User talk:Defender70

Welcome!
  Hello, Defender70!  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

The Teahouse Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips 
 * Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
 * It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
 * If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
 * Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
 * When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
 * If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
 * Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Geoff &#124; Who, me? 14:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Lorenzo G. Vidino
Hi @Defender70, you are effectively engaged in an edit war with me on the Lorenzo G. Vidino page, and it has to stop. You have so far insisted on imposing non-neutral edits to the page, which I have either edited or reverted. You cannot simply continue to restore your preferred version of the page without even attempting to engage in dialogue with other editors. At this point, you have to start discussing before you make further edits to the page, as your activity is nothing short of disruptive. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * I disagree with your characterization of the edits as "non-neutral." In fact, I left in all of the negative material that had been posted.  All I added was factual material to give context to the article, to remove any slant.  For example, the material I added that you removed, regarding the Bridge Initiative at Georgetown, is important because it provides more facts about the possible bias of some of the critics.  Vidino is a scholar on the Muslim Brotherhood:  facts that demonstrate critics' sympathy or alignment with the Muslim Brotherhood give context to those comments.  Comments by the director of that think tank are important to demonstrate that perhaps he is not as unbiased on this subject and one might think. Readers of the Wikipedia entry can make up their own minds when provided with facts. Again, I did not remove the criticism itself, but rather added material to make the picture more complete.  Also, organizationally, it seemed to make more sense to me to have the section on "Critical Reception" immediately following the section on "Writing," since the "Reception" is about the "Writing."  I trust we can work this out.  Thanks. Defender70 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Defender70, thanks for explaining. I wasn't happy with the edit you made here:, as I thought it was non-neutral and added too much unnecessary content to the lede, verbatim, from subsequent sections. I pared it down here: , and you basically just restored your preferred version here: . I found this to be a bit sneaky on your part, so I am predisposed to view your edits negatively. I haven't looked at your latest edits in detail, but assuming we are not going back to content I've reverted before, what specific areas do you feel need to be modified? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I understand why you edited the opening overview as you did.
 * 1) An important set of facts I think should be restored would read as follows - because I think the facts about the Georgetown center and its executive director will provide important context to the accusations:  [This is what I had posted, without taking down the criticism - I provided balanced authorities for the citations]
 * Some critics have claimed that Vidino's research "promotes conspiracy theories about the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe and the United States" and leads to the criminalization of Muslim civil society. This criticism was leveraged by the Bridge Initiative, a research outfit housed at Georgetown’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, a center founded through a $20 million donation from Saudi Arabia's controversial Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal. The center’s director, Nader Hashemi, came under fire for having suggested that the Israeli Mossad could have been behind the assault against Salman Rushdie. Hashemi served on the board of advisory editors of the main journal published by UASR, a think tank set up by top Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzouk.
 * I think this material should similarly be added, as I did, in the Critical Reception area after the criticism: In April 2020, the Bridge Initiative of Georgetown University published a comprehensive fact sheet about Vidino, claiming that his "research promotes conspiracy theories about the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe and the United States". The Bridge Initiative, a research outfit, is housed at Georgetown’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, a center founded through a $20 million donation from Saudi Arabia’s controversial Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal. The initiative's associate director [I corrected a misspelled word here that someone else had posted].
 * 2) I think that context is provided by the sentence I added here: This was revealed during the Abu Dhabi Secrets. The Muslim Brotherhood is considered an extremist organization and monitored by the security services of most European countries, including France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands. [with reference added].
 * What do you think? Thanks for your time. Defender70 (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Defender70, sorry for the delayed response. I'll make a point of re-reading your last edit, which I haven't done yet, and we can continue discussing it on the relevant talk page. How does that sound? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for MY delayed response. Sounds like a fair plan.  Thank you. Defender70 (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good morning! It's been a while - I'd like to add a little bit of context about the Bridgeview source, so I'll add a sentence or so to give context to the organization and its perspective.  We can chat if you wish. Defender70 (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)