Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamic Terrorism

Islamic Terrorism

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * User_talk:Broter
 * User_talk:Broter

Issues to be mediated
Broter is edit-warring in Islamic terrorism. I reverted his poorly sourced, wrong referenced edits, but he keeps reverting back, despite hints on WP:QS and WP:SPS, saying "his sources are better".
 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) citing poor source (The Washington Free Beacon) and misrepresenting the information in it (writes "inspired" by Islam, although the source talks about Islamists): History of edits, overview (citing a self-published book as "important" and "more than just his [the unknown authors] opinion" in the article. Despite my hints to (WP:SPS, WP:NPOV). (Diff-link))
 * 2) Doesn't answer my warnings or statements on his talk page: links to talk-page above
 * 3) writes "my sources are better" instead of providing logical reason for reverts + non-sensical reasons (like "I do not think that loonwacht.org and a 9/11 conspiracy theorist are good sources", there is no loonwacht.org or any conspiracy theorist in my cited sources) (see "History of Edits" above, which provides a good overview of his edits and summaries) and apparently not the first time someone notices tendentious editing by Broter on articles related to islam: Additions to Muhammad and other articles relating to islam
 * 4) deleting my edits, although providing verifiable sources and proving my point on his talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namarhana (talk • contribs) 21:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems like vandalism to me, but wikipedia says it's disruptive editing, so lets try mediation.

--Namarhana (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * My response to the charges

1. I inserted my sources, and, to counter the assertion by Namarhana, that the threat of Islamic terrorism is exaggerated.

This is a global topic and he wants to use data by to show that the threat is overblown. I have different data with my sources from above.

When you look at the source from Namarhana, you see that Loonwatch.com is mentioned there often, including the statement by Loonwatch, which says that "(Loon Watch also notes that less than 1% of terror attacks in Europe were carried out by Muslims.)" I think that my newspaper articles above are a better source than Loonwatch. Furthermore the Centre for Research on Globalization redirects to Michel Chossudovsky, who is in the Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists.

2. The book http://www.amazon.com/Quranic-Concept-War-S-Malik/dp/8170020204 was published by Publisher: Himalayan Books (1986). So this is not a self-published book. It is however free online at http://www.onceagreenberet.com/WordPress/publications/malik.pdf--Broter (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer. loonwatch.org itself isn't the source, but the FBI data and Europol data it's citing (follow the links in the article). The claim that Michel Chossudovsky is an conspiracy theorist is controversial as seen on the talk page. Thats only one source and information i added, why are you deleting other information and sources like "The Guardian" and Global Terrorism Index?


 * You write that "Islam inspired 77% of terror plots" -thats made up- the source mentions "(...) motivated by Caliphate doctrine, a term for the ideology of Islamist groups (...)", Islamism (Islamists), not Islam! "The Israel Times" deals with suicide bombings worldwide ("The Middle East continues to lead the list in the number of terror attacks, just as it did in 2014") not terror attacks in the USA. Also it's known that plots have Again not motivated by islam, but perpetrated by islamist groups! You are creating false information, misrepresenting the sources.


 * Second, anybody like "S.K. Malik" can claim to be an expert or a brigadier of an army for that matter who has special knowledge on a certain field, but neither has he a reputation at all, let alone good or bad, nor was he ever cited by reliable third party sources. The book falls under WP:SPS and i general under WP:QS. (the author is only mentioned regarding this one book). Don't just write "my sources are better" in the summary, the "Global Terrorism Index" and "The Guardian" are reputable sources, whereas The Washington Free Beacon was more then often critisized from various parties and "noted for its aggressive, ideologically driven reporting".--Namarhana (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Namarhana (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. --Broter (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #4, "The parties must have first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute at the article talk page and discussion only through edit summaries will not suffice." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)