Talk:IERA/Archive 1

Discussion
Why is there so much information on the finances? There's nothing untoward about them in this respect. In fact, including it looks pretty stalkerish. Creepy.

Why are updated pages with reliable, sourced and official information from government/charity commission website being replaced with unreliable, unofficial information?

Why are reliable, sourced and official information about charity commission investigation from government/charity commission website being replaced with speculative unreliable sources (i.e from online newspapers)? An official report is not the same as a newspaper article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GorgeCusterSabre (talk • contribs) 14:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * GorgeCusterSabre, you have made a significant number of changes to the IERA page that were either unsourced or from unreliable sources.


 * Examples include:


 * The addition of the claim that "iERA held the largest Muslim Women's Conference “Seeds of Change” in Europe in June 2013 in London, UK." which was sourced from http://www.5pillarz.com. This website is not a reliable source and fails WP:RS.
 * You described iERA as a Worldwide International organization. This claim might be accurate but we need a reliable source before adding it to the article. Please read WP:BURDEN for further information.
 * You added the claim that the revenue for iERA was £817,582 (2013). Again, this claim might be accurate but we cannot just add it without proof.
 * You removed references to the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Times. Both sources are considered acceptable for Wikipedia articles. Please read Suggested_sources.
 * The addition of the claim that "It is a major funder and authority in Islamic research, education and new Muslim care, and relies predominantly on voluntary donations to meet its aims. In order to maximise the impact of its work, it also works with other dawah organisations.". This was sourced from the official iERA page itself. Please read WP:SPS as to why self-published sources are generally unacceptable.


 * Given that some of your edits seem contentious I would encourage you not to make further edits on this article until we come to a conclusion on the talk page. Thanks RookTaker (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * GorgeCustersSabre and RookTaker continually undo edits that are both verifiable and sourced. Replacing them with bias speculation, clearing exposing their agenda.


 * Examples include:


 * Characterizing iERA as a hate group in the introduction; whilst it should be noted in the 'Criticism and controversies' section.
 * Removing Infobox information that is sourced directly from the Charity Commission
 * Removing information format that other charities follow i.e. BHF, Oxfam etc but disqualifying it for iERA.
 * Referencing a speculative unfounded newspaper article for the reason of Seating arrangements at UCL, whilst disregarding the official reason directly UCL website.
 * Referencing a speculative unfounded newspaper article for the reason of Charities Commission investigation, whilst disregarding the official reason directly from the Charities Commission website.
 * Highlighting the CEMB 'report' and reference their website instead of sourcing articles from the web.


 * Given that almost all of your edits are bias and you have an agenda I would encourage you not to make further edits on this article. Thanks RooksTaker (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * RooksTaker, may I ask you to review WP:BATTLEGROUND. You've made a few unwarranted personal accusations against me and GorgeCustersSabre and I do not appreciate this. Remember, we are here to work together to improve Wikipedia.
 * Anyhow, I have answered your points as follows:
 * Characterizing iERA as a hate group in the introduction; whilst it should be noted in the 'Criticism and controversies' section.
 * The lead is meant to be a summary of what's already in the article. Please read WP:LEAD which states that: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects..
 * Removing Infobox information that is sourced directly from the Charity Commission
 * The Infobox information you added claimed that iERA was a Worldwide and International organization and that the revenue for iERA was £817,582 (2013). As mentioned earlier, these claims might be accurate but we need a reliable source before adding it to the article. No source has been provided. Please read WP:BURDEN and WP:UNSOURCED for further information.
 * Removing information format that other charities follow i.e. BHF, Oxfam etc but disqualifying it for iERA.
 * I don't understand this - please can you clarify with examples.
 * Referencing a speculative unfounded newspaper article for the reason of Seating arrangements at UCL, whilst disregarding the official reason directly UCL website.
 * As mentioned previously, references to the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Times are considered acceptable for Wikipedia articles. Please read Suggested_sources.


 * Wikipedia guidelines encourage consensus when there is a dispute (Please read WP:CON). Can you therefore please respond to the points above before making any further changes? Also, it would be good if you can provide reliable secondary sources for the text you wish to add as per WP:RS. Thanks RookTaker (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * GorgeCustersSabre and RookTaker why are you removing edits that use Charity Commission (independent government body) as a reliable source? Please follow Wikipedia guidelines and refrain from spamming posts. Thanks RooksTaker (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2014


 * This is getting tiresome RooksTaker. You removed the lead which was sourced from the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Times. Both of these sources are considered reliable according to Suggested_sources. Why did you remove these? You then added the dubious claim that iERA "..is a major funder and authority in Islamic research, education and new Muslim care, and relies predominantly on voluntary donations to meet its aims. In order to maximise the impact of its work, it also works with other dawah organisations." No source has been provided which is not acceptable according to WP:BURDEN and WP:UNSOURCED. What part of the above do you not agree with? RookTaker (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Times are perfectly reliable sources. However Wikipedia is a source for unbiased/non-speculative information. The REAL reason for investigation is actually on the Charity Commission website (as referenced in article). Kindly stop spamming this article. RooksTaker (talk) 22:55, 02 November 2014
 * I'm not sure what the accusation of spamming means, but I refute your accusation of bias (which I see in your own actions). I don't dislike ARG or the IERA. I have no axe to grind. But I also think this article will be worse and non-encyclopedic for not showing (fairly) that, rightly or wrongly, IERA is controversial. This SHOULD be in the lead, which should highlight what the article is about. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see an argument here to exclude the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Times-references. After all, it cements the argument that the Charity Commission's investigation is notable.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your like or dislike of either ARG or IERA has no relevance to this article or discussion. The lead should introduce the organisation only. Any criticisms of it should go in the appropriate place. This has been reviewed and returned to the most neutral version. WikiBotBot (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2014

Is being "mentioned" enough?
I've noticed a few point that just say "iERA was mentioned in the (source)". Is that enough? I looked at the source and added the reason they were being mentioned i.e. research findings and controversy with Tom Holland, but it was reverted. This seems like a poor encyclopedic entry to me.SpiderFlex (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Any need for trustees?
The only known trustee (public figure?) seems to be Abdur Raheem Green. Who are the rest and why are they important? Surely this information can be sourced from Charities Commission or iERA website. What does it add to the article? What do you guys think? McSimon (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Abdur Raheem Green is mentioned as the founder of the charity. Does he also need to be mentioned as a trustee? (I suppose so). But what about the other trustees? Worthy encyclopedic information?SpiderFlex (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What happened on 9 June 2014?
Why are there so many questionable 'references' on this date? Seems to be some kind of agenda.McSimon (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear McSimon, I hope you are well. I was not the one who added the references you consider "questionable", but I think they are reasonable and provide a more accurate portrayal of this group's reception within the community. I respectfully disagree that they are evidence of an "agenda". Let's see what other editors think? Regards and best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what this page is for I guess :-) But can you explain how blogs and commentators are considered reliable sources? I removed some of these sources, but they were reverted.SpiderFlex (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Gorge, I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. My main issue was that some are just blogs. How/why are they considered reliable? McSimon (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Post-trolling and sockpuppetry update
Looking at the revision history of the article and the talk page, it's clear that someone either connected to this organization or simply a huge fan of it has been editing solely for the purpose of deleting anything remotely negative about the organization. This led them to violations of WP:EDITWAR, WP:NPOV, WP:DIS, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:POINTy, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the WP:HERE consensus. The sock accounts have now been blocked, though in my personal experience single-purpose accounts are often created by people with nothing better to do; the possibility of them returning when they think the heat has died down remains. So where do we stand right now with this article? What are the outstanding issues? What else needs to be fixed? What is fine as it is? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear MezzoMezzo, assalamu alaykum. I think the article is ok now but just needs very careful watching for the reason you mention. Fanatical and partisan editors are very hard to dissuade from pushing their views. Thanks and regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * May I suggest a quick brush over the battle above. Some points are valid, others (obviously) not so. McSimon (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Should the 'official' Charity Commission reason for investigation also be added?SpiderFlex (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've actually been going through the vast number of edits that have taken place over the past few weeks/months. It does seem like there are people on here who are pro-iERA and some (more) who are anti-iERA. I don't agree that this article is neutral. I will post my findings soon :-) McSimon (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear McSimon, I hope you are well. Please bring your thoughts to the talk page so we can all review them before making any major changes on the article page itself. This page is currently undergoing a period of stability after quite an intense contest of views. Thanks and best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi George Custer&#39;s Sabre - no problem. But could you kindly explain why it's okay for you to make edits but everyone else needs to discuss on the talk page? You seem to also undo almost every edit that's made (whether it has a source or not). This article is clearly not neutral. Have a nic day :-) McSimon (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear McSimon. I hope you are doing fine. I will indeed practice what I preach. If I make anything more than a minor edit on this page I'll put my proposed changes here for other editors to comment on. I'll also contact you directly. Thank you and very best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Who are iERA?
There seems to be nothing about who iERA are and what they do, only reports about so called controversies. Going through the revisions shows that many edits have been undone subtly and only controversies and criticisms added. How can we work to rectify this? DrHiteshPatel (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear DrHiteshPatel, part of the problem is that not much about what iERA does has been covered by neutral, third-party sources EXCEPT the controversies. We can't use sources from iERA saying what iERA does (a problem with several previous edits). Reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources are needed, but the only ones which deal with the iERA (such as newspapers) discuss the controversies. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I politely disagree George Custer&#39;s Sabre. Looking through the revisions there have been plenty of third-party sources removed (mainly by yourself) without proper explanation. McSimon (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy

 * Shouldn't iERA being characterised as a hate group be in this section?
 * Seating arrangements at UCL section seems long. Any need for full quotes? Should be concise and to the point.
 * What does Telegraph reporting about Abdur Raheem Green and the Jewish man at speakers corner got to do with iERA or the Charity Commission report? Surely this should be on Abdur Raheem Green's page only.
 * Who are the CEMB and why is their report newsworthy? Surely anyone could write a report about any group and just post it online. This piece seems to be written by their supporters and feels 'promotional'.SpiderFlex (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "AR Green is the driving force and the "face" of the iERA, so I think the Telegraph report does belong here. Controvery about the iERA is mainly controversy about HIM. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not necessarily true Gorge. What he has said in the past (seemingly before iERA was formed) doesn't count as 'iERA's views. Maybe it should be on his page only? McSimon (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. No doubt there are some users who seem to have 'influence' on this page; it is clearly not neutral. DrHiteshPatel (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Read the newspaper accounts on iERA; they nearly always mention Green and his controversial statements. Personally I don't have a problem with Green or the iERA (I quite like both), but, because I'm a serious editor, I don't want the controversies whitewashed out. They exist on record in neutral third-party sources. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But comments Green made before iERA i.e not in the capacity of chairman, should not be included on iERA page. He has his own wiki page does he not? McSimon (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

GorgeCustersSabre's unreliable sources deletions
Per Wikipedia's "What counts as a reliable source" WP:SOURCE:

"Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is 'made available to the public in some form'"

I have reviewed the sources that GorgeCustersSabre has deemed as unreliable. Based upon my review of the sources against the Wikipedia definition of reliable sources, I've concluded that they are reliable.

Therefore, I have undid GorgeCustersSabre's deletions.

188.116.15.95 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The websites you reference are clearly partisan, representing one point of view. Does the fact that their claims are published on their web pages make them reliable? No. I do not for a minute believe that the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (http://ex-muslim.org.uk) is a neutral and non-partisan source of information on alleged Muslim hate preachers. This website falls into the category of WP:SPS. Personally, I don't like the iERA or its speakers, but I see your sources as being of debatable quality, accuracy and neutrality, so I have fallen back on the basic principle we must all adhere to when editing biographies of living persons: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I believe your edits are "poorly edited". Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to go to any of the sources in that document, and if any of them are from reliable sources, include the actual statements.


 * The document appears to be poorly researched in sections. The document asserts that "At least one iERA activist, Iftekhar Jaman, has been killed in Syria" - A google search for "Ifthekar" "Jaman" "irea" turns up no results - so a key claim early on in the document cannot be substantiated independently.


 * If CEMB has evidence linking Ifthekar Jaman to irea, they should provide it to a journalist and get an independent outlet, like a newspaper, to publish the claim.


 * With the report claiming that Ifthekar Jaman is a member of irea, without independent verification of the claim, makes it inappropriate for extensive coverage on this article.


 * -- Callinus (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Naik, Philips, etc are connected to iERA
The Daily telegraph states this. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yusuf Chambers is a trustee
https://www.iera.org/2014/11/10/yusuf-chambers-delivers-dawah-presentation-10th-world-islamic-economic-forum/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GorgeCustersSabre (talk • contribs) 03:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

He is also a "co-founder":

https://www.iera.org/2014/06/18/ieras-yusuf-chambers-visits-dubai-conference-dawah-training/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GorgeCustersSabre (talk • contribs) 03:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Rashid's connection to iERA is still found on iERA's website
https://www.iera.org/?s=rashid — Preceding unsigned comment added by GorgeCustersSabre (talk • contribs) 03:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't appear to explicitly state he's an iERA speaker, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, along with evidence that it's current information. He seems to appear as a guest or independent speaker (which is not uncommon). iERA's speakers have their own dedicated page, which he does not appear on. Ergo, he is not an iERA speaker. Please stop trying to force your own perspective on what should be neutral articles. Your bias is showing. JamShady (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Trustees
There is an edit dispute about the trustees. Given that the trustees have changed over time (as would be expected), why not have a table showing who was listed as a trustee in different years. Such a list should give the names as given in the source; if they are also known under other names (as is the case with Mr Green), then the other name should be there too - one approach would be "Abdur Raheem Green (listed as Anthony Waclaw Green)".-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

See below:-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The current (10 March 2016) trustees are listed as:
 * Mr Saquib Jameel Sattar
 * Mr Anthony Waclaw Green
 * Mr Nasser Ali Khan.

There are accounts covering the financial years ending 30 June 2011 to 2015.

former advisory board members
I think the stuff on "former advisory board members" needs attention. It would be best if all the stuff about alleged advisory board members were put under one heading. The source cited for all this is as follows:

Evidently, they have a lot of friends, as the article on the Gatestone Institute is pretty much an advert for them. Not everyone thinks so highly of them. There are sources for the allegations in the Gatestone article, so it is not justifiable to delete stuff based on Gatestone. But in my opinion there is a need for improvement. It would be nice if people who are supportive of IERA did some improvements to the Wikipedia article on the Gatestone Institute.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

revision 733707928 by Djrun
See also Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive242.

I think we ought to discuss this edit. GorgeCustersSabre agues that "With one exception, which isn't even added properly, the sources aren't third-party. You can't use Tzortzis's or iERA's own websites".

Why do you feel that this piece need to be retained in the article?
 * "His speeches were also posted to the YouTube channel The Merciful Servant which Tamerlan Tsarnaev followed in the months before the Boston Marathon bombing. "

I can see that it is relevant to understanding Tamerlan Tsarnaev. But why is it relevant to iERA or Hamza Tzortzis?

With respect of article in the Daily Telegraph, would it not be more consistent with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to say in the text that "Andrew Gilligan wrote" (or "claimed") rather than "The Telegraph says". Gilligan has been described by his former employers as a "reporter who paints in primary colours" rather than the "subtleties and nuances" of news reporting."(The Guardian, Andrew Gilligan, by Claire Cozens and Simon Jeffery, 21 January 2004.) Gilligan's truthfulness is questionable - see the article on him in the Guardian, and the libelling of Mujibul Islam.  WP:QUESTIONABLE would seem to apply to any article by Andrew Gilligan.

The Wikipedia article includes character assassinations by Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph, and second-hand in sources that use Gilligan's Daily Telegraph articles as a source. NPOV tutorial explains that "editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way" by "explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views." Tzortzis's personal website is covered by WP:SELFSOURCE. His response to accusations is undoubtedly self-serving, but it is nevertheless reasonable to mention his view of himself in the circumstances.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear friend Toddy1, I hope you are well. It's not often I ever disagree with you, but I'm surprised to see you make a personal value judgement ("character assassination") of a RS. I encourage you to step back from doing so. It is a third-party RS, despite one rival paper's opinion of the reporter. Please point out what you believe are the inaccuracies in Gilligan's piece. The same assertions about Tzortzis are also made by Matthew Benns: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/radical-islamic-speaker-who-condones-child-rape-one-of-12-men-booked-for-united-muslims-of-australia-quest-for-success-conference/news-story/4c0ba5b910bb08b7769e7ccbc78e9bff And we don't use "self serving" WP:SELFSOURCE material (your words) to rebut a RS. Please explain why you believe this enhances neutrality in this case. We ordinarily look to see if a subject has defended himself in a third-party RS. Please see what I've done with the Tzortzis bio article. I believe you'll agree it's neutral and fair. Thanks Toddy1. My regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, it is not just a rival newspaper - it was the Hutton Inquiry - read what the BBC had to say (BBC News, Key points: The Hutton report, 28 January, 2004)  Here are the summary of conclusions from the Hutton Report (BBC News The Hutton Report in full, chapter 12 conclusions)--  Toddy1 (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's see what other non-involved editors think. Is this ok, Toddy1. Thanks and regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of lower case letters in article title
Many organisations adopt a stylised spelling (or misspelling) of their title these days in an attempt to make it graphically more distinctive. This is effectively an advertising and promotional gimmick. It is inappropriate to use this stylistic device in the title of an academic article or encyclopaedia entry and it should be changed to grammatically correct English. As the title of an article appears to be protected from editing by ordinary Wikipedia members then the Wikipedia moderators should apply a common sense rule that article titles should be in correct English and are not there to promote the distinctive brand or logo of the organisation being discussed in the article.

Redrocker (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read Naming conventions (technical restrictions). You appear to be mistaken in thinking that Wikipedia guidelines do not allow names that begin with a lowercase letter.--  Toddy1 (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Advisory board members section
The section for "Advisory board members" primarily describes such members' controversies, rather than a summarized statement of what they are most known for (see each members' lead section of their corresponding article on Wikipedia). Content pertaining to controversial information should be moved to the appropriate section ("Controversial leaders and speakers") per Wikipedia section guidelines.--Djrun (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait until you see what other editors think, please. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The only reason for mentioning Mr Naik and Mr Philips is that they are/were on the advisory board of iERA. Mr Philips, for example, is not notable for being "a Canadian Muslim teacher, speaker, and author who lives in Qatar."  He is notable because many governments all over the world consider him a problem and do not want him or his works in their countries.  Given that most normal people have never heard of either, it seems reasonable to briefly mention what they are notable for.


 * The reason the "Controversial leaders and speakers" section was trimmed in Summer 2016 was that it repeated stuff already in other sections of the article, and had also become a coat rack.


 * If you want to refer to guidelines, please provide quotations and Wikilinks to the guidelines in question.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that those controversies are notable facts of said subjects, along with other notable traits not pertaining to extremism. To be fair, additional notable information about said subjects warrant inclusion as well. Djrun (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then add it, along with citations to reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Tighter and more precise?
is used as a source. There are two versions, shown below. GorgeCustersSabre says that Version 2 is "This is tighter and more precise. It is no less neutral. It states the facts." So let's see what the source says: -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Tzortzis responded to allegations of extremism by stating that his words were taken out of context and since then he has authored writings that condemn all forms of child marriages, oppose extremism, denounce the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), and promote a peaceful case for Islam.
 * 2) Tzortzis has since criticised child marriages, opposed extremism, denounced the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), and argues that Islam is a peaceful religion.
 * "Mr Tzortzis said his words were taken out of context." This was said in the context of "defending the Prophet’s marriage, which was based on the social norms of the time"; it was not said on the context of extremists.
 * "“My work simply involves articulating a compassionate and peaceful case for Islam. I’ve written and spoken against extremism and ISIS (and) on social media I have been so clear in condemning all forms of child marriage."

CEMB References
I would like to start a discussion on how would the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain's (CEMB) publication "Evangelizing Hate" be viewed in light of the guidelines of a reliable source? Wikipedia's guidelines for "Biased or opinionated sources" state, "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." Does anyone have any experience in the reputation of CEMB's fact checking and editorial control? Currently the source is being used to reference bold statements such as:
 * Zakir Naik and Bilal Philips were advisory board members
 * Claiming the iERA core group and affiliates share the views of hate groups and wahhabism

I am curious to hear your feedback, as I am not familiar with the work coming from the CEMB. Thank you.--Djrun (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I doubt that CEMB can be considered reliable since it has a clear anti-Muslim bias. I would suggest removing all references to this organisation. 213.205.198.35 (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Zakir Naik and Bilal Philips were advisory board members. The source for that is citation [21], which is by the Gatestone Institute.  The detailed report by CEMB is citation  [22], which says that they are/were advisors. The wording of the article reflects this.--  Toddy1 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Claiming the iERA core group and affiliates share the views of hate groups and wahhabism. There are five citations showing that various people have this opinion, and the only citation of rebuttal is to a letter by Saqib Sattar (vice chairman of iERA) to the Telegraph.  The article makes it clear that it is an opinion by "secular organisations and pundits".--  Toddy1 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification
Please could you show me how the cited source supports the text added in this edit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. I believe I copied this statement and reference from someone who added it to the Hamza T. main article on Wikipedia, assuming the statement was verified.  Upon further review I could not find it to be supported in the article.  I plan to change the edit to reflect the quote from the article "I receive a lot of positive feedback from people including the youth. They say that my work has inspired them to be compassionate Muslims." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djrun  (talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Lede section: "The iERA has been characterised as a hate group by some secular organisations and pundits"
Greetings. I would like to expand on this statement in the lede section: "The iERA has been characterised as a hate group by some secular organisations and pundits." The problem I am running into is that the references used are either coming from one organisation (Council of Ex-Muslims) or from a non reliable source. Are there any other references available that characterise iERA as a hate group other than the Council of Ex-Muslims and from a reliable source? Below is a summary of my findings.


 * "Ex-Muslims call for Islamic education charity to be classified as a "hate group"". National Secular Society. 23 May 2014. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
 * The "hate group" call comes from the Council of Ex-Muslims


 * Namazie, Maryam. "iERA: Islamic far-Right and Hate Group not Charity". Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
 * Council of Ex-Muslims and potential issues with the site being a reliable source (reference is from the Council's website)


 * Al-Razi. "Groups like the iERA should be viewed no differently than the BNP". Left Foot Forward. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
 * Op-ed piece written by a member of the Council of Ex-Muslims


 * Woodward, Edward. "The curious case of iERA and homosexuality". The Rationaliser. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
 * The website is from a blog and the author does not appear to be credible, let alone a "pundit".


 * Gamble, Dave. "UK based Hate Group has charitable status for promoting intolerance". Skeptical Science. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
 * The article is based on the Council of Ex-Muslim's report criticsing iERA and the website is from a blog which appears to be a non reliable source (based on other articles).

Your thoughts please. --Djrun (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is undoubtedly true that some people and organisations have expressed the opinion that iERA is a hate group. WP:RSOPINION says that "some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." The sources cited meet that criteria, as incidentally does iERA's open letter to the editor of The Telegraph, which is also cited as a source.


 * The anti-iERA claims are notable. Some newspaper articles repeated the same claims, and the Charity Commission issued a report on its investigation.
 * Telegraph, 24 May 2014.
 * There was an article in the The Birmingham Mail, 25 May 2014 - iERA's rebuttal can be seen here.
 * The Charity Commission report, 4 November 2016. Its conclusion was that the trustees needed to take more care because expressing strongly controversial and partisan views could compromise their status as trustees.


 * By citing the original sources of the claims, readers can see that they come from people who have a grudge against religious people. If we merely cite Andrew Gilligan-type articles and the Charity Commission report it gives the report "Evangelising Hate: Islamic Education and Research Academy" a veneer of respectability that it does not deserve.--  Toddy1 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, there is no need to expand on the statement in the lede section that you mentioned. The lede is a summary.  There are already sections dealing with the Charities Commission investigation, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain report, and allegations concerning the "Portsmouth jihadis".--  Toddy1 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response Toddy1. You bring up good points, which I would like to clarify to make the concern more clear:
 * The statement in the lede section specifically claims multiple organisations and pundits classify iERA as a hate group.
 * The only organisation specifically claiming the "hate group" accusation is CEMB, and the other existing references in the lede section are from non-reputable/notable bloggers (not pundits) and not from any other organisation
 * The "anti-iERA" claims are absolutely well documented, however again I could not find other claims specifically accuse iERA of being a "hate group"--which I cannot say is "undoubtedly true" from available references.
 * The only specific "hate group" claim is coming from one organisation (CEMB), the Charity Commission's conclusion is that certain individual espoused extremist rhetoric in settings outside of an iERA program (which they said posed a risk to iERA's reputation) but that the Commission does not classify them as a hate group.


 * Therefore I feel that the following are fair conclusions and actions to make
 * Since there is only organisation that accuse iERA of being a hate group and the claim was referenced in just one case (the "Evangelising Hate" report), it does not appear to be a main theme of the article and it is debatable if it is worthy to be included in the lede section
 * Agreement on the aforementioned point, the hate group statement should to move to the CEMB report sub-section.
 * The hate group statement needs to be revised to replace "organisations and pundits" with CEMB (unless additional hate group accusations are available from outside of CEMB).
 * The lede section should have a statement that acts as a summary of all the different criticisms (i.e.: iERA has been the subject of controversy due to actions and statements made by the organisations and associated representatives...)
 * Djrun (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My dear friends, I did not write the sentence "The iERA has been characterised as a hate group by some secular organisations and pundits", and I have no axe to grind either for or against the iERA, but the statement is accurate and should stay. The sentence does not say that iERA has been characterized as a hate group by ALL secular organisations and pundits and it does not say that iERA IS a hate group. It merely states a fact: that at least one group and some pundits characterize it as a hate group. Given that the view put forward in the report by the Council of Ex-Muslims has been reproduced or relied upon by various newspapers, we cannot avoid it. I therefore tend to favour retention of the current wording or something very similar. I think the proposed sentence "iERA has been the subject of controversy due to actions and statements made by the organisations and associated representatives" is a little too light, although I wouldn't really mind it. Just my thought. I won't oppose whatever consensus forms here. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre 02:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Evidence is required from RS for the sentence "The iERA has been characterised as a hate group by some secular organisations and pundits" otherwise it is WP:SYNTHESIS. MontyKind (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings. After much consideration of the facts and of Wikipedia's guidelines I will plan to change the sentence as I originally proposed.  Below are a listing of my reasons to the arguments for changing it:
 * 1. Only one organisation has characterised iERA as a hate group (not multiple organisations)
 * 1a. Because the hate group accusation only came from one organisation from one particular report, it does not merit inclusion in the lede section per Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * 2. "Anti-iERA" sentiment cannot be fairly interpreted as a hate group accusation
 * 3. No references have been found containing an opinion of a pundit (outside of CEMB) stating that iERA is a hate group (non-notable bloggers do not seem to qualify as a pundit).
 * 4. News sources reproducing the CEMB's report does not imply support of the hate group claims.
 * Thank you for everyone's input!--Djrun (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Good work - the lead is now a more accurate summary of the article. Also, I have noticed other problems with this article, such as a section on Hamza Tzortzis and Abdul Raheem Green. Why is this necessary when articles already exist for these people? Also, why is there a section on the CEMB when it itself is a dubious non-notable partisan organisation? MontyKind (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the items you discussed, most of the statements of the two individuals (Tzorzis and Green) are from references outside their association with iERA.
 * Criticism and controversy/"Portsmouth jihadis": The statement "The report called Green an "extremist preacher" is out of place in relation to the topic of the particular subsection. The references do not provide any evidence of Green's role in the incident.  There is a good case to be made as to whether the relevance of that statement meets Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * Criticism and controversy/Speakers ban: This section in itself also seems out of place as the only mention of iERA in those two articles is a statement saying Mr. Green is the chair of the organisation. I would make a case of keeping the section if the incident was related to an iERA sponsored event that resulted in the ban.  However the articles do not provide that association.  Another opportunity to debate the relevance within this article.
 * Criticism and controversy/Controversial leaders and speakers/Hamza T.: I have not yet had a chance to look at if the articles provide clear relevance with iERA. Stating that Hamza T. simply was once known for being controversial is one thing, but additional details of his personal controversy seems to be out of place in relation to iERA and more fitting for his own article.

Please provide feedback and your thoughts.Djrun (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think removing these things is appropriate - unless of course the article is paid advert for iERA. The Charity Commission report made it clear that statements made by people associated with iERA such as trustees reflect on iERA.  Anthony Green and iERA are tied up with each other.--  Toddy1 (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy/Portsmouth jihadis - Undue weight

 * Greetings again mates. I'd like to follow up on the previous discussion, beginning first with the Criticism and controversy/Portsmouth jihadis subsection.  Upon further review, it appears the reference to the incident does qualify under Wikipedia's relevancy guidelines, however there is a case to be made that a revision may be warranted based on Wikipedia's guidelines surrounding Weight.  In terms of weight, the majority of the sub-section (four sentences) is based on one reference, with two additional sentences based on two iERA rebuttal articles (which one can argue can be combined into one sentence).  Unless there are more published articles on the incident (which I had trouble finding any more), it seems to qualify as undue weight per the guidelines and should really consist of two to three sentences at the most (instead of six).  Because the reference is still relevant to the article, one can make a case of keeping it.  But the question comes down to where it would be placed, since a reference based two sentences may not be appropriate for a sub-section.  Should there be a generic "Controversies" section for references that do not warrant a sub-section?  What are your thoughts? Cheers. Djrun (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies/Speaker bans
This subsection within the "Criticism and controversies" section references two articles stating how iERA founder A.R. Green has been banned from speaking at two locations. Wikipedia's guidelines on relevancy would place most biographical information on A.R. Green under "Relevance Level A and B": Content pertaining to A.R. Green founding iERA and the role he plays in the organisation (Relevance A) would be kept, while additional information outside of that (Relevance B) should be treated with "a higher level of scrutiny", according to the guidelines. Of the two referenced articles about the bans, only one mentions iERA, stating Mr Green is the chair and iERA's investigation. What both article lack is content that specifies how, if any, the bans have directly affected iERA. There are articles out there that do detail iERA in relation to speaker bans. One example is an article about how iERA's affiliation with Bilal Philips (who has been banned from various countries) was criticised in Home Secretary Theresa May's investigation into the organisation. On that note, are there any articles that detail how Mr Green's bans have impacted iERA or how it has directly led to critcism of the iERA? Where do we draw the line of including biographical information about Mr Green or other iERA associates in the iERA article? Surely there is relevant content that deserves a place in the article, but it would be a stretch to include everything. For this reason, this section should be given the "higher level of scrutiny" that Wikipedia demands. Therefore I would like to open this up to other contributors to see how, if at all, these articles can be justified to remain in the iERA article. Your feedback is appreciated. Cheers! --Djrun (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * With the greatest respect, the last paragraph on page 5 of the Charity Commission report makes it clear that trustees have put the charity at risk by associating themselves with extremist views.  The first paragraph of page 6 of the report says that views expressed by trustees in a personal capacity can compromise the charity.--  Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right about that concern and the A.R. Green speaker ban would play into that concern of putting the charity at risk. However, to be fair with Wikipedia guidelines (SYNTH), the two articles in the "Speakers Ban" sub-section do not make mention that those specific bans are part of the Commission's concerns, nor does the Commission's report specifically identify those two bans.  Would it not be sufficient to mention in the article the commission's report that states that concern?  Surely the reader would understand that iERA must have associated with individuals with extremist views if the report led to that conclusion.  However justifying the references in the "Speakers bans" based on the report appears to a case of SYNTH in my opinion.  "SYNTH cautions against original research by synthesis, where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources." Your thoughts please.  Thank you.  Djrun (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that Mr AR Green has been associated with various controversial events. But to imply that he himself is one of controversial figures that the Commission refers to, without a reliable source explicitly stating that, falls outside of Wikipedia guidelines.  Here are four specific items that make the justification to keep the section problematic:

Based on these reasons, I propose removing the “Speakers ban” section on the grounds of Relevance and on SYNTH (if the argument to keep it is due to the Commission’s concerns stated by Toddy1.Djrun (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1.	The statement in the “Speakers ban” section only states that he was banned from two locations due to community concerns. The ban itself does not imply that the speaker is controversial, nor that he is one of the Commission’s concerned controversial associates of iERA.
 * 2.	The referenced articles do not state that AR Green is controversial, nor that he is one of the Commission’s concerned controversial associates of iERA.
 * a.	The Telegraph article simply states one of AR Green’s advocated statements and two quotes he’s given.
 * b.	The Chronicle Live article simply states he was banned due to community concerns (which it does not state).
 * 3.	It is sufficient to simply state in the article the Committee’s concerns of individuals and leaders. To imply who the specific leaders or associates are, without a direct reliable source reference, makes it problematic with Wikipedia’s SYNTH guidelines.
 * 4.	There is an article that states the Commission’s regulator expressed concerns with iERA’s association with Bilal Philips. This would be more than sufficient to provide additional details to the Commission’s aforementioned concerns.

Mr Green is a trustee of the charity. Your claims of WP:SYNTH are not valid.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you stating that he is one of the trustees that the commissions feels is putting the charity at risk due to his views? If so, is there a reliable source saying that he is one of the trustees that "puts the charity at risk"?  Without that reliable source available, under what grounds are you justifying to keep that sub-section?  Djrun (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to find Toddy1's views the most compelling here and I support his position. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, I did further research and although could not find a source that directly states Mr Green as one of the trustees identified by the commission, there is a Telegraph article that insinuates Mr Green's actions is in fact part of the commission's concerns. Although not a strong case, I can see validity in keeping the statement.  To be fair, a sub-section on "Speaker bans" does not seem to be justifiable.  Only one of the two references in the sub-section is directly about the ban and the other reference mentions it in passing outside the scope of the article.  Secondly, only one sentence is dedicated to the section.  The statement should either be part of the general "Controversy" section or perhaps in the "Commission" section.  Thank you for your input.Djrun (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)