted on InfoWars, reliable sources have found that 5-6 are false" or "Of the thousands of articles posted on the Daily Stormer, the following four articles drew controversy for racist content". Reliable sources are not going to fact-check every article on these sordid websites, so it's extremely misleading to suggest that all articles except those that have been notable enough to have been fact-checked are spotless. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But isn't it also misleading if the only articles talked about on the page are the three that had notable corrections? Gatestone isn't a crank operation like InfoWars or the Daily Stormer; it gets citations every year, not just from Fox and the New York Post, but from WaPo and Vanity Fair. It does mean something that many more articles have entered into relevant public discussion than have been found inaccurate. Perhaps this can be remedied by adding a new section about its citations in other well-known media. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nowhere is it implied that all of Gatestone's reporting is inaccurate. And yes, it's a crank outfit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In its current form, the article is indeed misleading. The line near the opening "The organization has been criticized for publishing inaccurate articles" implies that Gatestone has a general record of inaccuracy, but the cited sources throughout simply describe perhaps three of its articles as inaccurate. None ascribes to Gatestone a general record of inaccuracy, but that is what a reader might well take away.Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You were right. I then looked up Gatestone's recent whackiness and found recent RS describing Gatestone as notable for false stories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

To comment on the original question, it would be indeed WP:OR to include findings as described in the first post on this thread. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll keep it in mind. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
The latest edits by are hiding the fact of it being a right-wing group toward the bottom of the lede. I find this objectionable. "Right-wing" is well-sourced, and is one of the GI's primary attributes and should not be sequestered. Jim1138 (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that left leaning outlets (The Guardian, The independent) describe it as "Right wing" should be stated as such, not in the voice of wikipedia. We could include that critique somehow higher in the lede. N1of2 (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is a wp:reliable source. Fox news is questionable at best. Suggest you read WP:RSN The Guardian and Fox news search results. Also, please read the above section regarding OR. Jim1138 (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok let's take it one statement at a time to avoid conflating issues. The fact that the article in the Guardian calls Gatestone "right wing" while the one in FoxNews calls it "non-partisan" precludes stating unequivocally in wikipedia's own voice the former as if it is an undisputed fact. N1of2 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fox News did not call it nonpartisan in the source in question. An op-ed writer for Fox News called it nonpartisan. So you have not demonstrated that reliable sources (if you want to include Fox News in this category) disagree as to whether it's right-wing. This is besides the point, but the op-ed writer is also clearly just copy-pasting Gatestone's self-description. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * N1of2, your edits are completely unacceptable here. Relying on an op-ed by Cal Thomas and the organization's own website is not suitable. We should rely on straight-news accounts in respected newspapers (The Guardian and others) and on academic sources (like the Stanford University Press-published book). When multiple high-quality sources give a descriptor such as this in their own voice, we do too. Using phrases like " critics in The Guardian" or "others have described it as right-wing" is just plain false. These aren't "critics," these are straight news stories.
 * You are also mistaken to write a sentence that indicates that "nonpartisan" and "right-wing" are somehow incompatible - nonpartisan simply means that it's not formally affiliated with a political party. A group can be both nonpartisan and left-wing or nonpartisan and right-wing. Neutralitytalk 02:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Starting with the basics, the POV tag at the top of the article should be restored. It is unacceptable to edit it out before reaching consensus.N1of2 (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the way this discussion is going, I suspect consensus will not be achieved. Jim1138 (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Why was the following segment removed from the page?

Reports by the Gatestone Institute have been cited in Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Vanity Fair, National Review, and others.

David A (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is that notable? Most organizations would be cited somewhere. Jim1138 (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To maintain NPOV balance, and not make this page into a onesided demonisation of the organisation, just because they have the audacity to criticise Islamism. David A (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Come on, if they were only critical of Islamism then we might not even have this article. They are critical of Islam and Muslims. They lie about them and ally themselves with haters. And I agree that a list of mentions doesn't belong here. Doug Weller  talk 09:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the few articles I have read from them have seemed to be well-referenced and strictly criticised Islamism/the genocidal branch of Islam, which is what terrifies me. David A (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it should be included, because it does improve the reader's understanding of the topic of the article, and is verifiable, and therefore would seem to improve Wikipedia. It allows the reader to better place it: it's cited mostly, but not exclusively, by right-wing publications. It does have some relevance and presence in discussion of its targeted issues. I think that, combined with the citations about false stories, it gives an accurate impression of what Gatestone is.Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding such is not normally done; especially in the lede. That sentence and refs should not be added. Gatestone should be able to stand on its own laurels. Mentioning that other news sources mentioned them is BTW: Again, Fox News is not RS; forgot to include Breitbart.com's numerous mentions of Gatestone? Jim1138 (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We can include discussions of Gatestone in reliable sources, but simply citations? It would look as though the article is trying to make a point without actually saying so or sourcing the point. It doesn't actually help the reader understand Gatestone and being verifiable is never a reason for inclusion, that just makes it possible, while being unverifiable means we can't use it. Doug Weller  talk 14:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issue
I'm not satisfied that this article is consistent with the NPOV policy. Specifically, the anti-Muslim bias allegation should follow the allegations in the second line. The "content" section should also contain more general description of the website's content, or otherwise be renamed "criticism" or "controversy". Endymion.12 (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The 'anti-Muslim' description is not an allegation, it's a RS description and a blatantly obvious one to anyone familiar with this website. As for the content, does it surprise you that an 'anti-Muslim' organization's publishes... [checks article] anti-Muslim content? Is this website also publishing articles on monetary policy and football? If it does, and there are reliable sources that substantiate it, we can certainly add that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I also regard Gatestone has having a strong anti-Muslim bias, but I recognise that this is merely my perspective, albeit shared with a number of people. In all but exceptional cases descriptions with pejorative connotations should be stated as allegations or criticisms rather than as fact. It's disappointing that you would choose to identify your own perspective with matters "as they truly are", in your words. Please have some self-awareness.


 * You will be aware that the website also publishes articles on foreign policy and politics from a conservative/neoconservative perspective besides anti-Muslim content and viral falsehoods. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Every single story on their front page right now is about Muslims and immigration, with the exception of a 150-word op-ed calling Portugal 'neo-marxist'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is fine and the only reason people like Endymion.12 are trying to undermine it is that some prominent people in British politics and media have recently been exposed as being linked to it. Being anti-Muslim is GI's raîson d'être. Pushing that fact deeper in the article, so that information is less visible to visitors, is not something we should do just to spare some VIP the shame they deserve.Rafe87 (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please discuss content with reference to sources rather than speculate about the motivations of other users, thanks. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is no longer ongoing, so I'm removing the NPOV tag.Rafe87 (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop unilaterally removing the template. You don’t get to decide when the discussion has finished. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What do reliable, independent sources say about this organization? Primary sources are poor for evaluating this kind of thing, because they are partial. Likewise, while it's useful to perform a quick smell-test, WP:OR about what the organization's front page currently says is not enough to go on. If reliable, independent sources define this as anti-Muslim, that's enough. If they instead define it as something else, let's see those sources. If the article reflects sources, the templates should be removed. Grayfell (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have consolodated some (but not all) of the sources in the article which describe Gatestone as anti-Muslim into a bundle, which will keep the article tidier and make it easier to adjust, as necessary. Grayfell (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure what you would consider “secondary” sources in this case. Like I said above, WP:NPOV implies that claims about people/organisations which have potentially pejorative connotations, or which might be controversial, ought to be stated as claims/allegations rather than as fact. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Grayfell: The Intercept calls GI a "fake news publisher".
 * Haaretz calls it an "anti-Muslim think tank that spread fake news".
 * NBC News calls it an "anti-Muslim think tank" as well.
 * Business Insider charges it with "spread[ing] false information about Muslim[s]".
 * The right-wing NY Post has described it as a "nonprofit with anti-Muslim views".
 * The Huffington Post calls it an Anti-Muslim Group [and] Right-Wing 'News' Operation.
 * There's no dearth of sources confirming that Gatestone is ideologically anti-Muslim and that it's involved in producing and spreading fake news. The only reason some are trying to equivocate now is that, recently, some British VIP such as Daniel Finkelstein have been exposed for being involved with that group.Rafe87 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ignoring my arguments and trying to second guess my motives won’t get you anywhere. See your talk. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn’t finish the edit summary. This is now the fifth occasion in which you have attempted to unilaterally remove the template while the discussion is ongoing, and you have been reverted by two separate users. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What specific actions need to be taken for the template to be removed? Templates are not intended to be badges of shame, and the burden is now on you to provide a way to resolve this issue. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No indeed, they are not badges of shame. The purpose of the template is to draw users attention to an ongoing discussion. We can wait for further input from other users. There is no time limit here. You can read the template description if you like, especially the section on when it ought to be removed. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read all that many times, and I've also read the sources cited in the article. If you cannot explain what the problem is and how to fix it, why is the template still here? If the point is to facilitate an ongoing discussion, than discuss! What are you waiting for? Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I outlined my opinions and recommendations in my first comment. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained why this would be an improvement. Many sources define Gatestone as anti-Islam/anti-Muslim/Islamophobic. Downplaying a defining trait is not more neutral, it's less neutral. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, so what sources support these changes? Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. I’ve made myself quite clear in my first and second comments, and my comment earlier today, and I’m not under any obligation to endlessly repeat myself. This has been allowed to degenerate into a discussion about whether the template should be removed, which will only make it more difficult to follow the discussion about content. I’m therefore going to wait until more users contribute before making any further comments. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a request for comment, this is a simple template. As the person who keep restoring the template, you are obligated to justify this action. It appears you think this description (which is well-sourced and you don't, apparently, dispute) should be moved to a later paragraph or similarly downplayed. Other editors disagree, so this is a deadlock. As such the template is, indeed a badge of shame. Continuing to restore the template without providing any actionable solution is filibustering, which disrupts Wikipedia to prove a point. If you are serious about improving the article and about getting consensus from other editors, you will follow up on the discussion, or you will file a neutrally-worded RFC and abide by the results of that consensus.
 * To reiterate, this appears to be well-sourced as a defining characteristic from multiple reliable outlets. Downplaying this because it's unflattering or has "pejorative connotations" would be non-neutral, because it would be presenting information based on subjective preference instead of the assessment of reliable sources. Saying this is not "consistent with the NPOV policy" is far, far too vague to be actionable, so again, the burden is on you to provide an actionable solution to the problem. Grayfell (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That’s ridiculous. Would you care to refer me to a single guideline or policy which affirms anything you have written above about resolving content disputes? The template signposts an ongoing discussion, and removing it while the discussion is ongoing is inappropriate. I’ve given my view, you have given yours above (with which I disagree, and accompanied by a straw man of my position), and we will now wait for further input. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See Tagging pages for problems (specifically WP:DETAG):
 * If the person placing the tag has explained their concerns on the talk page, then anyone who disagrees should join the discussion and explain why the tag seems inappropriate. If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed by any editor without a conflict of interest. If there is disagreement, then normal talk page discussion should proceed, per consensus-building.
 * So we are at the "consensus building" stage, and that "stage" doesn't last indefinitely. Per Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
 * If you cannot satisfactorily explain what this issue is and how to resolve it, this the template should be removed. I hope you notice that I haven't removed the template myself, but I also do not see any clear consensus for keeping it in place. If all you are doing is waiting for other people to chime in, you should file an RFC, since that's the purpose of that process.
 * Please, explain how this current wording isn't neutral according to Wikipedia's policies. I am not at all satisfied that you have explained your concerns. This is, according to both the pages I have cited above, and common Wikipedia practice and culture, the way this process works. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I.e., no, you can’t support anything in your previous comment with reference to policies, and User:Rafe87 is wrong to have repeatedly sought to remove the template while the discussion in ongoing. I have explained myself, even if my explanation is not to your satisfaction. This really is my last comment, because this current discussion is irrelevant and is WP:BLUDGEONING the thread. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just quoted one policy and one guidelines that support my comments. Do you need more? There are plenty more where that came from. If this is your last comment, does that mean you're done restoring the template? Do I need to remove it myself in order to find out? Don't you think that might be bludgeoning the process as well? Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because several users have attempted to remove the template, which will make it difficult to discuss the issue, I will open a neutrally worded RfC. Endymion.12 (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV RfC
General request for comments about this article, specifically regarding the NPOV policy. 09:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * I appreciate the strong effort towards neutrality, but this is too vague. Every article on Wikipedia could benefit from additional attention, so there really needs to be a specific question or issue justifying why this one needs special attention.
 * From previous edits and prior discussions, this is mainly about whether or not it's appropriate to call the Gatestone Institute "right-wing" and "anti-Muslim" in the first sentence. "Right-wing" is well supported. In addition to already-cited sources, and countless easily-found additional news sources which could be added, other sources also use this as a defining trait. Browsing Google Books, the first result is this:
 * Coercive Concern: Nationalism, Liberalism, and the Schooling of Muslim Youth from Stanford University Press - this source also contextualizes the institute as being fiercely opposed to Islam through its use of "dystopic images". It seems perfectly reasonable to summarize this perspective as "anti-Muslim".
 * Many of the rest are from other right-wing (in many cases far-right) authors: Raphael Israeli, who has "expresses regret that [Arabs] are not confined to camps like Japanese Americans were in WWII."; Caroline Glick, a fellow at the far-right Center for Security Policy think tank; Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who have both been banned from entering the UK for their anti-Muslim rhetoric, and so on.
 * As a whole, "right-wing" and "anti-Muslim" do appear to be defining traits according to reliable sources, and therefore this seems like a perfectly reasonable way to summarize the organization. There is always room for adjustment, and exactly how these traits are explained can be discussed, but downplaying these traits would be fundamentally less neutral and therefore inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, actually, requests for comment do not need to ask specific questions. Neither is the request “too vague”—is quite clear that this RfC is requesting general comments regarding this article’s compliance with the NPOV policy. Your comment is also deeply disingenuous given that—to my knowledge—not a single auto-confirmed user has suggested that the Gatestone Institute should not be described as “right-wing”, and neither has a single auto-confirmed user suggested that the “anti-Muslim” description should not receive significant attention in the article.
 * It would be great if you could comment constructively rather than attempt to derail the process. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The process? Above, your actionable suggestion was this: "Specifically, the anti-Muslim bias allegation should follow the allegations in the second line." Since this RFC is extremely broad, I have used it as an opportunity to explain why I firmly believe this would be downplaying a defining trait, that this trait is supported by many reliable sources, and that downplaying this would go against Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. This is the process, like it or not. Grayfell (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On the question of RFC questions: Clear, concrete questions are more likely than vague questions to attract participation from people who aren't regular participants at this page, so they are recommended (NB:  not "required").  There is no firm rule against merely asking people to comment on the article's relationship to a particular policy or guideline.  Vague questions have the advantage of discouraging voting – assuming anyone replies at all.  If you're willing to run the risk of getting no comments, then this is a permissible question.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My concern with the article as it stands is that the criticism practically is the article. We have all this talk of "anti-Muslim bias" with no mention that Chairman Amir Taheri is Muslim, or that Gatestone has responded . Not only does this make for a poor article; it's also sufficiently over-the-top that the reader is going to notice, is going to realize that the article was written from an anti-Gatestone POV, and will evaluate the information in the article accordingly.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are RSs that give a different account of the "Institute" than those cited in the article, then the article could be more balanced. However, everything here looks adequately sourced and notable, so I don't see the problem. It is clear that a range of RSs describe it as "anti-Muslim". Mentioning at Taheri is Muslim (do you have a RS for the claim that he is? he grew up in a Muslim country, but does he identify or practise as such now?) seems a little like WP:SYN - readers can click on his article if they want to know more about him.BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of judgment calls. For a more appropriate way to handle this sort of thing, see Louis Farrakhan. In contrast to this article, that article says who he is and what he does before getting around to anti-semitism. The article does not say, in it's own voice that Farrakhan is anti-semitic, and it finds space for his response to the accusations. Now, this article could, if it chose to, say what Gatestone is before the criticism, and could also mention Gatestone's response, as a matter of WP:NPOV backed by WP:Common, that if we are going to criticize someone, they should be allowed to have their say via WP:SELFSOURCE.Adoring nanny (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not see a consensus for removal of the NPOV warning. In addition, I believe the article doesn't reflect the sources. Alan Dershowitz in this source describes Gatestone "to be refreshingly centrist. It encourages dialogue between the center-left (represented by people such as former Sen. Joe Lieberman and myself) and people from the center-right (represented by speakers such as John Bolton and the eminent historian Victor Davis Hanson)." His participation as a liberal and life-long member of the Democratic Party, his stature as a Harvard Professor of law, weighs heavily in favor of a more nuanced view of what seems to be a heterogeneous group or at least one that seeks to promote dialog. To state that it is "right-wing" in wikipedia's voice violates NPOV as it does reflect the sources. That editors won't allow Dershowitz's comments into the article (it was just removed) tells me there isn't a proper reliance on the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Dershowitz is a Gatestone Institute board member. If the organization own self-description should be added, then it needs to be described as such and not be used to rebut what you falsely labelled "criticism". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If Alan Dershowitz is a board member than that is proof the organization is heterogeneous. I attributed "centrist" to Dershowitz. I didn't write it in Wikipedia's voice. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

There’s a huge difference between anti-muslim and anti-islam. This is unreflected on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.178.54 (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I have stumbled upon this page by accident. I was surprised to see that the organization is claimed to be "anti-Muslim", given the names of some of the contributors who explicitly distinguish between Islamism and Muslims and defend the thesis that moderate Islam exists (so it is not even anti-Islam!). Moreover, the organization has Muslim members and has Muslims defending it against the charge of being anti-Muslim (as the reference in the article shows). And anyway, even if editors of this page (Snoonganssnoogans and Grayfell) decided that this organization is "anti-Muslim", why don't they allow neutral locutions (like the ones in the article about the "Council of American-Islamic Relations")? Or even a mere reference to the page that disambiguates the loaded expression "anti-Muslim"? (Doug Weller). ... I was puzzled ... Then I found this talk page and I can see now that I am not the only one who is convinced that this article violates NPOV of Wikipedia. But since I am a not a wikipedist (as you understand by now) but a mere passserby I understand that the senior wikipedists with thousands of edits have the power to do what they want. Let me just register my dissapointment. I have always held Wikipedia in highest esteem for its value of neutrality and truth. My naive admiration has been shaken.

Is GI Right-wing or Conservative?
The WP:LEAD should summarize the article. I tried to start an analysis of the place of Gatestone on the political spectrum in the body of the article but it was removed. To put it into the lead while prohibiting it in the article violates WP:LEAD Jason from nyc (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You finally reinserted my statement into the body of the article after taking it out. Now let's look at the statement. It has three sources. None of the sources are works about Gatestone. They provide no analysis of this assertion. Indeed, it appears that our statement is nothing more than posting the results of a Google search. This is not research. We need a source that clarify what it means and why it applies to Gatestone. Using Google isn't doing research. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Let compare. Alan Dershowitz in this source describes Gatestone "to be refreshingly centrist. It encourages dialogue between the center-left (represented by people such as former Sen. Joe Lieberman and myself) and people from the center-right (represented by speakers such as John Bolton and the eminent historian Victor Davis Hanson)." He explains what he means by "refreshingly centrist" and provides what he sees as evidence.
 * The sources for "right-wing" are inadequate. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * RS are RS. They don't need to "prove" that anyone is anything. Furthermore, the notion that GI is not right-wing is just absurd. It's a hoax factory that publishes nothing but anti-Muslim garbage and right-wing hysterics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sources may be reliable in some regards while not in other regards. Passing references to an individual or organization (without citations) are not a form of analysis. We are not "copy monkeys" blinding cutting and pasting. A judicious analysis by sources is needed. Your analysis is original research. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to take your complaint to the NPOV or RS noticeboards. I'm sure you'll get full backing for your assertion that citing three RS constitutes WP:OR. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. I said your analysis at the end of your paragraph was original research. I said the sources were inadequate. It's clear that you've taken a few articles on Muslims to conclude that they are right-wing. Your POV isn't what matters. We need sources that discuss Gatestone's political leanings. There are no discussion in the sources but there is in mine. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your source is an op-ed by one of Gatestone's own board members. And I frankly don't know what I can do for you if you won't accept RS and if you can't take a glance at the GI website and figure out that it's right-wing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Alan Dershowitz is well respected, published everywhere, and worth using for an attributed quote. By asking me to "glance" at their website you're asking me to do original research. That's an analysis our sources should be doing and I don't see it. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop with the nonsensical OR accusations? The only reason I'm saying that you should check out the website is because you REJECT using reliable sources. Your edition of Dershowitz's comments were absurd for three reasons: (1) you failed to identify that he is a Gatestone board member, (2) you falsely claimed that descriptions of "right-wing" came from "critics" rather than RS, (3) you used Dershowitz as a contrast to RS/"critics". All in all, your edit misled readers, omitted important context and falsely characterized RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, please! Enough with the personal attacks! (1) I identified Dershowitz as a board member but you removed it (2) I suggest attributing such claims when sources provide an analysis, we can discuss how. (3) Dershowitz is well respected and gives a reasoned argument. Attributed quotes are allowed. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) You did not describe him as a board member when Dershowitz gave his absurd description of the group. You said Dershowitz was a "a supporter" without elaborating further. (2) Nope, RS do not have do an "analysis". That's not how WP:RS works. (3) Dershowitz gives a crappy argument and he's a member of this organization. What's next? Are we going to add a quote in the GOP article, citing a GOP congressman praising the party? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Introduction to this article clearly show a strong negative bias. Tried to use more neutral description of "conservative think-tank"  with citations from BBC, NPR and Ny Times. From reading this talk page I can see multiple editors have tried to reason here but no compromise has been made. Can we move forward and try to work towards a compromise, use neutral/fair language? Colinmcdermott (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Gatestone vs. The Gatestone
Both the title of the page and Gatestone's usage of their name is "Gatestone Institute", not "The Gatestone institute". After removing "The" in the lead sentence, I was reverted without explanation. Could Snooganssnoogans please respond why it was reverted, or other editors chime in? UberVegan&#x1f33e; 22:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)