Talk:Gatestone Institute/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Is GI Anti-Muslim?

More than NBC claims that Gatestone is anti-Muslim. Also, use of "has described" is wp:weasel and does not belong on the article. Jim1138 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

My revisions say "NBC News and others . . ." About "Has been described" -- it is there now; my revisions took it out. So how is this a reason not to make my revisions? You may have been confused by a self-revert in the middle of my revisions -- I screwed one edit up, and it was easiest to back up and fix from there; this did temporarily re-insert the "has been described" however.Adoring nanny (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

So, Gatestone is complaining that Muslims are claiming Gatestone is anti-Muslim? That sounds rather anti-Muslim. Why does that make any difference anyway? If Gatestone wasn't anti-Muslim, why would Muslims be posting it anyway? "Has described" is still weasel and doesn't belong there. BTW: Your reference didn't work. See ref [26] Jim1138 BTW: If it is a Gatestone link, it is probably self-serving and is not RS. See wp:USINGPRIMARY. Use a secondary source based on this, please. (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We now have Alan Dershowitz[1].Adoring nanny (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Per wp:RSN including, but not limited to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_237#Is_Fox_News_a_WP:RS it would appear that Fox is not RS for politics.

Googling "Gatestone anti-Muslim" returns all sorts of hits. Jim1138 (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138, I glanced at that thread, and I saw a lot more people saying it was RS than not. Is it your position that Wikipedia should describe Gatestone as "Anti-Muslim" in its own voice, and the article should not mention any dissenting opinions?Adoring nanny (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please thread your talk. I moved it above the comment below. There are many sources that state that Gatestone is anti-Muslim. Dissenting opinion is fine as long it isn't self-serving. The RSN conclusion seems to be that Fox News is not RS for politics. Perhaps you should take this up on RSN. Jim1138 (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The conclusion of that discussion was to launch an RfC. I have no idea where said RfC is. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Karysrhea: Please discuss your issues here, not on someone's personal talk page. Regarding your comment at User_talk:Hamtechperson#Gatestone and User_talk:Hamtechperson#gatestone_2. Please see wp:reliable source (RS). Gatestone's website is a primary source, may be self-serving in this case and should not be used here. See wp:USINGPRIMARY. Use of blogs is not RS - see WP:NOTRS, specifically WP:BLOGS. Jim1138 (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I have adjusted the lead so that the anti-Muslim bias allegation appears at the end of the second line (along with the allegations about spreading falsehoods etc), and isn't presented as a statement of fact. I recognise that many users will feel strongly about this, but using opinion/journalistic/non-academic articles to designate an organisation anti-Muslim isn't especially encyclopedic, and just looks like an attempt at well poisoning (even if valid). Endymion.12 (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we adhere to reliable sources and describe things as they truly are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I am obviously aware that we adhere to reliable sources, but that isn't synonymous with stating widely-held opinions as fact. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No op-ed has been cited in support of the 'anti-muslim' description in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No "anti" qualifier describes things as they are because they don't refer to a characteristic of the thing, but to an external that's not fully complementary. Defining a carivore as "anti-hebribvore" is an inaccurate description that leaves out the characteristics of such animals. The Gatestone Institute views Islam as a political system incompatible with democracy, which it is, and is "anti" and "for" various other things. The institute has its own ideology which is its true nature, therefore calling them simply "anti-muslim" is a malicious caricature of what the institute stands for.2001:985:C551:1:3865:FF2F:F725:42D9 (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What concerns me is not the inclusion, but the prominence. If the anti-Jewish nature of the Nazi Party can wait until the end of the second paragraph, which it does[2], one would expect that the Anti-Muslim issue in this article could wait similarly. Instead it's in the first sentence.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the first sentence has been edited to be much more neutral, a positive change IMO - the previous wording was very negative/biased. Colinmcdermott (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What does the word 'anti-Muslim' mean here? Shouldn't there be at least a reference to disambiguation page (pace Doug Weller undo)? One should distinguish between meanings of 'anti-Islamic', 'anti-Islamist' and 'anti-Muslim'. The latter should have a narrow meaning (see e.g. Nikita Malik's recommendation "the definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred should be specific and narrow. It should focus on addressing bigotry directed at individuals, and avoid censoring debate or freedom of expression on religion. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nikitamalik/2019/05/20/instead-of-islamophobia-we-should-focus-on-defining-anti-muslim-hatred/) Do people writing for this institute really hate Muslims? Even including many Muslims among them?

The policy adopted by the editors of this article (Snooganssnoongans et al) from NBC has several dissadvantages, I think. First, it does not serve the clarity of communication. Second, it undermines the credibility of this article. Third, it supports the culture of silencing Muslim critics of certain aspects of Islam. Fourth, it indirectly supports the culture of true hatered of Muslims as individuals.

One may dissaprove as "obviously wrong" (Snooganssnoongas) what the Gatestone intstitue does, but facts should be clearly and neutraly stated first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.91.49.164 (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

conservative think tank

Per this edit, and strong "left of center" reliable sources, I suggest that the lead sentence be: Gatestone Institute is a conservative think tank with a focus on Islam and the Middle East. NOTE: Snooganssnoogans did not respond to this discussion in talk, so I further suggest that the word "The" be removed from the lead sentence. UberVegan🌾 19:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Right-wing is more precise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that "right-wing" is more "precise" than "conservative" constitutes W:OR and ignores the W:RS which label it conservative, including: NPR, Politico, Huffington Post, The Jerusalem Post, The Christian Science Monitor, Salon, Vox, The Algemeiner, and The Orlando Sentinel JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

We've gone over this in detail awhile back. Since then several editors have come back to this contention of yours. "Conservative" would be a conservative choice as there seems to be a consensus for this and as I noted above it has broad participation from other than right-wing individuals. Your agreement isn't needed for a consensus as it doesn't have to be unanimous. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Should be described as a "conservative, anti-Muslim think tank"

The organization is widely described as both conservative and anti-Muslim, therefore the first line of the article should describe the organization as such. It's just bad writing to divide the descriptions of the organization and add a separate sentence near the end of the lede that says "It is anti-Muslim". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't go defining somebody by what they are anti, before you even say who they are. This is not done even in extreme cases like the Nazi Party. As for the writing, I have no objection to improving it. It would, for example, be highly appropriate to mention that they are concerned with issues of democracy, human rights, and a free and strong economy, just as they say on their "about us" page.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

RS do not widely describe the organization that way. What other Wikipedia pages do is not something we can solve here on this talk page. That said, there are lots of pages that describe groups and individuals as 'anti-muslim' or anti-whatever in the first sentence of their lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, when I see what I see with the Nazis, or Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin for that matter, whose murderous natures are not described right up front, then someone gets all insistent that it is absolutely critical to describe some other group as some nasty thing right up front, I get more than a little skeptical.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the Wikipedia articles for individuals and groups who have had a massive and long-lasting impact on the world are organized a little differently than Wikipedia articles for far-right fringe organizations who are known for not much other than spreading anti-Muslim right-wing conspiracy theories and lies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A helpful response. As I'm sure you are aware, the fact that an individual or group is "right-wing" is not an appropriate reason to go after them in the very first sentence.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

"that they are concerned with issues of democracy, human rights, and a free and strong economy, just as they say on their "about us" page." We are not supposed to repeat self-serving propaganda in the articles. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion is very clear on this topic.:

• "Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts." Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Saying that Dershowitz "refutes" something

Two editors (who coincidentally are falsely claiming in the RfC above that RS do not call this group anti-Muslim) are edit-warring text saying that Alan Dershowitz is "refuting" reports of the anti-Muslim description, and adding a long-ass quote from him. They are also removing any mention that Dershowitz is a GI fellow, which one would think is relevant context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, your WP:CIVIL and latest "brazen attempt to deceive editors" knows no limits. I have already stated that some RSs do support the claim. But your latest comment that I'm "removing any mention that Dershowitz is a GI fellow" is absurd and a lie. I placed it in THIS edit with a citation from GI, and you removed it, writing "this is GI's website". I can't speak for the editor who reverted you, but I'm assuming they did not place it back in part because your revert's comment seemed to contest the citation and information about his being a GI fellow. Not everything is an insidious attempt to subterfuge. --UberVegan🌾 23:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You're brazenly telling fibs again: (1) here you add that huge Dershowitz blockquote while removing any mention that he's involved with GI[3], (2) I never removed that he was involved with GI (my version literally states he "contributes to Gatestone" or that he's a "Gatestone Institute fellow", (3) "this is GI's website" (which you for some unknown reason is bringing up) was obviously meant to be "this is not GI's website", as in this Wikipedia page is not for putting in long screeds by members of the organization, sourced to themselves. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)