Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism/Archive 1

Should there be an islamophobia navigation template on here or not?
An IP removed it. I think it's plausible given the number of RS which refer to this group as either Islamophobic or anti-Muslim or which refer to it in association with SIOA and other such groups, which makes it plausible that a reader might want to navigate amongst those articles.



and so on.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Deepa Kumar: Subjects: U.S. "Imperialism," "Islamophobia," and anti-Muslim "racism." She believes it is "Islamophobic" to "depict Muhammad in a negative light," despite the fact that Jesus and Moses are constantly depicted in a negative light. She also believes it is "Islamophobic" and racist to criticize Muslims who respond violently to criticism of their prophet.
 * Carl W. Ernst: Professor of Islamic Studies

In other words, Islamophiles. Yeah, really reliable sources indeed. Alf person would do well to see this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.64.11.204 (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 192 person would do well to consider whether IPT itself is the best source on whether they're Islamophobic. Do you have an substantive point to make or not?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears there are far too many editors who are disregarding the requirements for NPOV. I've reviewed several articles on terrorism, including various bios of people who have been labeled Islamophobics by Wikipedia editors.  This is deplorable behavior.  I also noticed the same few editors consistently trying to hang Islamophobia labels on every organization, group, and/or individual who is/has been involved in exposing Islamist extremism.  It's not an editor's job to diagnose a phobia.  There is no question whatsoever that Islamophobia labeling is pejorative, especially in instances of BLP.  Forget the medical qualifications, who gave such authority to layperson volunteer editors?  Only qualified individuals in the medical field can properly diagnose a phobia.  Where is the balance?  What happened to NPOV?  This behavior has to stop because it violates Wikipedia standards, and threatens our future as a credible resource.  Atsme (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are seriously making the case that the suffix "-phobia" can only be applied to a noun to form a word after a qualified medical professional has made a diagnosis? That's seriously what you're saying?  What in the world makes you think that?  Are you logophobic?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

One thing that strikes me about this situation is that the article says nothing about Islmophobia.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's very clear that there is some level of consensus that this group is tied to descrimination. Some of the wikiprojects that link to here show that. However in the article there is no connection to Any kind of descrimination. If this group is considered islamophobic by a reliable source it should be mentioned.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

*Template*
On the Islamophobia Template talk page I have made a few comments. Essentially as of right now this template I feel is being used as a Rubber Stamp to make an unverified claim. Since no actually informtion in this article says anything about Islamophobia at all then one of two options need to be considered to fix this.


 * 1- The template is removed from this page.
 * 2- What ever relation this organization has to Islamophobia needs to be written in the article.

Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Islamophobia Labels Are Reverse Discrimination
WP Editors should follow the example of the AP's journalistic integrity and neutrality, and discontinue use of the words Islamophobia and homophobia. On 11/26/2012, Politico reported the nixing of those words from the online AP Stylebook, and included the following quote: '"-phobia," "an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness" should not be used "in political or social contexts," including "homophobia" and "Islamophobia." ' I've made a similar argument on a few Talk pages where the labeling has been misapplied, and I'm sure there are more I haven't found, yet. Applying the label Islamophobia is as racist and discriminatory as what the label itself attempts to define, the latter of which is in clear violation of WP:POV. I've also noticed a rise in Islamophobia labeling, and it appears the same group of editors are usually involved as evidenced by the recent addition of the info box that now links the Investigative Project On Terrorism to the racist, discriminatory series on Islamophobia. Their actions and edits reflect an unmistakable prejudice to Islam. Any person or organization who is active in the fight against terrorism, or critical of the politics of Islam, or who oppose Sharia are among those targeted for an Islamophobia label. It has clearly gotten out of hand, and needs to be addressed ASAP. Atsme (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside your conspiracy-theorizing about some shadowy and undefined "same group of editors," let me point out that no one has labelled this group Islamophobic. The presence of a navbox does not label, but merely organizes.  Secondly, if the AP stylebook thinks that that's what the suffix "-phobia" means in English they're wrong.  As always, we can turn to the dictionary (OED again): -phobia, comb. form Forming nouns with the sense ‘fear of ——’, ‘aversion to ——’.  Nothing about irrationality or mental illness in the way this suffix is used in English.  Finally, yet again, you've fallen prey to the etymological fallacy.  Now, do you care to actually discuss anything specific about this article?  Because that's what talk pages are for, you know.  You want the navbox out of the article?  Make a policy based argument for taking it out.  You don't like the existence of the navbox?  Go to TdF and make a policy based argument for its deletion.  You don't mind the navbox but you think it should be called something different?  Go to the talk page of the template and make a policy based argument for whatever it is you want to do.  For someone with 53 edits to article space you've got an awful lot of opinions about how to do something you don't seem willing to actually do: write content.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The AP stylebook is irrelevent. We alreadt have guideline. The AP stylebook isn't one.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Serialjoepsycho WP guidelines point to contentious labeling. The latter coupled with what's written in the AP Stylebook provides a strong argument for deletion.  I presented a 3-step plan on AC Talk, so if you get a chance, I'd appreciate your input, but totally understand if it's not a priority.  Between you and Alf, I've acquired some valuable knowledge, so thank you.  You've also helped jump start my memory recall.  I now remember why I took a hiatus. *lol*  I've been keeping the template debate central to AC Talk since the navbox is being used to designate a series which involves several individual articles.  It will be a one decision effects all.  Once a consensus has been reached, and the key editors have weighed in, I'll consider it a signal to come out of the fox hole and start editing.  Alf has already hinted that it's time to get work, and his hints come in megaton packages.   Atsme (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Alf, don't forget, every conspiracy started out as a theory. I like the idea of navboxes, but not the one that's sporting the title "Islamophobia".  And Alf, I actually do admire your knowledge as an editor, and all the work you've done at WP.   Wishing you a happy day!  Atsme (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The "AC" article talk page is not the appropriate place for your discussion. That talk page is for discussing that article.  You should find some more appropriate place if you want people to participate.  This isn't the appropriate place for this discussion either.  Article talk pages are for discussing changes to the actual articles they're associated with.  See WP:TALK.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alf you are edit warring. That Islamophobia template does not belong in this article, and neither did the paragraph you added to make it applicable because you sourced from a WP article about a partisan progressive think tank.  Hardly NPOV.  It appears the time has come for a Tdf, and to the Isamophobia propaganda.  Atsme (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm not edit-warring. There's a discussion open on this topic up-page and you refuse to engage.  I didn't source the sentence from a partisan think tank, I sourced it from a reliable secondary source that discusses the think tank, which legitimizes the think tank's statement.  Read WP:RS for details and please engage in the already open conversation above.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are edit-warring, Alf. I did engage in the exchange, so don't go there. 75% of this Talk page consists of my comments. Up-page, down-page, all over the page.  You'll also see that Serialjoepsycho was the last response in the up-page section.  Nothing more needed to be said after he commented - an admin gave his opinion, and I agreed. You apparently disagree, as expected.  The navbox has no relevance in this article.  Period the end.  I deleted it, you reverted, I undid, you reverted…you are being disruptive.  The links in the navbox are all POV, totally unrelated to this article, and so is the term Islamophobia.  You are spreading propaganda, and obviously trying to promote a cause by using WP as your platform.  Atsme (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Leaving comments is not the same as engaging in conversation. You're babbling.  Talk about actual concrete issues regarding the content of the article.  That's what talk pages are for.  Also, I'm not the only editor who reverted your removal.  Please stick to concrete policy-based arguments.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The off topic discussion on AC was bubbled. Any issue you have with a certain page you should take up with that page. If you don't like the Islamophobia template you should go to it's talk page. If you don't want it here forgo the shotgun argumentation and start talking directly.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides that if I was an Admin it wouldn't have mattered. There's a difference between adminastration actions and editorial opinions.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The AP stylebook doesn't point to anything. It doesn't have a place in a wikipedia policy debate. It doesn't trump anything or add to a debate on the use of current wikipedia policy or guidelines. WP does have policy on contentious labeling WP:LABEL and yes Islamophobic can be considered among those terms even it is not specifically listed. I as an editor can not call someone Islamophobic in an article. However I can atribute a claim of Islamophobia to a reliable source. For example, "According to a report issued in 2011 by the Center for American Progress, the IPT was one of ten foundations constituting what it called "the Islamophobia network in America." In this example I am not calling anyone Islamophobic but the source is.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right, with one addendum. In this case, we're not citing the CAP report directly, which would be dubious, but instead we're citing two separate independent reliable sources that are reporting on the CAP report.  I don't think the CAP report itself would be a strong enough source to support the information, but there's adequate secondary sourcing to let us attribute the opinion to the CAP report.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well no you could use a primary source it's just not ideal. You really have to use those with care. You don't really won't to exclude relevent information because it comes froma primary source if it happens to be a significant minority view. I can't relly speak whether that's a majority view as I'm only aware that Center for American Progress hold it but is at least a significant minority view. But yes it is better to use relible secondary sources when they are availible.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision
This diff was how the article previously tied IPT to Islamophobia. I'm not sure why it was removed. You are really going to have to justify it's removal, Atsme. I do question though beyond this off remark has anyone else linked this group to Islamophobia? I also have to ask if IPT has defended itself? Serialjoepsycho (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Serialjoepsycho To begin, it should be very obvious to you that the ONLY reason User:alf laylah wa laylah is here is to stick an Islamophobia label on the page. He didn't come here to improve the article, or contribute something beneficial.  He is too busy running an Islamic propaganda campaign, acting just like a WP vandal going around slapping Islamophobia stamps on any and every article and BLP that criticizes the politics of Islamic extremism, or is in the fight against terrorism.  It's discriminatory targeting, and that alone should justify disciplinary action against him. Is arbitration the next step?  His actions are totally disruptive to editing.
 * The paragraph he added in an attempt to justify the Islamophobia stamp is nothing but misinformation from a George Soros funded progressive organization, Center For American Progress (a communist organization) that published a biased article titled Fear, Inc. co-authored by Wajahat Ali, none other than the man of "hate" himself, and former Board member of the Muslim Students Association. FYI -the MSA was established by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Read about it here.  Furthermore, the financial report that he included in the article is incorrect and misleading.  Here is the link that proves it.  Just think about it - is someone who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood going to write anything truthful about organizations who are trying to expose them?
 * The “Fear Inc.” report claims to expose a network of Islamophobes supposedly stirring up prejudice against Muslims; but wait - some of the people targeted in the report were Muslims. For example, Zudhi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, was condemned in the report because he “dangerously and incorrectly labels mainstream Muslim-American organizations as subversive.”
 * The Islamophobia labeling has gotten out of hand, and it must be deleted permanently. It is compromising the future of Wikipedia.  Those who are running around sticking Islamophobia stamps on everything are "Anti-Islamophobia Phobics".  Atsme (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have no agenda, and believe it or not, you're not the first to decide that your pet issue is "compromising the future of wikipedia." It's not.  Anyway, your accusation is dubious given the other edits I've made to this article, which you fail to mention.  You've written nothing at all on this article.  Finally, the "Islamophobia stamp" is not "nothing but misinformation" from CAP, it's a statement from CAP that's been covered in secondary independent sources, at least two of which the material is cited to.  I have added nothing to this article with a citation to anything published by CAP.  Get your facts straight, and please try to figure out the applicable policies instead of raving about George Soros and the Muslim Brotherhood.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious at all if I assume good faith. I have no reason but to assume good faith. Assuming good faith I have to ask myself only a few questions based on WP:NPOV at WP:WEIGHT. The first question is if this is a majority  viewpoint? The answer I come to with all the information provided to me is that no this is not. The second question is this a viewpoint held by a significant minority with prominent adherents.  Center for American Progress do seem to meet the definition of prominent. While I would like to see more information I don't see a reason to exclude this information. Alf I think this information should be put back in if you would like to put it back in. Atsme if have any wikipedia based policy arguments please share them. But most of what you posted I can't personally give any weight. While CAP and George Suros may be biased wikipedia is not. We can't leave out their opinion because you don't like them. I try not to edit based on politics. I find that most everyone that does ends up disappointed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's already back in, with some more info and a rebuttal. The point, as before, is that the CAP report was covered pretty widely in secondary sources independent from CAP, so it's appropriate to discuss their claims.  I also added some independently reported material on their funding situation, along with IPT's actual denial.  This is in preparation for rewriting the old part of the funding section, which does quote the CAP report directly, so I think it's inferior to basing the material on independent accounts of the CAP report for this subject as well.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One final point Atsme. The Islamophobia Template. We put it here because they put it there basically. If you don't think it should be here you should have them remove it from there because it being on there really is a reason to post it here. Here is the template talk page. Bring your issue to them.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If anyone linked to the template cares about the template not being on pages they think it should be on, then it's up to them to make a case for its inclusion. People can't just make a template linking or labelling things however thehy like and then demand the things have the template on until people can persuade them that the template is wrong. The article is primary, not the template. And this particular template, for this particular article, is a breathtaking POV violation which should not be re-added. Podiaebba (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The template and the page are interconnected. Removing this template from this article wouldn't remove any apparent "breathtaking POV" violation if you didn't remove this page from that template. And I demanded nothing. I asked that either this template be removed and this article be removed from the template or some apparent connection to Islamophobia be made in the article. When found out of the apparent connection that was removed I demanded to know why. It is nuetrally written and well sourced.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , how is there not a case for its inclusion? The CAP report calling this organization Islamophobic is discussed by multiple independent sources.  The purpose of the template is to link related articles.  Readers who are reading about Islamophobia will be interested in this organization because it is widely called Islamophobic, anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, and so on, in independent reliable secondary sources.  That is a policy-based argument for the inclusion of the template.  Do you have any argument for its exclusion other than your bare, unsupported, and dubious assertion that it's a "breathtaking POV violation"?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Podiaebba I agree. The Islamophobia template is definitely POV, and should not be used at all, especially when editors are unilaterally "defining" an organization as Islamophobic, and then purposely linking them to atrocities and other events that are irrelevant to the primary article.  It's one thing for an editor to quote from an article that claims an organization is "Islamophobic", but it is not an editor's job to label it as such.  In reviewing the discussions at Template  talk:Islamophobia there is a substantial amount of opposition to its use, perhaps more opposition than support.  It is a highly controversial template nonetheless, which makes it contentious and strips it of all neutrality.  I know of no instance where the label has not created controversy, heated debate, or argument. It is a form of propaganda because it shows support of Islam, and demonizes the organizations that are labeled Islamophobic.  Again, POV with no discernible differences.
 * The word Islamophobia was recently nixed from the AP Stylebook, an action some editors contend is unrelated to WP policy, but I disagree for the simple reason that we as editors use the AP as a reliable source. If it's considered reliable in one aspect, it should be worthy of our consideration in another.  One might also be inclined to conclude that the use of the template is reverse discrimination by anti-Islamophobia phobics, and anti-racism racists.  This article is a good example of Islamophobia gone wild.
 * The template was attached to the article when there was nothing in the article to substantiate what some consider to be Islamophobia. Rather than pull the template, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah decided to take on the challenge, but not for the same reasons most editors would undertake a project.  He had but one purpose in mind - to validate the Islamophobia label, making his primary mission to demonize and condemn the organization.  He found a very biased and inaccurate report titled, "Fear Inc.", that was authored by an individual with ties (indirectly) to the MB, and added a paragraph based on that biased report to justify the Islamophobia template.  I disputed his actions, but was subsequently distracted by another issue.  As Podiaebba so wisely pointed out, the template includes links to articles that are in no way related to the article itself, therefore a blatant POV violation.  I further validate her concerns, and contend that there is nothing in WP policy that gives editors the right to label a person or organization as Islamophobic, much less link the primary article to unrelated articles.  Atsme (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome back, Atsme. If you feel that should be wikipedia follow the AP stylebook then go to Village pump under the policy section and suggest it. It however is not policy. It can be great source for your personal opinion of what editors should follow however it's still not policy. You can source it and everyone else can ignore it. WP:BIASED Sources don't need to be nuetral. This biased source is perfectly acceptable. As used in this article it doesn't violate NPOV.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * : Alf.laylah.wa.laylah decided to take on the challenge, but not for the same reasons most editors would undertake a project. He had but one purpose in mind - to validate the Islamophobia label, making his primary mission to demonize and condemn the organization. Are you kidding? You're super-confused and super-duper dramatizing.  Anyway, that report was cited in this article before I ever edited it, and I didn't cite anything to it whatsoever.  What, pray tell, are "the same reasons most editors would undertake such a project?"  Is it possible that someday you might consider talking about article content?  Probably not.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

One issue I think however that is being presented or at least hinted at is the use of Non-neutral but common names. Islamophobia is probably such an animal. That is the Name of the Template and the name of the primary article it connects to. However I think WP:POVNAME applies to this. This is the most commonly recognized term for this type of descrimination. Compare to homophobia. The proposed alternatives are not well known. Homonegativity for homophobia or Anti-Muslimism for Islamophobia. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the "welcome back". The break gave me a chance to do a little reading and research. Also, thank you for your advice, and recommendation for the AP Stylebook.  I'll certainly give it a try.  I do understand that it is not an established WP guide, and will keep that in mind. I remain committed to my quest to help others better understand the repercussions of reverse discrimination, and the derogatory effects of WP:POVNAME templates.
 * It's one thing to cite a primary reference, but attempting to validate it with circular references is an exercise in futility. They all link back to the primary report.  You stated, Are you kidding? You're super-confused and super-duper dramatizing.  Anyway, that report was cited in this article before I ever edited it, and I didn't cite anything to it whatsoever. I apologize if I came across as super-duper dramatic, but I'm not super-confused.  Just look at the revision history, 18:15 3 March 2014, which is when you added the IPT was one of ten foundations constituting what it called "the Islamophobia network in America" in what appears to be justification of the Islamophobia template based on the date/time stamp of the edit.  I suppose coincidence is a possibility, but such perfect timing couldn't have been more perfectly planned considering it was added after Serialjoepsycho's comment (page-up): One thing that strikes me about this situation is that the article says nothing about Islmophobia.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)  He mentioned it again on 4 March 2014.  It's very clear that there is some level of consensus that this group is tied to descrimination. Some of the wikiprojects that link to here show that. However in the article there is no connection to Any kind of descrimination. If this group is considered islamophobic by a reliable source it should be mentioned.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What I find somewhat disconcerting is the fact that Serialjoepsycho, through no fault of his own, was led to believe the subject organization was tied to discrimination simply because it was linked to other wikiprojects. The latter further validates my concern that the Islamophobia template is WP:POVNAME that could prove damaging to linked organizations.  It is not the job of WP editors to unilaterally commit an article as "part of a series" that includes unrelated links in the template in an attempt to propagandize a particular belief.  WP:PROPAGANDA.  I think it's perfectly acceptable and quite helpful to include a neutral template that is actually relevant to the primary article, and that includes related links in the navbox.  For example, the navbox on the WP article Jews, and the template titled Part of a series on Jews and Judaism - a perfectly neutral, interrelated project with relevant links in the template. Atsme (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not circular referencing. That is using a secondary source. Are you saying that secondary source is unreliable and doesn't meet wp:rs standards? If so how so? I wasn't lead to believe anything. You'd have to explain how that violates WP:PROPAGANDA. There is also a box on antisemitism. As for WP:PROPAGANDA: I remain committed to my quest to help others better understand the repercussions of reverse discrimination, and the derogatory effects of WP:POVNAME templates. Wikipedia is not for advocacy. If you have a reliable source that comments on this as Reverse discrimination add it to that article. This template may inflame your sensibilities. You do not have to like it. However if you want to remove it you do have to justify it based on wikipedia policy.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

, you say: It's one thing to cite a primary reference, but attempting to validate it with circular references is an exercise in futility. Actually, that's how we handle primary sources on Wikipedia. We don't usually cite facts straight from them, but cite secondary sources which cite them. That way we have a layer of professional evaluation of the primary sources. You're right, you're not just super-confused, you're super-duper-uber-confused. You accused me of citing the report. I did not. I cited a secondary source which cited the report. That's the edit you linked to in your diff. You ought to read a little policy before you go accusing people of things. Your arguments against this template being on this page are pure word salad.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I was referring to primary sources like an AP wire, or legal docs, Congressional records, academic research, and the like - sources that corroborate the story, not just secondary sources by the liberal media and pundits who have their own opinions, or biased sources like those who put together the Fear Inc. report. Changes to an article can happen while one is in the middle of making a comment about it on the Talk page.  The point I was making is that when Serialjoepsycho first commented on it (page up), there were no references to an Islamophobia network in the article until you added the paragraph showing IPT listed as one of ten foundations alleged to be part of "the Islamophobia network in America".  The time/date stamp on the Serialjoepsycho comment and the time/date stamp when you added the Islamophobia network paragraph were close together which is what I was referencing, and why I included the diff link.  This is turning into petty bickering.  Bygones. Move along.  I need to get back to work, and try to improve the article.  Your input is appreciated as long as it's NPOV.  Atsme (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you. You're a liar.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The IPT talk page is not the place to post album titles unless it has some relevance to IPT. Thought you knew that.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are writing for wikipedia and not AP. WP:BIASED Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am quite aware of where and what I'm writing for WP, and I also understand the NPOV policy. And your point is….?? Atsme   &#9775;  talk  12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "I was referring to primary sources like an AP wire, or legal docs, Congressional records, academic research, and the like - sources that corroborate the story, not just secondary sources by the liberal media and pundits who have their own opinions, or biased sources like those who put together the Fear Inc. report." reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes or no
A simple Yes or No will do. Please give a brief explanation why.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes per Atsme and their point about AP Stylebook. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No "Islamophobia" is a word in the English language. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it clearly: Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims.  It is first attested to in English in 1923 (so it's not a neologism).  Thus the word can be used without violating NPOV as long as its use conforms to the definition and is supported by reliable sources.  We have reliable secondary sources that call ITP "Islamophobic."  Therefore it is not a violation of NPOV to use the descriptor in this article, especially, as is now the case, we use attribution rather than applying the term in the voice of Wikipedia.  If it is not a violation of NPOV to describe IPT as Islamophobic, then a fortiori it is not a violation of NPOV to include the navbox, since navboxes don't make claims, but merely aid the reader in navigation.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes The template heading is judgmental, and violates WP:NDESC and WP:POV regardless of where it is used.  It should be deleted all together.  The question is not if the word is in the dictionary.  Islamophobia is a neologism that has not been accepted into mainstream language because it is as racist and discriminatory as what the label itself attempts to define. The word Islamophobia was recently nixed from the AP Stylebook, a writing style guide that's widely used by journalists and other writing professionals.  The reason given was "-phobia, "an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness" should not be used "in political or social contexts."  Editors have been adding Islamophobia labels on organizations they unilaterally determine to be critics of Islam, (blatantly Judgmental), regardless of the organization's mission statement, or stated goals.  It is acceptable for editors to cite a reliable source that claims the organization is Islamophobic, (according to [source], the organization is Islamophobic), but what about the reliable sources that claim an opposite view?  If the editor chooses Islamophobia, it becomes a judgment call, therefore POV.  Also, the template includes links to secondary articles that are not related to the primary article.  It is WP:PROPAGANDA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 02:47, 9 March 2014‎ Atsme (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No - I think it is very clear from the organizations website it is focusing on one specific form of terrorism. Namely Islamic terrorism. If it was also targeting eco-terrorism or white supremacist groups I would be more inclined to say it isn't Islamophobic but it is clearly targeting Islam.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Because Islamophobia is a strong claim, I would like to see additional sourcing. However, based on the sourcing that is there, the organisation has Islamophobia as a primary characteristic, and I don't see anything put forward in the above discussion in terms of sourcing for an alternative view. Without that, there is no evidence of an NPOV issue. Formerip (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - clear case of poisoning the well. No indication that the essence of the organization would be 'islamophobia' or that it would even be a widely accepted view to label it as such. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No We have reliable sources as alf laylah wa laylah points out, so not a judgement call. The AP stylebook is simply wrong and we shouldn't be following it. If we do, we also need to get rid of any mention of "ethnic cleansing", another term it says it won't use, and our article Homophobia, a term it also specifically says it won't use. Francophobia is another common example of the use of 'phobia'. Shall we make sure our articles don't use that word either? I also see no NPOV issue here - unless perhaps if it's removed. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Reliable sources say so. Also, using the AP stylebook as a standard is utterly bogus -- not as obviously bogus as User:Atsme's first run using an etymological fallacy, but still bogus -- since The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual is, explicitly, a newspaper stylebook: "More people write for the Associated Press than for any single newspaper in the world, and the AP's style defines clear newspaper writing", to quote the back cover of my copy. Should Wikipedia also follow their advice on writing keyword slug lines? --Calton | Talk 14:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, came here via RfC, so no preexisting position. Also saw a lot of discussion following this RfC on the article--which bodes poorly for me helping to find a consensus. The answer to the question, as asked, is that No I do not think this violates the NPOV policy. As an aside, the AP style guide (which seems to be the primary argument for deleting the template from this page) cannot help us answer the question as phrased on this page at all. (If, big if, the AP decided they were no longer going to refer to IPT as Islamophobic, that could be useful to consider--but that hasn't happened, so it isn't relevant). . AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Invited via Legobot's RfC invite on my talk page, no previous connection to this subject at all. The article had adequate sourcing to back up the claims made, but I'll echo FormerIP's preference for a few more reliable sources. A navbox only serves to aid the reader, nothing more - it doesn't define the content. GRUcrule (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Should be obvious. WeldNeck (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No – I'll back up AbstractIllusions and GRUcrule, as I share pretty much the same opinions. United States Man (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No. CAIR's 2013 report called "Legislating Fear" lists the IPT as being a core member of the Islamophobia network. CAIR found the IPT to be Islamophobic in 2011, according to The Christian Century. Likewise, the Southern Poverty Law Center says that "Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism" is one of "five key misinformation experts identified by the report" by Center for American Progress called "Fear Inc." The Council for the National Interest says IPT is one of five key Islamophobia organizations in the USA, quoting the "Fear Inc" piece. The connection between IPT and Islamophobia is well established. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

If yes should this article also be delisted from the template
If using the template here violates NPOV then having it linked there would seem to violate NPOV. Should this article be delisted from that template. Please give a simple Yes or No and a brief explanantion of why.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes and then delete the template. It's a magnet for editors with an axe to grind. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No There are reliable secondary sources which discuss this organization in the context of Islamophobia. IPT is therefore related to the subject of Islamophobia.  It's therefore plausible that readers will want to navigate between this article and others which are related to the subject or vice-versa.  Thus it is appropriate for this organization to be listed in the template.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes There are reliable secondary sources which commend this organization as beneficial in combating terrorism that are not included as secondary sources. The linked articles in the template are not related to the primary article, such as the Srebrenica massacre which was ruled as genocide, and totally unrelated to the subject organization in the primary article.  To include it in a series on Islamophobia violates WP:NDESC and WP:POV. Atsme (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No The organisation is clearly related to any discussion of Islamophobia. It's a useful navigation template and removing this article would diminish its usefulness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:21, 10 March 2014


 * Yes - the article should be delisted. No indication that the organization combatting terrorism is really biogted against Muslims. No poisoning the well please. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No - The organisation is clearly related to any discussion of Islamophobia. However I do question if an Adjustment should be made so that it doesn't specifically seem that they are an Islamophobic group.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the template is a POV violation here, and it's hard to see how anyone who actually understands Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy can argue otherwise. NPOV says Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; the template effectively labels the organization as Islamophobic (and no amount of "it doesn't really exactly say or mean that" will give the average reader a different impression). Such emotional labelling (putting a psychological-disease frame on a political view) is quite obviously the opposite of neutral. I vaguely see how those running the template may not have intended this effect, by the way, but the effect is there nonetheless, and it's hard to see how it can be avoided without removing the article from the template. (By the by, such topic navigation templates are increasingly overused, and one side-effect is this sort of problem, which is in some ways worse than with categories, which are at least placed at the bottom of the page, not at or near the top.) Podiaebba (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No...mostly. I can see both sides of the argument. I tend to fall on the side of "What do the sources in the article say?" - and right now, they say the IPT is related to the topic. If that changes, then my opinion would change as well. But I'll readily admit I haven't read all of the sources' content, so I can't tell you how strong a consensus the sources have towards painting a picture of IPT having Islamiphobic ties. GRUcrule (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. For lots of reasons. WeldNeck (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No There are multiple reliable sources that have labeled IPT as Islamaphobic in nature. Are we now going to disregard reliable sources?Wzrd1 (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Please discuss this here. The template can be seen here: Template:Islamophobia.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To compare I looked at Template:Antisemitism and how as well as where it was used. This doesn't seem dissimilar with that. I also currently don't see a reason this violates wp:npov.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at Template:Antisemitism and how as well as where it was used. This doesn't seem dissimilar with that. - well then you're not really looking very closely. The things labelled antisemitic there are labelled explicitly, and that's OK because those things are widely accepted as being antisemitic (and not just labelled such by political opponents). It's actually a good contrast with this template. Podiaebba (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The AP Stylebook is not wikipedia Policy. It offers no basis on whether or not an article is NPOV. If you wouldn't mind could you weigh in more on why this violates the wp:npov policy or other relevent Wikipedia policies?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously I am aware that the AP Stylebook is not wp policy. Did my comment seem to indicate that it was? Associated Press's argument about not using the "-phobia" labels makes sense to me.  No one has a fear of gay people or Muslims.  People don't like gay people or Muslims.  "Phobia" is not the opposite of "philia". Furthermore, WP:NPOV doesn't actually define neutral point of view, it simply says articles should be written from a neutral point of view.  NPOV is whatever the consensus agrees is neutral.  I (as part of the aggregate) says it's not neutral because it ascribes a label (islamaphobic) which I think is pejorative.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, according to the article linked to by Atsme regarding the AP stylebook issue, the quoted AP deputy stylebook editor is dead wrong when he says "...a phobia is a psychiatric or medical term for a severe mental disorder. Those terms have been used quite a bit in the past, and we don't feel that's quite accurate,...It's ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don't have" The Oxford English Dictionary defines the suffix in its combined form thus: "-phobia, comb. form Forming nouns with the sense ‘fear of ——’, ‘aversion to ——’." There's nothing at all about mental illness, and the 300 years of attested usage given there make this perfectly clear, from "penphobia" in 1803, to "cyclophobia" as an aversion to bicycles at the height of their 19th faddishness to "Big C-phobia" about cancer in 1997. Like so many others, some random guy from AP has fallen prey to the etymologic fallacy as well as the fallacy of thinking that two distinct words mean the same thing just because they're spelled the same way.  The guy from the AP is not a linguist, and is in no sense a RS for the meanings of words.  The OED is a reliable source.  AP's decision, especially given the shoddy reasoning on which it seems to be based, should have no weight in our discussion.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well first let me say the second question is contingent on the first question I think. To move on... While your argument is persuasive in If yes should this article also be delisted from the template I think it begs the question if it should be left in the template as is. As is it makes it seem as if this organization is Islamophobic. Perhaps that should in someway be changed.


 * Perhaps it should be changed regardless. Again as written it makes it seem as if this organization is Islamophobic. Is there anyway to change it? This is not a confirmed Islamophobic organization. From what I can tell in the article it is only alleged.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the second question is contingent, despite the fact that you've framed the RfC that way. There are many examples of templates on pages that are not themselves linked to in the template.  As for the rest of what you've said, especially your distinction between "confirmed" and "alleged," I have no idea what you mean.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Contingent as in if the consensus holds no to the first question then there is no obvious reason to remove this link from the template. Confirmed as in Hitler was a confirmed antisemtitc. Alleged as in OJ Simpson allegedly killed his wife. As the template is set up it seems alot like it is being said that IPT is an Islamophobic group. The information in the article doesn't exactly make the case that they are. It only makes the case that they may be. That is the way seems. Should the template represent that?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:NDESC is about article titles. It's not relevant to this discussion.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Consider for a moment applying WP:NDESC. His argument ignores part of WP:NDESC which makes clear WP:POVNAME supercedes it. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not enough to just say something violates a wikipedia policy. There are no mind readers here. If you think it violates a policy clearly state why you think that. It's not helpful if your viewpoint can't be verified.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand, but I couldn't find any guidelines on template titles. WP:POVNAME redirects to WP:ArticleTitles.  I surmised that since the actual Template has a title, and is its own little article with links to sub-articles, I made a judgment call and went with WP:NDESC.  It certainly seemed to fit.  If it doesn't, then I just further validated my point about using the Islamophobia title - re: judgment call.  If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Atsme (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are going to go with WP:NDESC fine. But that wouldn't be applicable because WP:POVNAME supercedes it. This is an acceptable title under WP:POVNAME. This is the most common name for this type of descrimination. There is no way to avoid the name. There are no commonly used alternatives.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I move that we close this in roughly 15 days in the event that no other closure is made before then.


 * Should we close this RFC on 3/24/2014 in the event that it isn't closed for any other reason? Support or OpposeSerialjoepsycho (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

SupportSerialjoepsycho (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no objection with the understanding that this issue shall be resolved once and for all by final determination of the WP:Mediation Committee. The results of this event shall serve to establish arguments for review by the Committee, including my argument that the Islamophobia template is contentious, and either violates, or does not meet the criteria established in the following policies: WP:LABEL, WP:WEASEL, WP:POVNAMING, WP:PROPAGANDA, WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:RNPOV.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  20:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose deciding this now. Unless a quite obvious consensus develops, which I doubt will happen, I think it will be best to let it run the standard 30 days and then let an uninvolved administrator close it as is usually done.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to redact that request. However in the event that this becomes inactive in such time I'd like to revisit it. And Atsme you can move it to mediation when ever you wish. Here are the Prerequisites for mediation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

To be clear: the primary problem is that the template strongly creates the impression that Wikipedia endorses the view that the organization in question is Islamophobic. This is certainly a violation of NPOV. However, even hypothetically editing the template in some way to make it clear that this is not Wikipedia's position could be problematic, as it may still be giving undue prominence to the view that the organization is Islamophobic - there is not, after all, another navigation template promoting the opposite view (and nor would we want one). Podiaebba (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you think that the template itself violates NPOV, you should know that there were three attempts to delete it. one specifically on the basis it was NPOV, all of which obviously failed. It's a navigation template, linking related subjects. Are you actually denying that this is a related organisation? That no one interested in Islamophobia might be interested in this article? Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The question proposed is if it is NPOV being on that template. Where this article and that template connect. If the over all template is NPOV would be a question for somewhere else. It is not necessary to just to look at removal if there is anyway we can bring it in to compliance with NPOV. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Um, no, the existence of an "Islamophobia" template doesn't violate NPOV in itself. The problem is that templates cannot ignore NPOV, and that includes not ignoring how the implied placement of articles linked by the template may violate NPOV for those articles. In this case, it is very, very hard for an Islamophobia template to avoid violating NPOV on articles which aren't really obviously about Islamophobia, but instead alleged examples of Islamophobia, but not very widely accepted examples. Someone compared it to "anti-semitism", where there are a couple of examples, but those are AFAIR either self-confessed or very very widely accepted examples, and not, eg, anyone ever accused of it. As to your question: yes, I absolutely deny that it is an organisation "related" to Islamohobia as it isn't one that (AFAIK) discusses or campaigns or does anything on the topic of Islamophobia. It is alleged by some to be an example of it, and that is a totally different thing. " no one interested in Islamophobia might be interested in this article?" - do you hear yourself? what sort of standard is that for including things in navigation templates? And is "what [I think] someone might be interested in" supposed to trump WP:NPOV? Podiaebba (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What some editors seem to have a problem comprehending is the fact that the label is a judgment call. The argument presented by Podiaebba proves so. The template alone sends the message that the site is Islamophobic by the mere presence of the label.  Doing doing so is not only contentious labeling, it is against WP policy.  #1 - Editors are the ones making such a determination by being judgmental of the site based on "according to" statements, and #2 - it is already quite clear that an organization whose mission is to fight terrorism is not Isamophobic, yet the template implies it is.
 * It is the responsibility of those alleging "Islamophobia" to provide proof. Providing evidence of potential terrorist activity is not what makes an organization Islamophobic.  Atsme   &#9775;  talk  01:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you share those reasons?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Islamophobia Template Threaded Discussion, cont.

 * Another thought while the RfC is still in effect - can someone tell me how an Islamophobia template is any different from a racist, or hater template? It's loaded language, and should be avoided when impartiality is one the goals.  The Islamophobia template certainly falls under "Value-laden labels" so shouldn't those guidelines apply in this case?  Under the loaded language guidelines it states: Emotive arguments and loaded language are particularly persuasive because they exploit the human weakness for acting immediately based upon an emotional response, without such further considered judgment. Due to such potential for emotional complication, it is generally advised to avoid loaded language in argument or speech when fairness and impartiality is one of the goals. Anthony Weston, for example, admonishes students and writers: "In general, avoid language whose only function is to sway the emotions".   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No it wouldn't violate the loaded terms policy. While it maybe used as a loaded term it in and itself is not a load term. This is the most common term for this type of discrimination. There is no other widely used alternative. This also comes directly from the title of the main article. WP:POVNAME applies. When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Btw, Template:Antisemitism Template:Racism topics I could probably keep looking and find more.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, not that anyone's asking but here's where I stand on the issue. If the organization has Ever invesitagated a terrorist organization that isn't based on Islam (say a radical Christian organization or ecoterrorism) it can't be labeled as Islamophobic (at least not without good sources). However I can't think of one organization it has actually shown except for Islamic organizations. That makes it Islamophobic. If I went through and only criticized gangs of color while ignoring my white neighbours crimes I'd be a racist. If I only acknowledged and cherry picked certain examples to show that Jews are supposedly in control of America I'd be antisemitic. This organization ONLY attacks Islamic groups despite its name. Therefore it is ignoring the other terrorism around it and when you hold a group to double standards like that it becomes a problem.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the template isn't meant to sy this organization is Islamophobic. The article doesn't say this group is Islamophobic. You can personally call them Islamophobic but not on the article page. You are are basically offering orginal research.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm actually asking for editors to find one source (not a lot to ask) that's states very clearly that the Investigative Project on Terrorism has ever focused on a non-Muslim terrorist group. It would certainly go along way in challenging the Islamophobic label. You say its about labeling terrorism not Islamic terrorism than all I ask for is one source. I can't argue if you show they have investigated an eco-terrorist group, or maybe an extreme Christian group like the Creativity movement or virtually any group that causes terrorism that isn't based on Islam. That would once and for all prove that Islamophobia isn't the cause because Islam isn't the problem. The group wouldn't be attacking Muslims. It would be attacking terrorists (whomever they may be). Find a source for a non-Muslim group attacked by this group.-08:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No clue why you feel the need to put words in my mouth. To my knowledge they only investigate Muslim Terrorism. However that doesn't make them Islamophobic. It may make you feel that they are and you have the right to your feelings. If you would like your feelings to be posted then go thru the process of becoming a reliable source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , you make a good point. However, if I may please reiterate because I feel this is extremely important (emphasis my own) - WP guidelines "Value-laden labels" state:  Emotive arguments and loaded language are particularly persuasive because they exploit the human weakness for acting immediately based upon an emotional response, without such further considered judgment. Due to such potential for emotional complication, it is generally advised to avoid loaded language in argument or speech when fairness and impartiality is one of the goals. Anthony Weston, for example, admonishes students and writers: "In general, avoid language whose only function is to sway the emotions".  The Islamophobia template does just that through the use of "Islam" and "phobia".  Together, the words sway emotions, and indirectly promote a cause which in this case inadvertently happens to be Islamism.  Organizations that investigate and collect data for the purpose of exposing Islamist extremism are not phobic, should not be labeled phobic, and should not be connected to contentious labeling in a phobia series.  The Islamophobia template links to articles about genocide, and Qu'ran burnings which are unrelated.  In fact, it may even be considered WP:Synthesis.  It is neither the purpose of WP nor the job of editors to link unrelated articles they "assume" may be of interest to readers, especially when such linking is done through value-laden labeling.
 * Newsweek published a very informative article distinguishing the difference between Islamic and Islamist. It is titled Islamic or Islamist?   Pluralist and secular Muslims are certainly able to discern the difference as evidenced in multiple reliable sources.  In fact there is an excellent article about Islamism in WP.  With no intention of offending anyone, it appears to me that the Islamophobia template may have originated from ignorance about the differences between Islam, and Islamism/Islamist extremism.  WP is spreading that ignorance by the continued use of the Islamophobia template.  It is of the utmost importance for WP editors to understand the differences.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  12:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

, what said. It doesn't matter if IPT is Islamophobic or not. It only matters if a reader looking into Islamophobia might reasonably want to read this article. It's extremely important to remember that Wikipedia doesn't have a position on whether IPT is X-ophobic. , as usual you're confused about the policies you quote. In particular, WP:synthesis can't possibly apply to navigation templates. That's an unsupportable position. And it actually is a purpose of Wikipedia and the job of editors to link articles they learn from reliable sources may be interesting to readers studying a certain area. That's precisely a purpose. This thread is so derailed, it's really astounding.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , ok, I hear you, but if you believe I'm confused, help me clear up the confusion. You just stated And it actually is a purpose of Wikipedia and the job of editors to link articles they learn from reliable sources may be interesting to readers studying a certain area. That's precisely a purpose.  In addition to the template title which is clearly contentious, the process of linking articles creates a WP:NOR issue as demonstrated in the Islamophobia template.  Editors actually did their own research in order to link articles in the template which satisfied their POV, or what they (in their opinion) would satisfy a reader.  It matters not if they choose reliable sources because it still goes against the guidelines for WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  All one has to do is review the links in the template under the heading Specific Incidents, and you will see they are absolutely not unweighted, or neutral as I've pointed out numerous times.  Further, WP:CCPOL states: Soon it became evident that editors who rejected a majority view would often marshal sources to argue that a minority view was superior to a majority view—or would even add sources in order to promote the editor's own view. Therefore, the NOR policy was established in 2003 to address problematic uses of sources. The original motivation for NOR was to prevent editors from introducing fringe views in science, especially physics—or from excluding verifiable views that, in the judgement of editors, were incorrect. It soon became clear that the policy should apply to any editor trying to introduce his or her own views into an article (and thus a way to distinguish Wikipedia from Everything 2).
 * In its earliest form, the policy singled out edits for exclusion that:
 * Introduce a theory or method of solution;
 * Introduce original ideas;
 * Define existing terms in different ways; or introduce neologisms;
 * and established as criteria for inclusion edits that present:
 * Ideas that have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal; or
 * Ideas that have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).
 * I rest my case. I would very much appreciate a logical explanation as to why the above conclusion is incorrect.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  14:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Because it's a navbox, not an article. All the policies and guidelines you're quoting refer to articles.  Also, I wish you'd drop the neologism thing.  That's a losing argument.  Islamophobia is only a neologism in a technical linguistic sense, not in a Wikipedia sense.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But Alf, it is more than a navbox because it clearly states in the header: "Part of a series on Islamophobia".  which makes the navbox as much a part of the IPT article as would a quote box. It is far from being a stand alone neutral navbox providing Wiki readers a list of articles that, as you put it, "may be interesting to readers studying a certain area."  As such it does not follow any of the guidelines I've stated previously, and that includes WP:Synthesis as well.   Please, just think about it.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  16:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would love to see a detailed explanation of how WP:SYNTH has anything whatsoever to do with this navbox.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just look at the navbox. The title states: Part of a series on Islamophobia.  Q #1: What is part of a series?  A: The article is part of the series, therefore the navbox is part of the article, and not a separate navbox.  Q#2: What does genocide, and the burning of the Qu'ran have to do with IPT?  A: Nothing. The articles are unrelated.  So why are they included in the navbox?   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  03:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would love to see a detailed explanation of how WP:SYNTH has anything whatsoever to do with this navbox.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's easy. WP:SYNTHESIS - Synthesis (the combination of ideas) of published material that advances a position.  Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.  The IPT article states one thing - (IPT is a data center/research group), and the navbox states IPT is "Part of a Series on Islamophobia".  The links under Specific Incidents on the template (multiple sources) combined with the IPT article implies a conclusion about IPT that is not explicitly stated in its own article - and that conclusion is Islamophobia.  I just can't figure out how you can deny the fact that the links under Specific Incidents on that template are in no way related to IPT, and that combining the two implies a relationship.  What other reason do you have for your insistence on keeping the Islamophobia template?  Atsme   &#9775;  talk  05:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not synthesis. Synthesis is like when source A says X is Y and source B says Y is Z and then someone writes in an article that X is Z. Here we have actual single reliable sources that relate IPT to Islamophobia, so there's no synthesis involved.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree this is not systh at all. CAP actually isn't the only group that considers IPT Islamophobic. CAIR is another. There are others as well. IPT is linked to Islamophobia. The template only highlights that link. The article explains the link.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

impact
It's clear the template should stay. It's clear that more material on IPT with relation to Islamophobia should be added.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Pete Hoekstra
Obviously there's no problem talking about Pete Hoekstra to some extent in here, but this diff is outrageous. The edit summary claims to be adding material about Hoekstra. What really happened is that a lot of material was removed that was sourced. This was done without discussion. Furthermore, the added material about Hoekstra is only tangentially related to IPT, duplicates material in his article, and was in a different place from where Hoekstra was already mentioned. What's the point? Obviously more info about Hoekstra is OK, but this kind of weird, incompetent subterfuge is not. If the removed, sourced material is objectionable, bring it here, to the talk page.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but you just screwed up my edits when you did the revert, and disrupted my chain of thought. Now there's a rogue paragraph about Hoekstra at the bottom of the page that I had deleted, and information is suddenly missing.  Worse yet the info I had copied to my cache to paste back into the article was accidentally overwritten because of this distraction.  I've never done that to you, or any other editor, so why are you harassing me?   I certainly wasn't aware that I needed your permission to edit, so if you will please provide a link to that WP policy, I'll be happy to abide by it.  I don't remember you discussing any of your proposed edits with anyone else before you made them, including Podiaebba who actually gave life to this article, and is the likely steward.  I was in the process of editing and arranging the sections so the article would be presented in a neutral fashion, not POV like what you're doing.  My next edit was going to present a report by M. Zuhdi Jasser in Accuracy In Media that counters all the Fear Inc. information you've included, so if you will please just let me do my work, and stop harassing me.  Atsme (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point this is getting rediculous. You are not being harrassed. While making that edit you deleted:

According to a report issued in 2011 by the Center for American Progress (CAP), the IPT was one of ten foundations constituting what it called "the Islamophobia network in America." CAP's conclusions were based on an investigation into organizations funded by a number of umbrella foundations, which gave about $7 million per year to various anti-Islamic groups, including the IPT, between 2001 and 2009.


 * I'm sure you did that by accident. Are you aware of your Sandbox area to experiment in? Consider using it so you don't accidently make anymore disruptive edits. You wouldn't want anyone to mistake you for a Tendentious editor.


 * Here is what was reverted:

In January 2014, Former Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Holland, Michigan became a Shillman Senior Fellow for IPT. Hoekstra will specialize in national security, international relations, global terrorism and cyber security. Hoekstra served in the U.S. Congress for 18 years (1993-2011), and was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 2008 until he retired from office in 2011. He managed congressional oversight on modernization to confront the threats of the 21st century global war on terror, including restructuring the intelligence community with landmark legislation following the 9-11 Commission report.


 * However I have to ask how this is relevent:

Hoekstra served in the U.S. Congress for 18 years (1993-2011), and was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 2008 until he retired from office in 2011. He managed congressional oversight on modernization to confront the threats of the 21st century global war on terror, including restructuring the intelligence community with landmark legislation following the 9-11 Commission report. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I have not used the Sandbox. Does it utilze a copy-paste procedure?  To answer your question about relevance of Hoekstra's background - WP:Structure, WP:Weight, WP:Balance.  It's obvious the man's background as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and the resulting landmark legislation that restructured the intelligence community following the 9-11 Commission report brings quite a bit of weight to an organization whose mission is to fight terrorism.  Mention of the man's credentials has as much relevance as mention of the CAP report, and their alleged claims of Islamophobia.  I will be adding another paragraph regarding the inaccuracies and bias of the CAP report (FEAR, INC.) in accordance with WP guidelines.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  12:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Sandbox is a text editing area exactly like this one. You can go there and completely finish your thought process, save, and post it there. When you are done you can post it here. However be very careful not to accidently delete stuff even if you choose to use the sandbox..
 * The CAP report represents a significant minority viewpoint. That's if it in a minority opinion. It may be a majority opinion. I'm not sure but it does represent a significant minority viewpoint.
 * It's not enough to post wikipedia policy. You do have to explain why the policy is relevent. It would help if you would also hot link the policy you reference. For example WP:Balance.
 * You should limit what ever you do in that regard to criticisms of the CAP report. The criticisms also need to be relevent to this article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You are correct in that the deletion was done inadvertently on my part. I had the revision saved in cache which included the deleted article and another article I found that would bring neutrality, but then it dawned on me the CAP article was in violation of WP:Neutrality.  While I was still in the process of finding policy references, and still proofing a reliable source I found for the opposing view, the revision I saved was reverted within 45 minutes with no discussion on the Talk page.  See time/date stamps.  One of my prior edits was actually reverted within 6 minutes which is a clear indication that my edits are being hawked and reverted - WP:Harassment.
 * I will agree to providing hot links and explanations as soon as the other editors agree to do the same beginning with a valid explanation for why the CAP report should be included in light of the explanations I've provided below. The only validation for the discriminatory Islamophobia label is CAP's self-published FEAR, INC report which is biased, and self-promoting.  As you stated, it is a "viewpoint" which falls under WP:POV criteria.  As such, it should either be avoided, or at least adhere to the following criteria: WP:Neutrality: Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. The established criteria of neutrality has not been met.  WP:Balance: Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.
 * Further, naming IPT as one of ten foundations in an Islamophobia network is nothing more than an allegation in CAP's self-published report entitled Fear Inc. I've already explained and hot-linked the reasons the report is inaccurate and misleading, including the fact it is written by biased writers with links to organizations that have conflicting interests, and who are trying to promote their own agenda.  That is hardly what I'd call a reliable enough source to condemn an organization with an Islamophobia label, much less include the report in this article.
 * The CAP report falls under both WP:EXCEPTION: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, and Red flag: challenged claims supported purely by primary or self-published sources. That criteria has clearly not been met.  If we cannot reach a general consensus with a clear majority from a substantial number of editors approving the use of the subject discriminatory template, arbitration will be next.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  19:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the harrassment. However you can always take it to wp:ani.

WP:EXCEPTION is an essay not policy or a guideline. The CAP report was written by CAP. CAP's is a significant minority viewpoint. CAP's report isn't the source used. The source used is neither a primary source or a self published source.

IPT was not named as as one of ten foundations in an Islamophobia network. "According to a report issued in 2011 by the Center for American Progress (CAP), the IPT was one of ten foundations constituting what it called "the Islamophobia network in America." That clearly atributes that view to CAP and not as fact. That is written from a NPOV. This article is unbalanced. Balance it by adding to it.

There is no need to wait to go to arbitration. How to end an RFC. wp:dispute take this to another form of dispute resolution and tell me and I will close this. Before you jump to arbitration you will want to try other means of dispute resolution.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Unhijacked Pete Hoekstra section
Since the previous section on Hoekstra isn't about content anymore, I'm starting a new one. Let me point out that this material that Atsme wants to add: In January 2014, Former Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Holland, Michigan became a Shillman Senior Fellow for IPT. Hoekstra will specialize in national security, international relations, global terrorism and cyber security. Hoekstra served in the U.S. Congress for 18 years (1993-2011), and was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 2008 until he retired from office in 2011. He managed congressional oversight on modernization to confront the threats of the 21st century global war on terror, including restructuring the intelligence community with landmark legislation following the 9-11 Commission report. sourced to here, which is essentially a superficial rewrite of this source, which is now cited in the article and directly attributed to an IPT news release sent out on PR Wire, not, in fact, published by NBC as the citation now says. I'm not claiming that we should therefore doubt it, but just that we should be cautious about giving Hoekstra undue weight, given that both sources proposed for the material are self-sources.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What is a Shillman Senoir Fellow?


 * My question is more relevnce. This is about IPT. Why the mini bio on him when it links to a full bio? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The NBC26 isn't reliable. That much is clear by the content warnin g at the top of the page. That however isn't to make any statement about the Holland Sentinel.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Holland Sentinel article is a close paraphrase of the actual press release reproduced verbatim by the NBC26 source.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If this is simply a matter of needing a reliable resource that will end your arguments, here they are: [Washington Post], and [rpt/hrpt109-101.html HPSCI Report].  Of course, they will be properly sourced in the article.  Pick which one you like best.  Either one will further validate the legitimacy of IPT, and its staff, and also serves to denounces the contentious claim of Islamophobia.  Be advised, the CAP paragraph will be removed until such time as the article can reflect neutrality and balance. Its removal is justified according to policies WP:Balance, WP:Neutrality, WP:EXCEPTION, and WP:Red flag.     Atsme   &#9775;  talk  21:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For what statements are these sources purportedly reliable sourcing? You notice, perhaps, that, although hosted by the Washington Post, the first is a transcript of some presidential remarks and thus primary.  It also doesn't mention IPT at all.  The second is from the Congressional Record, and thus primary.  It also doesn't mention IPT at all.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Those from Holland Sentinel would fall under: WP:NEWSORG. Based Your opinion I would put the original source at worldnow.com. How do you think that policy though effects this source? I would consider the worldnow source at least a primary source though.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Both of you have been editors far longer than I have, and you still don't understand WP:SOURCE? I am within the guidelines.  If this harassment continues, I will request Arbitration.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  23:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What harrassment? I would ask that this point that you cease making baseless accusations and take anything further to WP:ANI. WP:NEWSORG is a part of WP:RS.Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Each single story must only count as being one source. Meaning his NBC source is the same as the original worldnow source. Also if he is correct (I haven't checked) then your Holland Sentinel is the same source. Same policy: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The question I don't think is if the information is bad just the source. I welcome you to take it to arbitration. Don't wait. Do it now. Take it where ever you wish. I'll close the RFC I opened solely for your benifit.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer not to go through arbitration. It's all too complicated.  I'd rather spend that time learning how to make quote boxes, and make the page pretty and balanced.  I've learned a great deal from both of you with regards to the technical aspects, and I don't want us to be constantly disputing.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  08:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert the edit. If you feel something needs to be improved, then we can discuss it here.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  07:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Content disputes are a part of wikipedia. Your perspective, my perspective, your evidence, my evidence, then meritous inclusion. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Except that isn't the case here. The only discussions taking place on this Talk page come after my edits are reverted, or changed.  There has not been any discussion prior to the reverts, deletes, changes, or adds by you or Alf.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  23:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There's an RFC up top opened specially for you. Further I've only reverted one edit and it wasn't yours.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not only that, Atsme the oppressed, it's actually how it's supposed to go. You put in stuff, someone takes it out and opens a talk page section, and then we talk about it.  You quote WP:ALPHABETSOUP every chance you get like magic charms, but you don't get WP:BRD at all.  Talk about content on the talk page, not about how everyone's out to get you.  As someone very wise just said somewhere today, if everyone else seems to disagree with you, it might be that you're just wrong.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did put the RFC up for me, and I thank you very much. Sometimes it just feels like we're not making any progress.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  02:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Atsme the oppressed"?? *lol* It's more like "Atsme the misunderstood".  I can certainly understand situations where I may have cited incorrectly, or didn't format something correctly which is where you guys really shine, and I'll be the first to admit that I can't maneuver every nook and cranny of WP like y'all can, but I actually did do quite a bit of research to find the type of information we could use to improve this stub of an article.  I thought you'd approve of what I had accomplished, and would be glad this whole back and forth stuff was finally going to be over.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  03:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well you can always take it to mediation. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

boxes
I would like to add some quote boxes here and there to balance the page a little better, and also add a little color. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Oh, and Serialjoepsycho, I did a copy paste back and forth from the page to the Sandbox. Hope I didn't lose anything in the process. Atsme  &#9775;  talk  08:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hoekstra's testimony
I removed this entire section:

Joint Subcommittee Hearing on "Iran's Support for Terrorism Worldwide"
On 4 March 2014, Pete Hoekstra testified at the Joint Subcommittee hearing titled "Iran's Support for Terrorism Worldwide" which was sponsored by the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. A portion of his testimony focused on the "increasing sophistication of Iran's cyber program, and capability to conduct cyber warfare." According to news columnist, Abha Shankar, the hearing "highlighted Iran's role as the world's foremost sponsor of terror and emphasized that negotiations to roll back the Islamic Republic's nuclear program should not ignore its support for global terror through its elite Quds Force and proxy Hezbollah." Because there's no indication that any of this material is relevant to IPT. The content of Hoekstra's testimony is sourced to primary sources, which would be fine and dandy if there were any discussion of the testimony in reliable sources. The fact that breitbart.com reported on the hearing does not give it any kind of weight at all and lends no credibility that it ought to be discussed in this article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I included it because (1) Hoekstra was there as IPT's representative to give testimony at that very important hearing; and (2) It definitely belongs in the article because that's what IPT does - they are counterterrorism experts.  They track the movements of known terrorists, terrorist organizations, etc. and provide that information to the U.S. Foreign Affairs Committee which in turn coordinates the information and shares with the Dept. of Homeland Security, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, etc.  How else do you think this country has been able to counter planned attacks?   That's how the system works - input from organizations like IPT.  Read the report so you'll know exactly what this organization does, and then you'll realize the Islamophobia template absolutely does not belong here.
 * Also, the BS about their income, and how they handle the funds is totally irrelevant, and a ridiculous attempt to hang an Islamophobia label for the reasons cited in the paragraph you removed. I think the CAP report belongs in there, and so do the opposing views and why.  The claims made in that report were important enough to be included, and so are the responses of the accused, and other critics.
 * Everything IPT has been doing is legal, and extremely important to protecting against terrorism. If they were doing anything illegal, especially with the income, the IRS would have been all over them.  This is exactly why I was saying that 99% of the critics of counterterrorism are either connected, or sympathetic to the cause of terrorist organizations.  Also, there was a defamation lawsuit filed by Steven, but I have not included it here because the case is still pending in District Court.
 * Please add those paragraphs back to the article. Atsme   &#9775;  talk  17:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If his appearance as an IPT rep was important, why aren't there reliable sources which discuss it? If there are reliable sources which say Hoekstra, on behalf of the IPT, testified in front of congress, then by all means, lets have it.  If there's only the congressional record and breitbart, then I'd have to say that means that the fact that Hoekstra testified is completely irrelevant to anything about IPT.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One reason is probably because it didn't rate as high on the media's priority list as would a scandal, or what the Kardashians are doing this week. Another reason is that it is not customary for every Joint Subcommittee hearing to make the news.  C-Span usually covers both Senate and House hearings including special committee/subcommittee hearings when permissible.  There are occasions when intelligence related hearings are not made public.  There is also a very disturbing trend in U.S. mainstream media to downplay references to Islam and terrorism.  It really doesn't matter anyway because I referenced the actual testimony which is available in .pdf format, and considered acceptable WP:SOURCE.  It is testimony presented under oath to a committee of lawmakers (the Legislative Body of government) which requires a [Truth In Testimony Disclosure Form].  If you prefer, we could use the [Holland Sentinel] <---on the list of ] Reliable Sources: The National Press Club].  Also, both Breitbart and HS reports can be corroborated with video of the actual hearing, which can be seen here.  If you visit that link, there is a list of the three witnesses who provided testimony at the hearing.  I also included as a link to that video at the bottom of the article.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  20:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No one is questioning the fact of his appearance. I am questioning whether anyone should care.  One way we judge whether anyone should care is through coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources.  The Holland Sentinel certainly is one.  The rest of them are not.  The house.gov doc because it's primary and brietbart.com because it's not reliable.  So we have one discussion of this appearance that only mentions but does not discuss IPT.  I don't see how it rates more than a passing mention in this article based on the astounding lack of coverage and the absolutely minimal relationship of minimal coverage to IPT itself.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to argue that the testimony is of any great significance to this article if there's no meaningful independent coverage mentioning the link with the subject of this article. Especially as speeches and events are ephemeral anyway and rarely of lasting significance. Podiaebba (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Podiaebba Welcome to the discussion! The only reason I included Hoekstra's testimony as one of three witnesses was because it represents the crux of what IPT does, gives weight to the organization's purpose; i.e., data center, counterterrorism, etc. Testifying at Joint Subcommittee hearing is not something to write off as insignificant. It should also neutralize the Islamophobia label because this organization is clearly not Islamophobic.  Its staff consists of professional counterterrorism experts.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  22:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. But then the brief mention needs to focus more clearly on the significance to this article, which is Hoekstra being there as IPT representative (assuming that he was). And there needs to be a reliable source for that, as otherwise it may be reading too much into Hoekstra's appearance in terms of relevance here (he's a former Congressman after all). NB the IPT link isn't mentioned in the Hoekstra article that I can see - an expansion there on its significance would be helpful. Podiaebba (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The source mentions that he works there but makes no connection between his job and his testimony, and doesn't discuss his job at all. As far as I can see that one newspaper is the only place the story ran.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , not sure if you realize it, or not but you've managed to edit out enough information from this article to take it back to Stub status. I disagree with the reasons you removed the paragraphs, but have no problem fixing the link issues.  I'll work on improving the paragraphs to address the issues Podiaebba mentioned.
 * 1 Part of Hoekstra's job with IPT is to attend Congressional hearings. Why do you think IPT employed him in the first place?  They wanted someone with experience in global terrorism, and presenting reports to Congress.  Hoekstra was the perfect match.  The cover page of the sourced document proves it is an IPT report.  At least read the cover page.  Reports cannot speak at hearings - someone has to present them.  In this case, Hoekstra happened to be that person. See it here.  That's what IPT does - they collect data on terrorists, and provide their findings to the proper authorities.
 * Alf, if you keep deleting information that is relevant to this organization, the article will never be anything more than a stub article, which is not supposed to be the goal here. Also, you reverted back to an imbalanced article with your treatment under Funding.  I am not in full agreement with the changes you've made, or that all of the paragraphs you've removed should have been removed.  A Wiki reader should be able to look at this article, and quickly surmise the mission of IPT is not to spread Islamophobia which is the balance you've given it.  The information provided at the Congressional hearing corroborates its mission statement as a "comprehensive data center on radical Islamic terrorist groups".  I will update my original edits to more closely conform to the suggestions.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  00:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms of CAP report
I removed this: On 16 November 2011, a report was issued by M. Zuhdi Jasser discrediting the CAP report "as a fallacy and in many ways harmful to the communities it pretends to serve." According to Jasser, the CAP report, “Fear, Inc.”, is "clearly the latest volley in the ping pong games between virulently partisan organizations on the left and the right that exploit American Muslims as the ball." Jasser also stated that the term Islamophobia is "a mechanism that has been employed by a number of organizations, such as CAP, to shut down conversation, free speech, and introspection and to reinforce a concept of victimization of Muslims." His report further states that as a devout Muslim he was deeply offended that CAP would presume to instruct him on his allegiance to his faith, and summarized by stating the report was created "with a set of biases and conclusions that were predetermined." He further condemned their accusation that "a devout American Muslim can be Islamophobic" was arrogant and laughable. Mark Tapson, a columnist for FrontPage Magazine alleged that the report is packed with ugly terminology designed "to demonize these falsely labeled “Islamophobes”. According to Daniel Pipes who is the former director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and founder of the Middle East Forum, the CAP report not only got the larger picture wrong, but could not even get the details correct. Originally I was just going to move it into the "Funding" section under the CAP report material, but as I was checking the sources I realized that much of this material is problematic, both intrinsically and in relation to this article. I'm not opposed to doing to doing something with it in this article, but it's not clear what.  Level three subsections follow.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

M. Zuhdi Jasser
On 16 November 2011, a report was issued by M. Zuhdi Jasser discrediting the CAP report "as a fallacy and in many ways harmful to the communities it pretends to serve." According to Jasser, the CAP report, “Fear, Inc.”, is "clearly the latest volley in the ping pong games between virulently partisan organizations on the left and the right that exploit American Muslims as the ball." Jasser also stated that the term Islamophobia is "a mechanism that has been employed by a number of organizations, such as CAP, to shut down conversation, free speech, and introspection and to reinforce a concept of victimization of Muslims." His report further states that as a devout Muslim he was deeply offended that CAP would presume to instruct him on his allegiance to his faith, and summarized by stating the report was created "with a set of biases and conclusions that were predetermined." He further condemned their accusation that "a devout American Muslim can be Islamophobic" was arrogant and laughable. Problems with this:


 * 1) Jasser did not "discredit" the report, he criticized it.
 * 2) He didn't critize the report as a fallacy, he said that treating it as factual research was a fallacy.
 * 3) This source is not a "report" by Jasser, it's a blog post by Jasser.  Given the amount of material quoted from Jasser, it's really misleading to refer to his blog post as a "report."
 * 4) Jasser founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and it's CAP's attack on his organization that he's criticizing.  There's nothing in his blog post about IPT.  This makes him an involved party in the dispute, and that needs to be noted here if we're going to use any of this.
 * 5) Jasser is quoted at such length here without any indication of the relative weight of his opinions.

My main problem with this material is that it's not IPT responding to the CAP report's material on IPT, it's some other guy responding to the CAP report's material on some other organization, and yet it's presented as if it's a general criticism of the report and as if it has anything to do with the specific things that the report says on IPT.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Emerson did respond indirectly to the report. He published the Frontpage Magazine article by Tapan at the website.  The reason I included Jasser's response, as well as the other responses is because #1 it is relevant criticism of the CAP report, #2 WP:Balance to the criticisms in the CAP report which are not soley aimed at IPT, and #3 IPT was lump summed in the CAP Report as being part of an Islamophobic network which opens the door to allow more than just IPT's response.
 * I truly believe that once you understand the true nature of anti-terrorism organizations that are being labeled as Islamophobic, you will discover they are not blanket anti-Islam, which is why I strongly believe the blanket "Islamophobia" template is reverse discrimination. In fact, I joined the WP:Discrimination The work of counterterrorism organizations is not the result of fear or hatred toward all Muslims - quite the contrary.  The concern is over extremism, and the radicalization process that includes converting prison inmates to Islam, and training them to be Jihadists.  It's about the 30+ Jihadist training camps that are scattered throughout the U.S.  Atsme   &#9775;  talk  19:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you think you might respond to the actual points I made? This talk page isn't the place for your theories about Jihadist training camps on U.S. soil and whatnot.  Also, in this section we're not talking about the template.  There's a section above for that.  Please try to stay focused.


 * We don't include "indirect" responses that are inferred by editors. Either Emerson responded or he did not respond.  IPT itself issued a response to the Tennessean article, so we include it here for balance.  IPT did not respond to the CAP report as far as I can tell.  If they did, we should include it.  Do you have any case for including Jasser's opinions on the specific relationship of the CAP report and his organization, which is not IPT, as a response to the CAP report's claims about IPT?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * #Jasser did not "discredit" the report, he criticized it. - "treating it as factual research was a fallacy" is discrediting, but I don't oppose to a rephrase.
 * #He didn't critize the report as a fallacy, he said that treating it as factual research was a fallacy. - play on words. It's also perfectly acceptable to paraphrase.  Again, I don't oppose to a rephrase.
 * #This source is not a "report" by Jasser, it's a blog post by Jasser. Given the amount of material quoted from Jasser, it's really misleading to refer to his blog post as a "report." So call it a blog - matters not.
 * #Jasser founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and it's CAP's attack on his organization that he's criticizing. There's nothing in his blog post about IPT. This makes him an involved party in the dispute, and that needs to be noted here if we're going to use any of this.  He is listed in the CAP report, so that automatically makes him an involved party.
 * #Jasser is quoted at such length here without any indication of the relative weight of his opinions. Somewhere along the way, and I don't know when exactly, but the original paragraph on CAP was reduced to a blurb, so you're correct in that the opposing views are no longer relevant to the article. Atsme   &#9775;  talk  22:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Tapson
Mark Tapson, a columnist for FrontPage Magazine alleged that the report is packed with ugly terminology designed "to demonize these falsely labeled “Islamophobes”. Tapson says a bunch of nasty stuff about the "ugly terminology" of the report. Does he say that the statements of fact in the report about funding are untrue?  No.  In fact, in one small section of his article, he admits that they are true.  So who cares if he doesn't like the words, eh?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * FrontPage is a fringe source. NPOV doesn't require that we include unrelated material from ludicrously bad sources for the sake of "balance." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about, "fringe source"? Do you mean fringe theory - WP:Fringe, which is unrelated to this discussion?  If you're talking about "balance", you can start by looking at who funds CAP, who wrote the Fear Inc. report that is being cited in this article, and what secondary source was used.   Besides, the CAP report doesn't even belong under a funding header.

Not about Tapson any more, but about CAP report

 * Your CAP paragraph starts off with According to a report issued in 2011 by the Center for American Progress (CAP), the IPT was one of ten foundations constituting what it called "the Islamophobia network in America. Excuse me, but that has nothing to do with the organization's funding, and it doesn't belong under a Funding header.  If you've read CAP's Fear Inc. report, you know full well it isn't about funding, rather it's about what CAP alleges the organizations do with their funding.  The report itself states: And it all starts with the money flowing from a select group of foundations. A small group of foundations and wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America, providing critical funding to a clutch of right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam—in the form of books, reports, websites, blogs, and carefully crafted talking points that anti-Islam grassroots organizations and some right-wing religious groups use as propaganda for their constituency.  The report was written by people with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  The CAP Report, the Emerson response, and the Tapson paragraph belong exactly where I had them - under CRITICISM - with the quote box.    Atsme   &#9775;  talk  00:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see what your comment has to do with the Tapson material, but fine. I don't care if the material goes under funding or not, but it's generally a bad idea to have separate criticism sections, per WP:NOCRIT.  If you think there's a better place for it, then you should suggest one.  If you really think a criticism section is necessary you should start a discussion for that.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see your point, and understand why you've advised against a separate section for criticism. The CAP report is problematic as you mentioned earlier.  Does it really need to be included in this article considering it is agenda driven, and lacking factual information one could consider useful to the article?  There are lots of critics for any organization, but our primary focus should be on what made IPT notable.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  16:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The CAP report is problematic in the sense that it's not a reliable source. That's why I've eliminated all citations to it (did you notice that I did that?)  But even though it's not a reliable source, it's important because other third-party reliable sources reported on the report and what it said about IPT.  That makes it important to include material about the report but not cited to the report.  Also we include IPT's response to the report for balance.  See how that works?  If no independent sources had reported on the CAP report we wouldn't put anything about it in here, ideally, but they did, so the NPOV policy practically requires that we discuss it.  As far as I can tell, being in that report is the single most notable thing that ever happened to IPT as measured by independent coverage (which is also why I think the contested navbox is necessary).&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm...let me try to wrap my brain around what you stated. CAP is problematic because it's not a reliable source - that would be because it's a primary source, right?  And then you continued...even though it's not a reliable source, it's important because other third-party reliable sources reported on the report and what it said about IPT. That makes it important to include material about the report but not cited to the report.  Ok, so here's my dilemma...the data IPT collects and publishes are primary sources, and they are important enough because other second and third-party reliable sources report on them, or from them.  These reliable sources don't actually quote the information they use from IPT, say for example,  "according to IPT", rather they simply use the information in their articles with an inline citation.  With the latter in mind, according to WP:PSTS Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.  So it is acceptable to use that same information from IPT as a primary source with an inline citation because reliable sources have used them.  Example - there's an article at GLORIA Center entitled "Blind To Terror: The U.S. Government's Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and The Impact On Middle East Policy" which cites IPT 4 times - twice for case docs, once for a Wall Street Journal report, and finally an FBI report.  There are many others who have done the same.  I just have to be careful to not misuse it.  Correct?  Atsme   &#9775;  talk  17:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I do, but it's still wrong. Atsme is saying that if reliable sources cite IPT, that's the same as covering IPT. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The CAP report is not being represented as fact here. It's just being recognized. CAP because they are notable represnts a signifigant minority view point. Their viewpoint is attributed directly to them. Actual the cap report would be acceptable to somne extent as a source. They are a reliable source for their own opinion. However interpreting their opinion is where the source becomes troubling. That's why a secondary source was used.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not atributing it directly to them is also the problem. We can't present this as a commonly held belief without evidence.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , almost, but not quite. The core of my question is (1) Since IPT is being inline cited/referenced by reliable 2nd & 3rd sources, the latter validates the respective IPT document/report as a reliable primary source, correct?  (2) Once the primary source is established as reliable by the inline citations from 2nd & 3rd reliable sources, it is then safe to use and/or quote from that primary source as stated in WP:PSTS:  "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia."   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  22:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.gloria-center.org/2013/06/the-u-s-governments-disastrous-muslim-outreach-efforts-and-the-impact-on-u-s-middle-east-policy-blind-to-terror1/ This source doesn't say anything about IPT until the inline citation. It's not a reliable source for anything to do with IPT. It can be used to say that Gloria center has referneced IPT before but that really isn't relevent. It doesn't make any of the IPT sources reliable.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understood my question. Read WP:PSTS again, then read my question. IPT has been established as a reliable primary source; i.e., IPT provides data, research, docs, files, etc., thereby making the reports/docs/files that have been previously used (with inline citations by reputable 2nd/3rd sources) ok to use per WP guidelines.  Atsme   &#9775;  talk  00:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First a google document isn't a reliable source. You can drop the mention of Docs all together. Their use by secondary and third party sources doesn't make them reliable. Anything can potentially be used by a secondary or third party source. The issue with them where they are a primary source is interpretting the meaning of what they have to say. That is why as general rule secondary and third party sources should be used. The problem with your argument is that you are arguing very broadly here. "The CAP report can't be used because some unspecified IPT source couldn't be used." or "If CAP can be used so to should IPT." The problem again is that CAP's report isn't being used. A Secondary source mentioning CAPs position is being used. You are trying to use an IPT source because a secondary source uses some of their resources. Completely different situation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Pipes
According to Daniel Pipes who is the former director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and founder of the Middle East Forum, the CAP report not only got the larger picture wrong, but could not even get the details correct. This seems like the most promising of the bunch, but I'm still dubious. When Pipes says that CAP couldn't get the details correct, he's talking specifically about one table in the report. He claims that out of six factual claims in the table, two are correct and four are wrong. His methodology? He asked the people named in the table if the statements were correct. This is hardly compelling, and it's admittedly not a comprehensive and independent study. Most of this article is about how CAP also accepts money from foundations. I don't see what we can get out of this material. It's not about IPT, it doesn't discuss the CAP report's conclusions in relation to IPT, it's published on the guy's blog, and the material that was inserted into the article misrepresents it seriously.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Pipes is a fanatic and his self-published works, or other works published in unreliable sources, shouldn't be used. NPOV doesn't require that we include unrelated material from ludicrously bad sources for the sake of "balance." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well there's that ^ but I think the most persuasive reason is that it has nothing to do with IPT. The article isn't about CAP or it's report. CAP's a notable minority point of view on IPT. Pipes POV on CAP may or may not be notable but it relates to CAP and not IPT.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The general problem
If IPT had responded to the CAP report, this would be an easy thing. We would include their response. If secondary sources had discussed IPT's response, so much the better. None of this seems to have happened. Instead, we have the other targets of the report complaining about the report and our article quoting them, eliding the fact that they're mostly talking about their own organizations and that none of them mention IPT, and somehow giving the impression that their opinions are related to IPT. This doesn't seem OK.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a typical sort of problem for dealing with small organisations of this sort of level of prominence (low) and controversialness (high). It can be very hard to draw a balance between ignoring things and giving too much detail about debates involving not very significant sources, not very widely reported. Podiaebba (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've actually been surprised at how very little information there is about IPT itself in reliable sources. I'd expected there to be quite a bit more given how much it's mentioned.  The sources are all about Emerson with passing mentions of IPT and people who work for IPT with passing mentions saying that they work for them.  If this were a software company I'd be sorely tempted to send it to AfD, but obviously that's not going to end well.  I guess we soldier on.  Do you have thoughts about the Boston marathon material?  I think it needs to be trimmed, but I haven't had the heart to look into it.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Boston Marathon material
I didn't remove this, because it's arguably about IPT as an example of their work:

Boston Marathon Bombing
According to a Fox News report published 19 April 2013, IPT founder Steven Emerson spent a week investigating the online postings of bombing suspects, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger brother, Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev. Fox News anchor, Megyn Kelley, spoke with Emerson about the possible motives of the alleged bombing suspects. Emerson had also reviewed videos that both brothers had uploaded to their YouTube channels in the United States and in Russia, but only watched about half of the 22 videos on the U.S. channel. According to Emerson, the content of the videos which feature Osama bin Laden "calls to kill Americans, Jews, Christians and exhortations to establish a world-wide caliphate." Emerson said the messages are not directed just at Chechens. "They are directed primarily against all non-Muslims and are very similar to the Al Qaeda videos we've seen in years past." The two brothers clearly wanted "to express a message that they totally sympathize with the jihadist cause. These were jihadists, they were not just Chechen separatists." But it does seem like undue weight to this one example of IPT's work. Is this what they do? They spend a week watching youtube videos and speculating on TV about people's motives? I don't know, it just seems silly that we have such a lengthy description of this one project of IPT that lasted a week and there's more information on that than about any other aspect of the organization. The more I look for sources the more I think this whole IPT thing is a front for Steven Emerson and ought to be redirected to him. Anyway, thoughts on the relative weight that this Boston marathon material ought to have in the article?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest the creation of a section for their work that they have done. The more notable. This would be notable. I'd summarise this abit.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I patterned after the Choudary format; i.e., listing separate events. Choudary's are organizations, so I thought something similar would work for IPT's notable events.  I like your suggestion better.  It will easily accommodate future updates in an organized manner.  Atsme   &#9775;  talk  17:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that they don't do anything. Really, I've looked and looked for sources, but they're all about Emerson, not IPT.  I agree that it needs to be summarized.  Do you have a proposal?  Atsme, will you please keep your theories about Choudary to the Choudary talk page.  This is a different article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd look then to see if this can be connected to IPT.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * After all there is Emersons involment and IPT's involvement. Just because Emerson was involved doesn't mean IPT was.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/the_perils_of_steve_emersons_expertise/ mentions other things about Mr Emerson during the time of The Boston Marathon Bombing.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure that salon is the best source and perhaps a better source can be found. Just pointing out this may also be relevent.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed this material twice today because it is not important to the Boston case, and the IPT research is not widely reported as being important. This article should concentrate only on major IPT activities, not minor. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with you, but the trouble we're having is that there don't actually seem to be any major IPT activities per reliable sources. I'm indifferent as to whether this material stays in, because at least the single source for it (that's problematic) actually talks about IPT instead of about Emerson.  I think the other material added recently is much more problematic since the IPT connections made there seem to me to be WP:SYNTHESIS.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. The cherry picked information was positive to IPT and it actually ignored blunders on their part.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A model for how I think we should try to deal with criticism of the CAP report
Let's look at this paragraph on the Tennessean criticisms of IPT: The Nashville Tennessean has reported that Emerson transfers money from the non-profit IPT back to the for-profit SAE. The Tennessean quoted Charity Navigator president Ken Berger's comment on this fact: "Basically, you have a nonprofit acting as a front organization, and all that money going to a for-profit. It's wrong. This is off the charts." IPT subsequently published a detailed response to the article, stating that "[a]t issue in the Tennessean story is the relationship between the IPT Foundation, a tax-exempt charity, and SAE Productions, a for-profit company run by IPT Executive Director Steven Emerson. The foundation accepts private donations and contracts with SAE to manage operations. The Tennessean article pays only lip service to the legitimate security issues that dictated this structure and that the IRS has reviewed and approved it." We have criticism of IPT in the Tennessean. But we don't quote the Tennessean itself, we quote another source discussing the Tennessean's criticisms. This shows that the criticisms are taken seriously by independent sources. Then we quote IPT's response to the criticisms, which is only reasonable to do.

Now, we do the same first thing with the CAP report. I managed to remove all citations directly to the CAP report and only include secondary independent sources that discuss the CAP report criticisms. This shows that the CAP report criticisms are taken seriously by reliable sources that aren't involved in the controversy. We should absolutely have some response to the CAP report criticisms, but the trouble is that IPT doesn't seem to have responded. All we have are criticisms by various people and organizations mentioned in the report responding to what it said about them. It strikes me as a violation of WP:SYNTH for us to present those views as if they had to do with IPT. Did IPT not find the CAP report worth responding to as they did the Tennessean article? If they did not, why should we slap together a response on their behalf?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I provided the responses. You deleted them, and gave some ridiculous excuse for doing so.  Atsme   &#9775;  talk  17:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I deleted it and opened sections on the talk page to discuss it, which you mostly ignored. If you think my "excuse for doing so" was "ridiculous" then talk about reasons for keeping the material in the relevant talk page sections instead of ignoring the discussions.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Following guidelines, added to article, removed stub template, and Islamophobia template
I have added quite a bit more relevant information to the article following WP guidelines. If you find an issue with source formatting, please correct it. The additions to this article are within WP POLICY. The Islamophobia template was removed as noted in the edit pages, but specifically because it no longer meets WP guidelines per WP:OVERLINK, WP:RELEVANCE, and WP:NPOV. Atsme  &#9775;  talk  20:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:VAGUEWAVE&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is currently an RFC going on about that template. Your removal is disruptive editing.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You might want to read what you wrote about the RFC. I have requested mediation.  There is obviously a misunderstanding regarding the activities of IPT, and what the organization does.  The template does not follow WP guidelines WP:OVERLINK, WP:RELEVANCE, WP:NPOV, not to mention it is discriminatory, contentious, and WP:PROPAGANDA because it promotes Islam.  It actually requires immediate deletion. Again, I have requested mediation.  Let them decide.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  14:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see a mediation request. And mediation is for content disputes but your posts to editors suggests you have requested it on behavioral grounds. Where did you request mediation? Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed! Where is this mediation supposedly at?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Indictments blah blah blah section
The material in this section Investigative Project on Terrorism is (a) only tenuously related to IPT, and (b) not discussed in relation to IPT in actual reliable sources. I think it must be severely trimmed and it's not at all clear to me that any of it should remain. If IPT played such a key role in these events, why is there not more discussion of it in reliable sources?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The title seems questionable. Did IPT have them indicted? I'll look at the sources later.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * that is your POV, and I disagree with it. My sources meet the guidelines for WP:RS.  I welcome constructive editing, but it has become quite clear that you are not collaborating to make this a better article.  Over time, you have consistently trimmed away everything I've added to make this a better article, and keep returning it to stub form.  You have not added anything positive.  You have consistently criticized and reverted my edits, and have added only negative paragraphs about the organization's LEGAL funding.  I have requested mediation.  Atsme   &#9775;  talk  13:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * you obviously don't understand the process of indictment. I did not say IPT indicted them - that is ridiculous.  Only a Grand Jury can indict, and they indict based on the evidence presented.  IPT provides the evidence.  That is what they do - collect and provide important data.  What do you think IPT does exactly?  Atsme   &#9775;  talk  13:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Atsme, citing ninety-leven WP:ALLCAPS things is not discussion. The material in that section is not about IPT for the most part.  Will you please engage in conversation about the material?  There are ongoing discussion above which you have decided to ignore, also. Please continue to participate in those as well. Look, I'll start subsections:&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand idicitment just fine. The title is abit misleading was my suggestion.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

December 2001, CBS: 48 Hours
A lady interviewed Steven Emerson. Then we have a full paragraph about stuff about Al-Arian. What does any of this have to do with IPT? The director was interviewed? If this was important we'd have secondary sources saying things like "Emerson, the director, is interviewed all the time about IPT's reports." The quotebox from the report is an egregious BLP violation.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The quoteboxes meet WP:BLP guidelines as follows: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation.  Explain why you think they do not meet requirements.  Everything mentioned about Al-Arian has been documented, properly sourced, and they all fall within WP guidelines.  I think perhaps you are wanting to omit important information because it doesn't fit well with your Islamophobia agenda.
 * Did you not read the paragraph on the CBS 48 Hour interview? It was a documentary entitled Target Terrorism, and Emerson was specifically talking about Al-Arian who pleaded guilty to "conspiring to help people associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad".  What part are you having trouble understanding about the role IPT played in providing the evidence that led to his indictment?  That is what IPT does which you apparently have a problem comprehending.  Perhaps if you understood what the organization does, you wouldn't be so quick to delete.  Atsme   &#9775;  talk  15:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I read it. It's Emerson saying things about Al-Arian.  Emerson's not a reliable source about Al-Arian.  Furthermore, what Emerson says about Al-Arian doesn't have anything to do with IPT.  It has to do with Al-Arian.  If IPT (not Emerson) played a role in Al-Arian's case and that role is described by independent reliable sources then we should talk about it.  It's not that plausible that that's what happened.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation Trials
This material is more directly about IPT, but it doesn't seem like it's reliably sourced to me. What I recommend here is that we isolate the specific statements of fact about IPT and consider the sources supporting them. The one that's most directly about IPT, the MEQ, looks generally like a bogus front for Daniel Pipes, but probably it's reliable enough for attributed statements of opinion.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Everything I added to this article is directly about IPT, and all were notable, like the evidence IPT provided for the HLF trial, Emerson's appearance on FOX News for expert opinion on the Boston Marathon bombing, the CBS 48 Hour episode, and so on. The additions give the article substance vs just letting it sit there like a half-baked stub.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  02:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it possible for you to make specific and concrete comments about the actual topic at hand?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

September 2010 ISP Appointment of Muslim Chaplain
The only IPT connection here is sourced to Right Side News. It also appears to be a reprint of an IPT press release, although perhaps not. It's possible that some material about IPT directly can be extracted from this, but it will take discussion. Let's have some per WP:STOPSLATHERINGGUIDELINELINKSYOUDONTUNDERSTANDANDTALKABOUTITONTHETALKPAGEFFS.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This section has nothing to really do with indictments or trial evidence.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources used

 * http://www.steveemerson.com/4266/target-terrorism - I don't feel I have to explain why.


 * http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/23/Hillsborough/In_his_plea_deal_wha.shtml - dead link.


 * http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/11/special_panel_on_holy_land_fou.php -It's blog. It's not informative. It has nothing to do with what it's being used as a source for.


 * http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-nsd-519.html -No conection to IPT

Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * http://www.steveemerson.com/4266/target-terrorism - yes, you do need to explain why because it is the transcript of CBS:48 Hours episode that was televised, and it's free to the public vs obtaining a transcript from CBS that costs money. WP:SOURCE - Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
 * This is not a dead link http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/23/Hillsborough/In_his_plea_deal__wha.shtml
 * http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/11/special_panel_on_holy_land_fou.php It confirms IPT as one of the three groups which were responsible for much of the analysis of exhibits and the links from HLF to Hamas, the MB, and the extended MB network.  Furthermore, Andrew Cochran is a reputable writer, and has appeared in numerous media outlets, including CBS News, MSNBC, the Fox News Channel, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, BBC Radio, Congressional Quarterly, and Roll Call to discuss terrorism issues and events.
 * Look, if you think IPT is a fake organization that promotes Islamophobia, why don't you just request deletion? Those aren't the kind of organizations that deserve recognition on WP.  You keep reverting my edits, challenging my sources, criticizing every paragraph I add, so if you're not WP:HOUNDING, what are you doing?  Don't just leave the article sitting there with no information but a fake Islamophobia label which is exactly what has been done.  You people keep whittling it down to nothing but a stub.  If you think it's such a bad organization, and that it's unworthy of anything positive, let's move on, and I will be happy to collaborate with you on other articles that are worthy of our time.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  01:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then go find the oruginal version from CBS.
 * It was dead when I checked it earlier. Now it's not. But I can't see how it's related to IPT.
 * It's not a reliable source.
 * Why are you putting words in my mouth?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Update August 2014
As of August 12, 2014, the sub-section titled " September 2010 ISP Appointment of Muslim Chaplain " does not demonstrate a strong enough relation with the main article. The only connection is from the sentence "He also attacked the IPT's credibility as part of his litigation." In my opinion, it does not meet Wikipedia's relevancy policy (WP:ROC). I am planning on removing the section unless someone can provide material referenced from a reliable source that demonstrates relation between the two meet Wikipedia's policy. Cheers! Djrun (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ROC is neither a policy or guideline. However I do not object to it's removal on the grounds of relevance. The guy in question lacks notability and the incidence in question is actually minor.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Congressional Testimony section
This is ridiculous. It's not writing, it's a list of external links to IPT reports. It belongs in the external links section.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous? Your POV again.  A similar list was used on another Wiki page without incident.  Tables and lists are perfectly acceptable.  Perhaps you've lost sight of what kind of information an article should contain, but then, if you don't understand what an organization does, how are you going to know the difference?  WP:ARTICLE A Wikipedia article, or entry, is a page that has encyclopedic information on it. A well-written encyclopedia article identifies a notable encyclopedic topic, summarizes that topic comprehensively, contains references to reliable sources, and links to other related topics. Most articles consist of paragraphs and images, but they may also be formatted as stand-alone lists or tables. These lists or tables are also considered articles for Wikipedia's purposes. As I said before, you were obviously happy with the IPT article being a stub with an Islamophobia template because you keep deleting information, and forcing the Islamophobia template which does not belong on this article. Atsme   &#9775;  talk  17:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what POV means in the context of Wikipedia. It doesn't apply to opinions about how articles should be formatted.  You slapped a list of external links in the middle of an article with no context whatsoever.  That's just not done.  Articles are written in prose and if they have lists in them the lists are surrounded by prose explaining the context of the lists.  Anyway, I didn't delete all your links, I just put them in the external links section, which is where they belong, if they belong anywhere, which I doubt.  As for your speculations about my motives, I wish you would just drop it and focus on the content of the article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I do understand what POV means in the context of Wikipedia. You calling my list of congressional testimony "ridiculous" was your opinion based on your POV which was not a WP reference.  However, the POV issues in this article occur most frequently under Bias in sources: A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone; although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view.  Maybe if you would exert more effort into positive aspects of this organization instead of focusing only on the negative allegations of its opposition, we could be moving along to the next article.  I actually have some articles I'd like to submit for consideration, but I'm not the type who can leave a job unfinished. The saddest part about all this back and forth nonsense is that I do recognize that you're a good editor, and I actually did want to learn from you, and contribute to WP in a positive way.  Instead, we're wasting valuable time on trivial matters.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  02:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, my calling your list ridiculous was not "POV," it was an expression of my disbelief at your unwillingness to learn how to write a Wikipedia article. It's ridiculous to slap down a list of external links as a section in the middle of an article.  Write prose.  I know it's hard, and I can see it's hard for you, but if you listen, watch, and discuss, you might learn something yet.  There's no question of "sources" in a list of external links.  They're not supporting anything, so they're not sources.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alf, it's not about me being an unwilling student. It's about the repeated reverts, deletions, and groundless criticisms against me when I've been doing my best to improve this article.  I want to learn as much as I can about the technicalities of WP, but the article content I've been providing is just fine.  If you're going to continuously criticize and delete my edits, you need to provide valid reasons, and you need to be consistent, otherwise it comes across as WP:HOUNDING.
 * When I added Hoekstra's congressional testimony (in prose), you deleted it because you said it had nothing to do with IPT when it actually had everything to do with IPT. That's why Hoekstra was at that hearing - he was giving testimony as a representative of IPT.  I let that one go as I have others, and came back later with a list of congressional hearings where Emerson, and Hoekstra both provided testimony as representatives of IPT.  That's what IPT does, and it is central to their work. You moved it down to the link section because you don't like lists, and prefer prose?  That list is a valuable resource for researchers and students who come to Wiki to find out what congressional testimony was given by IPT.  It belongs in that article.  If you feel it fits better at the bottom of the article than in the middle, I'm ok with that, but it needs to remain in the article.
 * I also added the following sentence to the lead-in, "It has become a "primary source of critical evidence" to a wide variety of government offices, law enforcement agencies, the U.S. Congress, and public policy forums.". It came from the same paragraph the current lead-in originated, and it belongs in the article.  We actually need more information in the initial lead-in.  It is ridiculous to lead in to an encyclopedia article with two simple sentences.  There should be at least a full paragraph for the lead.  The sentence I added led to the paragraphs I included in the body of the article, including the list of congressional hearings, as well as the HLF trial, IPT's connection, etc.
 * Almost every single edit I've made to date has either been deleted, or is currently being discussed for deletion. We will once again be left with a heavily weighted POV article and an Islamophobia template that is clearly prejudiced against the organizations that are included in that ridiculous series on Islamophobia.  As NPOV editors, it is our responsibility to provide information about IPT that made the organization notable.  The latter is exactly what I had done in the last edit you whittled down to bare bones minimum.  You still have not contributed one good thing about IPT in an effort to make this a better article.  IPT's notability certainly didn't result from CAP's groundless allegations of Islamophobia, or The Tennessean's ridiculous claim about misuse of funds.  All I can say is any editor(s) who want to make this a better article better get busy adding paragraphs rather than focusing all their efforts on deleting mine.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  05:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Most criticism has been directed at the article and not you personally. When it is about you it generally follows one of your baseless accusations. Most of the stuff you dropped on Congressman Pete had nothing to do with IPT.

Everything that you say is up to be deleted is upto actually upto being changed and deleted only if it can't be salavaged. It can't remain as is. This is not consevopedia.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, too much to respond to at once. But... (a) The Tennessean's claims.  They may be ridiculous, but they were covered in other reliable sources, hence they're worthy of inclusion here without question.  IPT responded explicitly to them.  That's included too.  It's not our job to decide whose claims are ridiculous.  We leave that decision to reliable sources.  (b) About the lead; it's very hard to write a lead when the body of the article is still in flux.  The sentence you're talking about, that I took out, was too specific and wasn't a summary of material in the body but a repeat of another quote from IPT.  We have enough quotes from IPT in the lead; they don't get to define themselves.


 * I know you're trying hard to find positive material about IPT to include, but you don't seem to be trying too hard to understand Wikipedian standards. Most of the material you've found just has passing mentions of IPT and, while it's possible that some material can be written for the article from some of those sources, it's proving hard for everyone to do because it's not so easy to collaborate with you.  You go off, write 11 kilobytes of stuff in your sandbox and then drop it all into the article without discussion.  This, of course, is your right to do, but you shouldn't be surprised if a lot of it gets reverted.  That's actually just what we do here.  Then we open sections on the talk page and talk about the material in small pieces.  This is the part you seem to have a hard time with.  Every section that anyone opens to talk about material ends up with you accusing all the other editors on this page of a bunch of seemingly random things rather than talking about material in a specific and concrete way.  When you do talk about material it's very broad talk and not conducive to actually deciding on what goes in or stays out of the article.  Like for instance, why are we talking about any of this stuff in this section?  This section was for all those PDF links you put in.  They're still in.  What's the problem?  Why don't you open new sections for each thing you want in and we'll talk about it? Or respond specifically and concretely in the sections that are already open?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors need a better understanding of what IPT does....
The comments I read as reasons for deleting the paragraphs I added are ludicrous at best. Some editors obviously don't understand that IPT is a research group, and comprehensive data center on radical Islamic terrorist groups. It is a source - I repeat, source of critical evidence to a wide variety of government offices, law enforcement agencies, the U.S. Congress, and public policy forums. When I listed Congressional Testimony, it was because IPT provides testimony and evidence to congressional committees and subcommittees - they provide critical evidence about terrorist groups and activity - evidence the government is unable to provide because of restrictions. IPT provides the evidence, then the congressional committees study it, and then act on it if they feel it is warranted. Congress is the legislative body of the U.S. government - they make the laws, and see that those laws are enforced. They submit the evidence they've accumulated, and hand it over to the proper agencies who then obtain search warrants, and whatever else they need to assure indictment by a Grand Jury if a crime has been committed. What you are trying to do to IPT would be like me limiting the Roku Streaming Player article to nothing more than a photo, a brief description that it does live streaming and has an on and off button, and then add a template titled APPLEPHOBIA with links to all the Apple products that have been copied, or abused by the competition. Think about it. Atsme  &#9775;  talk  14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If the arguments are ludicrous then say why in the talk page sections devoted to the material. Also, you misunderstand the function of Congress and your analogy makes no sense. The problem here is that your sources barely mention IPT and you've fleshed out the material with tons of stuff from other sources that also wrote about the cases but which do not mention IPT.  Anyway, there are open sections for discussion.  Please try to stick to the subject.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My explanations for adding the paragraphs are far more valid than your arguments for deleting. The paragraphs themselves are self-explanatory.  When did you become guardian of this article, especially considering you have contributed very little to improve it, and have only added the Islamophobia template, and the negative funding paragraphs, re: Tennessean and CAP, both of which are original sources with questionable 2nd sources that are clearly biased, and unreliable.  It was tagged as a stub.  My additions are what have taken it from stub to looking more like a real article.  I will wait for mediation to address the problems that have consistently and groundlessly disrupted my ability to edit IPT, and other articles as well.  If you feel you can provide information to make this a better article, or make it better sourced than what I have done - all of which have been top notch sources - I strongly suggest that you do so instead of consistently hounding me and reverting my edits.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  15:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you talk about the actual content you want to add? If you think I haven't added anything to this article it's merely because you can't or won't read the page history.  As usual, instead of discussing actual content in actual open sections on the talk page, you're off on another tangent.  You want to get it "looking more like a real article"?  It's not the appearance that matters.  The content actually has to be relevant.  Otherwise why not just fill it with word salad?  Oh, wait...&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not seen you once talk about the content you wanted to add. You just add it, and when you don't like something, you just delete it, which is what you're doing now.  Why should I be subjected to procedures you refuse to follow?  The content I've added is relevant.  It's your misunderstanding of what IPT does, and the fact that your forcing a POV to justify the Islamophobia template that has created the problem.  I did read the page history.  Perhaps you need to review it.  Deleting information is not constructive editing when the purpose is to omit information because it doesn't fit your POV.  Hopefully, mediation will correct it.  Atsme   &#9775;  talk  16:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A primary souce of critical evidence
I removed this: It has become a "primary source of critical evidence" to a wide variety of government offices, law enforcement agencies, the U.S. Congress, and public policy forums. from the lead because it doesn't summarize anything in the body of the article, it's unsourced, and it's almost certainly false.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It summarized everything in the body - most of which you deleted for no valid reason. The sentence was not unsourced, it was part of the paragraph that was sourced for the original lead, and obviously omitted because it doesn't follow a certain POV to justify the Islamophobia template.   Read WP:LEAD The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. (Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic leads serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads.) The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.[2] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.
 * The sentence I added came from the same source as the original lead. It made the lead comprehensible because it actually reflects IPT services, and clarifies IPT's purpose and activity.  The original lead is half-baked information that few can understand.  The original lead-in obviously led to your confusion about IPT, and what services the group actually provides.  You had no valid reason to delete what I added.  It clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding about IPT, and how you are forcing your POV to justify the Islamophobia template.  I will not get into an edit war with you.  Mediation will resolve this issue.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  16:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok then. Which sources exatly?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh and for mediation to solve anything you'd have to take it to mediation. You have not. I'm also wondering if perhaps you know what mediation is exactly.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question "Which sources, exactly?" Is the current lead not properly sourced?  According to WP policy, it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.  As for your question about mediation, I thought I did request mediation when I sent them an email from the mediation site.  They sent me confirmation that my email had been received, and they would get back to me.  I thought the email method was one option, and the other option was to fill in a request form.  As far as i can tell about mediation, it involves a committee of impartial senior editors who come in and review the disputed article and/or disputed sections, discuss it among themselves, then with us, and then they advise us of their decision.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  03:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence was not unsourced, it was part of the paragraph that was sourced for the original lead, and obviously omitted because it doesn't follow a certain POV to justify the Islamophobia template. Ok then so show them sources.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Need more content and some aesthetics....
and - what can we add or do to get this article up to a GA rating? I've seen so many articles on WP that editors have started, and then poof! Only a stub remains, which is pretty much what we had here. I guess folks were too busy worrying about what I was doing to add stuff of their own. Suggestions, please? Atsme  &#9775;  talk  06:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There's nothing to add. There's already too much stuff in here.  If you don't start giving reasons to keep that material in the indictments and whatever section it's going to have to be removed.  There's no sourcing to tie it to IPT except by the most tenuous of threads.  This organization is barely notable.  Some articles will remain short forever and this is almost certainly one of them. (p.s. you're not pinging correctly; you have to use actual usernames rather than signature versions).&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be awful to leave it as a stub. You mentioned a redirect to Emerson earlier.  What are the options? (thanks for the ping note)   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  06:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Some articles are stubs and this likely won't become a GA article. Is that what you want? A GA article? I actually have the perfect article if you are interested. I actually have two articles for you. And actually I do more on talk pages than anything.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome for the pinging note, but again, you shouldn't change your own talk page comments after people have responded to them because it makes the subsequent comments incomprehensible. Instead you should strike through, like e.g.   would have produced:   and then the context of my comment wouldn't be lost.  And yes, it's awful to leave any article a stub, but when there are no sources there's no choice.  If you want to redirect it to Emerson you can start an RfC for that, as it'll likely be contentious.  If that's too formal you can start an informal section on this talk page to discuss whether it should be redirected.  When it's not contentious you can just go ahead and redirect it like ordinary editing and then discuss if you get reverted.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , sorry about that, and thank you. My grandkids are getting a kick out of me learning all this new code.  Where does one go to learn about all the shortcuts and formatting?   Yes, that's what I want, but it has to be something I'm familiar with, and can be productive doing.   Atsme   &#9775;  talk  17:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there's one place to learn it all. Have you tried WP:TEAHOUSE?  They might have some suggestions, as helping editors become accustomed to the folkways and ethnomethodology of Wikipedia is their misson.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe that would be a good little project for me to work on - a WP page with a list of shortcut formatting? I've already started my own collection.  I did apply for a mentor, but haven't heard anything back to date.  It's been almost a week, so I suppose it's safe to apply for another one.  I'll check out the Teahouse, and see what happens.  Thank you.  Atsme   &#9775;  talk  17:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, and there's really nothing like creating your own article to really get you into the swing of things. If there's something you're interested in that's a fairly uncontentious subject that doesn't already have an article I'd be happy to help you get started on it.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To your talk page. Atsme   &#9775;  talk  17:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Emerson statement about Oklahoma City bombing was made BEFORE IPT was founded

 * 1) The Oklahoma City Bombing took place in April 1995 (early 1995)
 * 2) The Investigative Project on Terrorism wasn't even launched until LATE 1995.   Emerson was not a representative of The Investigative Project on Terrorism when he made the following statement, "That is a Middle Eastern trait and something that has been, generally, not carried out on this soil until we were rudely awakened to it in 1993.", which is the statement you referenced, and keep reverting.  If you want to use that statement, it belongs in the Emerson article, not in The Investigative Project on Terrorism article. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult


 * When is late again? Let me check my calander. Nope it's not there. Considering that he founded it and in that year, Considering that is was one of his MANY notable gaffes, I'd say it's very relevent. But if you wish then by all means start an RFC or take it to the relevent noticeboard.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I deleted that statement because it is false and misleading, harmful to a living person, and irrelevant to the article which is about IPT, not Steve Emerson, who has his own Wiki article. It was not "part of his work" as stated in the article because IPT wasn't organized at that time, and even if it was, that isn't part of IPT's work.  Further, Emerson did not claim it "was the work of Muslims" - the latter is not only contentious, it is a false statement about a living person.  That claim is nowhere to be found in the two sources you cited. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  05:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Racist statements by leader of the small racist organization: highly relevant. I don't see how attributing one's words to one's self is a BLP violation. Sepsis II (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh Pardon. He didn't attribute it to Muslims. He said Muslim Terrorists. It's fixed now. I disagree. I feel it is quite relevent. However if you disagree, start up an RFC or take to the relevent noticeboard if you wish.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you cited states that he attributed the attack to Muslims or Muslim terrorists. You better read the sources again.  His actual cited statement was  "That is a Middle Eastern trait and something that has been, generally, not carried out on this soil until we were rudely awakened to it in 1993."  The way the statement reads now is blatant violation of BLP.  Regardless, it is not attributable to IPT because it was made by Emerson BEFORE IPT was formed, and it is not the "work" IPT does.  It is irrelevant to the article.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You should read the sources. If you would have bothered to you would have seen where the CBS source said the following, "In an interview after the Oklahoma City bombing, Steve Emerson confidently pointed his finger at the wrong culprits at Muslim terrorists." However if you feel this is a BLP violation then by all means go to the BLP noticeboard. The IP who originally posted it felt it was relevent, Sepsis II found it relevent, and I find it relevent. We have a consensus formed on this. A major political gaffe by the leader of an organization in the year of founding seems highly relevent to me. If you do not like this then that is fine. Open an RFC, take it to the relevent noticeboard, or open some other form of dispute resolution.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The CBS article refers to an unconfirmed gesture which in no way even resembles the following statement in the article: As part of his work, he claimed the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was the work of Muslim Terrorists and ‘a Middle Eastern trait.’"  The sentence structure is awful, it is misleading, and a violation of BLP.  Where in any of the sources do you see where Emerson actually "CLAIMED" anything even close to what the article states he claimed?  Emerson did NOT claim it was the work of Muslim Terrorists.  It is a false, misleading statement, and a violation of BLP.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  20:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, per WP:CLAIM I changed it to stated. Sepsis II (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If you think it's a blp violation then take it to the blp noticeboard. You have two editors here that disagree with you. Further your policy shopping is laughable. WP:claim and its logic doesn't apply here. His statement was unverifiable. It was wrong. You can't verify false information. The information he provided was false. And this certainly wasn't the only instance of his speculation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge and delete the IPT article
The IPT article needs to be deleted, and any accurate, verifiable, properly sourced information in this article should be merged with the Steven Emerson article. Following are valid reasons for doing so:


 * 1) In late 1995 "The Investigative Project" was organized as a "counterterrorism think-tank" by Steven Emerson.  There are no reliable sources that confirm the "Investigative Project on Terrorism" was ever established as an official "non-profit organization", or anything else other than Steven Emerson's "think-tank".  See the following links:      There are many more reliable sources that will confirm this information.
 * 2) Emerson's for-profit company, SAE Productions, was incorporated in 1995 in Delaware.  He initially organized the think-tank, IPT, in late 1995, but did not launch the non-profit "Investigative Project on Terrorism  Foundation " until 2006 in Washington, D.C.  The IPT self-published website does not disclose the information, but CAIR, and The Tennessean have published it.   Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear
 * 3) With regards to the BLP violation in the very biased WP:POV, false statement about Emerson WP:BLP, be advised the only reference Emerson made was as an individual counterterrorism expert BEFORE he even thought about starting his "think-tank".  He was correctly quoted by John F. Sugg of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting as follows: Emerson's most notorious gaffe was his claim that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing showed "a Middle Eastern trait" because it "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible." (CBS News, 4/19/95)

I will now proceed with the request to merge. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  23:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to note that the merger policy says, "Having a discussion on the source page is acceptable. Don't move an existing discussion to another page." But then you moved it to Steven Emerson because of policy.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Even more interesting to note, the guidelines I followed can be seen at Help:Merging, which states: Unless a discuss parameter is specified in these templates, all "Discuss" links to lead to the talk page of the destination page, avoiding the two separate discussions problem that may occur with . It may still be preferable to link direction to a section on the talk page; this is useful for directing the reader to a specific section of a long talk page, when it may not otherwise be obvious where the discussion is located.  I linked direction to a section on the destination talk page  - avoiding the possibility of two separate discussions.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  18:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Even more interesting note is you haven't provided a valid reason for merging .Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed in the history that you questioned the following diffs: 1 2 after reverting them. On the Steven Emerson page Atsme has opened this merger proposal. His original research based argument holds that since IPT didn't incorporate until 2006 then its history before that amounts to that of a different organization.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Haha, he argues a name change is enough to separate an article in two at the same time he argues to delete the same article, and I'm sure deleting the Islamophobe template was an accident, ha, I've really stopped caring what certain people write on talk pages. Sepsis II (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh he took off the Islamophobia template again? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Addressing the WP:NOR violation
Aside from the BLP violations, the IPT article has multiple issues that need to be addressed. It is clearly in violation of No original research, and contains a hodgepodge of misinformation and inaccuracies, beginning with the title and lead. The only way to assimilate information for the infobox would be to violate WP:SYNTH which requires an editor to piecemeal information and assumptions dating back to 1995, ''' eleven years prior to the formation of the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. ''' Doing so combines Emerson's work as a CNN reporter, a terrorism expert, and leader of "The Investigative Project", and combines it all into a non-profit Sect 501(c)3 foundation legally known as "The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation" formed in 2006. As editors we should be aware that WP:SYNTH states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. It also further violates BLPPRIMARY.

The lead statement in the IPT article is inaccurate, and was cited using an original source,. It is a good example of why WP needs the NOR/Synth policy. The original source includes the following statement: The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) is a non-profit research group founded by Steven Emerson in 1995. As we have since learned, there is no such organization as The Investigative Project on Terrorism, and the only thing that comes close is Emerson's 1995 think-tank called, The Investigative Project, which no longer exists. Information prior to 2006 was typically the work of "The Investigative Project", which belongs in Emerson article under the section Steven_Emerson, rather than being included in this article. Work performed by Steven Emerson, the terrorism expert after he left CNN belongs in the Steven Emerson article, and should not overlap with his work as a Board member, or Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation.

The following sources validate the inaccuracies I stated above:
 * The entire IPT misnomer was exposed in a published article by The Tennessean, (one of the cited sources in this article), and in a separate report by The PR Newswire at the following link:.
 * Testimony by Steven Emerson before the House Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations report also contradicts the lead-in for the IPT article on the cover page wherein it states the report is by Steven Emerson, Executive Director, The Investigative Project, dated February 12, 2002 -
 * The original source also contradicts itself with the following information: *Matthew Epstein is an attorney and senior terrorism analyst at the Investigative Project, a Washington, D.C.-based counterterrorism think tank established in 1995. Ben Schmidt is a terrorism analyst for the Investigative Project., which is the notation at the bottom of the page at the following link:

A new article should be created with the proper title, The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, complete with an accurate infobox, and any information that is relevant to the foundation. Everything else relating to work done prior to 2006 belongs in the Steven Emerson article. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  20:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of moving this article to Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation as you suggest, and having the Emerson biography corrected to reflect accurate secondary sources (rather than self-serving primary sources) but I'm not so hot on the idea that all of Emerson's former activities should be fully removed from this article. We should tell the reader what came before, and how it is related. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I just now began the initial stages of creating the IPT Foundation article, and welcome collaboration. I agree with Binksternet in that the article should include some mention of Emerson's former activities, especially those leading to the organization of the Foundation.  However, since there are other people involved with the Foundation, the article should not be overly focused on Emerson.  He already has an in-depth article on Wikipedia, and it would better serve readers if we avoid excessive overlap.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no problem in renaming this article and moving it to the Title "Investigative project on terrorism foundation". This source suggests IPT and SAE are one in the same. It makes no claims about the 1995 Investigative project, nor does it mention it. This source does not mention the investigative project is a seperate group from the investigative project on Terroism foundation. [http://www.investigativeproject.org/170/operation-support-system-shutdown I'm Missing the contradiction here as a Senoir Terrorism Analyst would be a Terrorism Analyst. It's also not relevant. Like your other sources this source does not differentiate between the two. This is solely synthesis on your part. Oh wait let's look The Tennessean article. Interesting! It repeats what the CAIR article said. Which would again leave complaints to the world of Original research. They claim to be founded in 1995. There's another claim of 1995 founding. Also noting one of your sources, CAIR Unmasked, I'm not sure how that can be considered a reliable source but if you insist I feel the need to direct you here. They suggest that IPT was founded in 1995 and strangely link to IPT's website. Perhaps they aren't privy to your original research. A press release from IPT with a claim of 95 founding. Can you guess the year of founding here? And I could keep going. Why should anyone take your position over the position of IPT?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But if you start that article I'll happily bring over the Islamophobia template before I start a AFD.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On further reflection I'd actually have to disagree with renaming. I'll site WP:COMMONNAME. There's a particular preference that the name used for an article be the most common. Based off english language sources. This is not always the official name.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that either I'm misunderstanding your comments or Atsme is. If you wouldn't mind you please clarify? Of issue, You say, "I'm in favor of moving this article to Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation as you suggest." When you say that wp:move comes to mind or specifically that you to move or rename this very article to Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. It seems on the other hand that Atsme believes that you want to create a whole new and separate article with him.


 * On a side note this looks like another episode of Atsme gaming the system. WP:STONEWALL logic. Your moving to have this deleted and merged with Steven Emerson while moving to recreate this page elsewhere. Bad faith negotiating is what it is called. But I really can't "well say color me surprised."Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME is not a valid argument in light of the fact that there is a BLP on Steven Emerson which includes information about his "think-tank", so the title is ambiguous at best, and extremely misleading to say IPT is a "common name" for Steven Emerson - CNN reporter, independent reporter, producer, and terrorism expert working with a think-tank called The Investigative Project - all one in the same, all prior to 2006. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a separate entity - a section 501(c)3 that was organized in April 2006.  It is not related to CNN, or to Steven Emerson as an independent reporter.  It is its own separate entity.  Without violating WP:NOR, or WP:NPOV, or WP:BLP, the latter is the entire scope of information any editor should be basing the IPT(F) article on.  I never imagined correcting inaccurate information and eliminating overlap would be considered "gaming the system".  I'm just trying to get this mess cleaned up so that the IPT(F) information is worthy of being "encyclopedic", and not the result of the multiple violations that have been committed by Serialjoepsycho, including WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLP.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  03:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:Commonname applies directly, your original research not withstanding. You have provided no sources that make this claim. You have provided no sources that support this claim. All we actually have is your groundless conjecture. It doesn't become any less groundless the more you post it. It's unencyclopedic. And as far as your claims about me, SPIN THAT WHEEL! Take it to ANI. Your bias is all over this talk page. And it's been record elsewhere. You do not have a consensus to rename this page. You do not have a consensus to make your improper content fork. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger RFC
There is a RFC on the above proposed merger at Talk:Steven_Emerson.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * RFC closed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)