Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:01, 17 August 2007

disruptive editing by User:Isarig

Template:RFChist Please do not put bogus tags on this page in order to prove a WP:POINT on another page. It's a pretty clear instance of WP:STALK as well as WP:POINT to follow me to another page in order to make bogus claims just so you can prove a false point on the MEMRI page. This paper is notable on its face and the only reason you are questioning it is to try to justify your unprecedented and uncalled for deletion of sourced and cited material from respected authorities that happened to be published in this paper. Please stop the nonsense; this is an encyclopedia, not a playground. csloat 12:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless, and border on incivility. You introduced this dubious source as a reference for a highly controversial claim you are insisting on inserting into the MEMRI page, and quickly created page for it - I (and other editors) querstion its notability, both there and here. A self-published freebie leaflet claiming to be the largest paper serving a small minority community in a certain geography is not, in and of itself, notable. For it to be notable, it must be the topic of several independent works. If it is, you should be able to find them. Isarig 12:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Your stalking goes way beyond the border of civility. Third party sources are already published on the article page, so your objection is baseless (and your bogus and self-serving claim that a newspaper must be the "topic of several independent works" is simply your opinion). The claim that this paper is self-published is a pathetic joke at best. Read the web page for the paper yourself; there is an editorial staff. It is not a "leaflet" but the biggest paper in California serving the Muslim community. If you believe your complaint, submit this article for AfD and let the chips fall where they may -- perhaps others will agree that it does not merit an encyclopedia entry. But I don't think you even believe your claim; I think you are simply disrupting wikipedia, reviving a stupid feud you have with me from months ago -- a feud I thought we had laid to rest -- because you want to censor legitimate criticism of MEMRI even though that criticism comes from authoritative published voices. csloat 12:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not stalking you, and if you repeat this uncivil charge agian, you will again find yourself the subject of an ANI report, hopefully with more teeth this time, as your uncivility and disruption of the project must stop. My claim that the article's subject must be the "topic of several independent works" is not my opinion, it is what Misplaced Pages's guidelines on notability states: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - please familiarize yourself with that guideline. Isarig 13:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, guys, cool it (both of you)! Methinks Isarig doth protest too much, as (to take one example) it's obvious that In Focus is no more self-published than, say, the nearby Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles (which, incidentally, I think publishes some good stuff). To Isarig I suggest that you could have looked for independent 3rd-party sources yourself, rather than just slapping on a {{notability}} tag. That would demonstrate a genuine search for the truth, and would help avoid accusations of disruptive editing. I have some sympathy for csloat, as the changes he is seeking to make on the MEMRI page are basically correct, but it is still important not to let yourself be provoked (it is for instance sound policy to ask for several, independent, third-party sources), however difficult that may be.

--NSH001 14:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The JJGLA has a public editorial staff, listed here. I can't say the same for SCIF, whose editor is a bit of mystery, let alone its editorial staff. Regardless, your argument is the logical fallacy of Tu Quoque, also known on WP as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't know if JJGLA is notbale, but its notability or lack thereof has no nearing on the notability of this article. It is not up to me to establish the notability of article whose notability I dispue, but rather on the editors claiming that it is notable - that is what the {{notability}} tag is for. Isarig 14:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right that you don't have to establish notability yourself; what I am saying is that it is open to you to be less provocative, and that doing so would make a pleasant change for all concerned. Just occasionally? I'd like to see a more co-operative spirit of editing, and that means looking at other people's arguments, and sometimes even helping them out. Certainly it would help defuse the antagonism you seem to have with csloat. But as I said, you don't have to do so.

--NSH001 16:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Methinks sloat doth protest too much. This article was clearly created as a violation of WP:POINT when InFocus was challenged as a source on the MEMRI page. I don't see anything here which establishes its notability in any way. I've posted my concerns regarding this on ANI, and will post this article on afd very soon unless something WP:V establishing it's notability is produced. I looked myself when the issue came up, and I didn't see a thing. <<-armon->> 22:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed wording to Infocus states that it is "California's largest Muslim newspaper". Cites given don't establish this as a fact -fails WP:V. <<-armon->> 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense; do the google search - there are multiple sources for the fact that it is california's largest muslim paper. If you are so sure it isn't, can you please name the muslim paper that is larger? As for your other argument, you are simply casting empty aspersions on my good faith, and I ask you to stop it. There were no violations of WP:POINT, and your claim that this paper -- the largest of its kind in California -- is not notable is absurd; my only explanation for such an irrational position is that it stems from an extremist Islamophobia. In which case, I pity you. csloat 10:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

edits by Isarig (talk · contribs)

Isarig's most recent edit war surrounds two changes that I proposed; the diff is here. First, Isarig changed this sentence:

"Started in Anaheim, California on February 4 2005, the paper is the largest Muslim newspaper in California."

Isarig changed the sentence to read as follows:

"The paper was started in Anaheim, California on February 4 2005, and claims to be the largest Muslim newspaper in California."

Isarig's version is clearly inferior grammatically as well as in terms of POV. The use of the term "claim" is problematic here (see Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_may_advance_a_point_of_view) as it poisons the well by casting doubt on the statement. Yet the paper is not the only source of that claim as is clear from the citations in the text or from a simple google search. More importantly, nobody has cast doubt on that claim from any published source. I certainly can't name a Muslim paper in California that is larger and I doubt Isarig can. Using the word "claim" in this manner constitutes both a POV shift and a form of WP:OR by creating doubt about a fact that there is no published account doubting. Isarig has not offered a single argument defending his change here.

The second change is Isarig's addition of a quotation mined from a blog of an organization of limited notability. The quote follows:

"Americans Against Hate has described it as "CAIR-California's monthly tabloid".

I have several problems with the quotation:

1. It is meaningless. It is a bizarre form of name-calling but it has no substance. What does this organization mean by "tabloid," and why did it describe it that way? The association with CAIR California is already mentioned elsewhere in the article in a less ad hominem manner; this quote adds nothing to the article at all.
2. It is quote mined. The quote is taken out of context from a self-published web page whose sole purpose seems to be to defame various individuals by calling them terrorists; within this list is a cartoonist who happens to draw cartoons for InFocus. Isarig's citation of this source is incredibly deceptive as well: he cites the title of the blog as "Political Cartoonist for CAIR-California's monthly tabloid." But that phrase is found under the bold title "Khalil Bendib" (the name of the cartoonist), and that bold title is part of a long list of individuals being defamed on the page. The actual title of the page appears to be "CAIRWatch: Keeping an Eye on Hate" under the "Profiles" section. Isarig's mendacious title is an extension of his quote-mining; he appears to be trying to deceive the reader into thinking that this is actually an article about InFocus rather than a short entry in a long list of individuals.
3. It comes from an attack site. The sole purpose of the page, as I said before, appears to be a character assassination of various individuals associated with CAIR. That really throws into question its status as a WP:RS.
4. It is not notable. The organization itself may have a sliver of notability (though it appears not to), but that does not mean that its comments on an subject whatsoever are also notable. The opinion of one of the organization's writers about this paper does not seem to be notable at all.

I look forward to hearing what others think about these changes; if others agree with me, they should be reverted forthwith. csloat 20:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As a starting point, please stop labeling these paragraphs as disruptive editing by me. That is uncivil, and I will reprot you if you do it again. If you have issues with my grammer, suggest a better formulation, but do not removed well sourced content. The claim that InFocus is the larget paper is just that, a claim, by them. It is not fact, and the material you cite that supposedly supports that, does not. The SLD quote calls them the largets in Southern California, which is something differnt. The other results of the google search are either repeat teh SLD claim regards "southern californai", or are unreliable sources. If you don;'t knwo what a tabloid is - look it up. The motivations of AAH are irrelevant. It is a well sourced comment, and the fact that you don't like it is, well, irrelvant. Isarig 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you stop making disruptive edits, I stop calling you on it. However, your edits were clearly disruptive, so if you must report me for telling the truth, feel free to, but please stop threatening me. I did suggest a better formulation for your grammar and you simply reverted it, apparently without reading it. Please revert it back. The fact is that the paper is the largest muslim paper in california, as 143 google citations show, as well as other cites. Yes SLD mentions southern california but the claims are not exclusive - it is both the largest in SoCal and the largest in Cal. Do you know of a larger one, or of a citation disputing the fact that it is the largest? If not, please drop this silly matter.

The fact that I disagree with you does not make my editing disruptive. Please cease using that terminology. Consider this your final warning. Isarig 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Warn me all you want, but when you are engaged in disruptive editing, you can expect me to call you on it, whether or not you threaten me. Please stop threatening me -- filing bogus reports is simply further disruptive editing. csloat 22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On the second issue, you have not responded to the arguments above except to tell me to look up the word "tabloid." I refer you to the four arguments above explaining why this quotation should not be here, and remind you that you must respond to each one convincingly in order to meet your burden of proof. csloat 21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I addressed all 4 of your argumets. Your argument (1) was that calling it CAIR's tabloid is meaningless - I suggested you look up the meaning of the term you don't understand. Your argument (3) was that it comes from a site whose purpose is to attack CAIR. That may or may not be true, but the motivations are irrelevant. Your argument (4) is that it is not from a notabale source, but we have had that discussion on the AAH page, and it appears to be a much more notable organization than InFocus is. With regards to (3) - that is the section heading under which the criticism is found, and is intended to help the reader. I am open to other suggestions. Isarig 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) I didn't say I didn't understand the term; I said the name-calling is meaningless. You have not established anything encyclopedic about it. (2) Ah, yes, you forgot #2 again, and yet deceptively claim you addressed all 4 arguments. That one alone is enough reason to exclude the quote. (3) the motivations are not at issue; the notability of this attack site is all that is at issue here; this "criticism" (or more accurately this ad hominem) is not encyclopedic; (4) nope; it appears to be not notable at all -- it has a website and the entire organization seems to be one fringe activist using an organization as a front. We do not need to give space to every silly comment by every website launched by every activist. csloat 22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion that calling something a tabloid and associating that tabloid with a much critcized advocacy organization is "meaningless" - but that's your persoanl opinion, which is quite worthless. I addressed (2) {though mistakingly labeld it (3)]. If you have a better suggestion for the label of that reference, I'm opne to hearign it. (3)+(4) It has been established at teh AAH page that the organization is notable . Give it up already. Isarig 22:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion that my opinion is "worthless," but that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you cannot articulate any encyclopedic value of this immature name-calling. You did not answer argument #2; if you mislabeled it, you still completely ignored the point that your quote was taken deceptively out of context in a manner that appears intentional and mendacious. AAH's notability is not at issue here (as you should be well aware), what is at issue is the notability of this throwaway sentence that you quote mined out of a page full of defamation. csloat 22:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, your opinion (and mine, for that matter) is worthless. So you can complain as much as you want about something being meaningless to you, but that is, simply put, irrelvant and wortheless. What this boils down to is your assertion that the claim is not notable - and I disagree. A notable organization has claimed that the magazine in question, which poses as an independant newspaper is in fact a tabloid produced by and funded by an adcvocacy group. Surely such information is relevnt to the article. Isarig 22:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're hand-waving and ignoring the arguments. The worthlessness of anyone's opinion is not at issue here; what is at issue is that there is nothing encyclopedic furthered by the name-calling "tabloid" quote. We already have the bogus whine that it is a CAIR-funded publication, so that part of the quote adds nothing. Second, you are ignoring the argument that the quote is out of context and that your quote mining was deceptive and mendacious. Third, you are ignoring the argument that the quote, not the organization, is not notable. csloat 00:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You are cautioned, yet again, to stop commenting about editors and their alleged motivations. One more violation of WP:NPA and we will meet, yet again , at WP/ANI. Your constant vilification of editors in lieu of actual arguments must stop. Isarig 01:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You are cautioned, yet again, to stop threatening me. It is getting tiring, and it is nonsense. You are the one not responding to the arguments here. csloat 03:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your arguments, and your response was to call my edits "deceptive and mendacious." I am not threatening you - I am explaining the inevitable consequences of your uncivil editing style. Isarig 03:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Go back and read argument #2 -- I explained how your edits were in fact deceptive and mendacious. You have not responded to those points. Nor have you, for that matter, answered the other three arguments -- the fact that you were deceptive was only one of the four arguments I was making. csloat 05:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the title to your proffered version - there was nothing decpetive nor mendacious about it to begin with. we are now done with argument 2, and with your opposition to this quote. Now quietly go away, and take your little uncivil comments with you. Isarig 15:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the one being uncivil; I have been asking you to stop. Yes you did change the title, which resolved the most blatant aspect of the deception, but argument #2 is still quite accurate -- the quote is fundamentally out of context, quote-mined from an article that is simply not about the InFocus paper at all. Of course, you have also forgotten arguments 1, 3, and 4, and, as I have said, any one of them independently is a reason to reject this quotation from the article. I'll go ahead and make the necessary change. csloat 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

All your objections have been addressed. You are now just being disruptive. Isarig 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, none of them have. You have corrected part of objection number 2; that is all. I will repeat them below since you seem to have missed them; these are each independent objections to the quotation from "Americans Against Hate" that Isarig is disrupting this page over:

1. It is meaningless. It is a bizarre form of name-calling but it has no substance. What does this organization mean by "tabloid," and why did it describe it that way? The association with CAIR California is already mentioned elsewhere in the article in a less ad hominem manner; this quote adds nothing to the article at all.
2. It is quote mined. The quote is taken out of context from a self-published web page whose sole purpose seems to be to defame various individuals by calling them terrorists; within this list is a cartoonist who happens to draw cartoons for InFocus. The quote as such appears to deceive the reader into thinking that this is actually an article about InFocus rather than a short entry in a long list of individuals.
3. It comes from an attack site. The sole purpose of the page, as I said before, appears to be a character assassination of various individuals associated with CAIR. That really throws into question its status as a WP:RS.
4. It is not notable. The organization itself may have a sliver of notability (though it appears not to), but that does not mean that its comments on an subject whatsoever are also notable. The opinion of one of the organization's writers about this paper does not seem to be notable at all.

A real discussion of these issues would be welcome. csloat 20:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion. Oncre again:

1. It is not meaningless. It add the info that (a) it is a Tabloid and (b) that it is CAIr's tabloid (rather than being merely produced in the same offices as CAIR, or being subsidized by CAIR.
2. The article does not have to be about InFocus. In mentions InFocus while talkign about one of its contributors, and calls it CAIR's tabloid in that context.
3. The purpose and motivations of the source are irrelvant to the fact that they described it as such
4. It is notable enough to have its own WP page, and a simple Google search will show it is far more notable than InFocus itself. Isarig 21:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A good start, thank you for actually engaging the argument (though please leave the quote off of the page until these issues are resolved, thanks). My responses. I'm going to go ahead and sign each one in case you want to respond inline.

(1) You claim it adds two things - (a) is that it's a tabloid. This is not meaningful in this context -- it is simply being used as a slur rather than actually saying anything about the format. (In fact, it is incorrect about the format, which appears to be a broadsheet). There is nothing useful or encyclopedic about one extremist's opinion about a newspaper format. (b) we already have the CAIR "connection" suggested on the page. There is nothing new added by the claim that it is "CAIR's tabloid." csloat 21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(2) You claim the quote is in context but you are missing the point. It is quote mined. You cherry picked a throwaway phrase from an article about something else in order to cast vague aspersions on the paper. Again, this is not encyclopedic criticism, and it is deceptive as it leads the reader to believe that this extremist has written directly about InFocus. csloat 21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(3) You mention the source's motivations, but that's not relevant. What is relevant is that this is not notable - it is basically from an attack blog, not a WP:RS, and as such cannot be used for incendiary claims. This is just ad hominem from an extremist with a website.csloat 21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(4) You claim that it is notable enough to have a wikipedia page - that does not make it a reliable source. Your claim that it wins a google fight against InFocus is cute but total nonsense as far as we're concerned here. It doesn't matter which phrase gets more google hits; we aren't comparing the two. In fact, if you re-read #4 above you will see that I am not arguing with your claim that AAH is notable as an organization. What I am arguing is that not every sentence published on AAH's website is notable. Your claim that because AAH is notable, everything they say must be notable too is a logical fallacy. csloat 21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(1)There's a reason I linked Tabloid - it is that so that you could familiarize yourself with the meaning of the term. Please do so, and you wil lsee that Tabloid may refer not to the format, but to the content, frequency and price.. The previos quotes allude to the paper being susbsizdized by CAIR, this one makes the connection more explict.

(2)There' no requirement that an an article be focused on the subject in order to quote from it when it addresses other subjects. If readers are wondering about the article - they click on the refernce and see what it is about.

(3) You've basiclly folded thsi into 4, claimign non-notability, so see below.

(4)You acknowledge that AAH is notable, and it is notable for being a critic of CAIR, thus it's commentary on CAIR-related subjects, such as CAIR's tabloid, are notable. Isarig 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(1)Please see broadsheet and then see the rest of my comment - it's not encyclopedic to note that a lone extremist used the wrong (or even right) word to describe the paper's format, frequency, or price. As for CAIR, what makes this "more explicit"? It is implicit at best. The funding quote makes it explicit.

(2)Again, you're not responding to the point, which I urge you to re-read. The point is the quote is mined out of context from an article that has nothing to do with this.

(3)The ad hominem nature of this quote is separate from its complete lack of notability.

(4)You're saying that everything this lone extremist has to say about CAIR is notable? I don't think so. This is not "commentary"; it is a one line ad hominem, and it is not notable just because you were able to manufacture a thin veneer of notability for this guy's little defamation website. Again please read WP:RS and stop making bogus arguments here. Thanks, and have a good day. csloat 23:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) It is encyclopedic to note that a critic has described it as a tabloid, even if you think the critic is wrong

(2)I've responded to the point. Re-read my response

(3)You wrote above, WRT to (3) "What is relevant is that this is not notable " - so 3 and 4 are one and the same

(4)yes. that's what I'm saying. You disagree, but that doesn't make your POV the correct one. Isarig 23:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(1)No it is not. We would not include on the New York Times page the fact that Rush Limbaugh has called it a "leftist rag." Not everything everyone says is notable and encyclopedic; please see WP:NOT.

(2)Perhaps you will have better luck if you re-read my objection to your response more slowly. Get back to me when you have done so; in the meantime I will take this as a concession on point #2.

(3)The ad hominem issue is separate from its notability. We do not include empty ad hominems on critiques of newspapers.

(4)Actually it's not my POV, it is clearly laid out in WP:RS.

It looks like we're done here; the quote stays out. Thanks for your input. csloat 23:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(1)yes it is, and yes, we might.

(2)I have read your objection and responded to it.

(3)You were the one who said th eobjection is based on lack of notability. reread what you wrote.

(:4)WP:RS says nothign of the kind.

It looks like we're done here; the quote is in. Thanks for your input. Isarig 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) no, it's not. This much is clear, and you are just making empty assertions now.

(2) No you haven't actually responded to it; again, try more slowly next time.

(3) I also said it was an ad hominem. You still have ignored this point. You're just playing games with the fact that I also said notability. Please try to approach this argument in good faith rather than engaging in empty sophistry.

(4) WP:RS is pretty clear on the matter; a self-published web page with no editorial oversight is simply not a WP:RS.

The quote goes. csloat 23:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) Yes, it is. This much is clear, and you are just making empty assertions now.

(2) I have responded to it, by both addressing the substantial issue in the article, and by addressing your "not the topic" objection. Please re-read.

(3) So you also said it was an ad hominem. Whoop tee do. You said notability wa sthe main issue. Your welcome to your opinion about the ad hominem, but we disagree.

(4) WP:RS is pretty clear on the matter; a notable organization making a notbale criticism is ok to use

The quote stays. Isarig 00:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) this is getting silly. it is not encyclopedic, and you don't have an argument as to why it is. If you do, you have failed to articulate it, despite the proliferation of comments here.

(2) you did not address the objection at all that this was quote mined totally out of context from a web page about something else.

(3) if we disagree, it might be about time to explain what you think our disagreement is so we can resolve it. "whoop te dos" and other uncivil comments do not cut it here - if you can't explain why you think you're right, we must assume you're wrong.

(4) This is not a reliable source, it is a self-published web page. And this specific comment is not notable -- again, not everything said by every idiot with a wikipedia page is "notable." csloat 00:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) this is getting silly. it is encyclopedic, and I've explained why it is.

(2) I did

(3) I've explained why I am right - starying with the fact that you have already conceded (3) is the same as (4)

(4) it is. Isarig 00:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Isarig, you've clearly shown you are not taking this seriously. I'll slap a NPOV tag to cover both the UNDUE and POV and RS issues your addition creates as well as the inaccuracies created by Armon's edit. Then I'll wait for people to participate in the discussion who actually take it seriously; I'm done interacting with you here. csloat 00:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly a tabloid. It's clearly as notable as Americans Against Hate so if these articles do end up being kept, I don't see a case for removing commentary from them. As for quote mining, sloat, if you're going to accuse Isarig of it, don't do it yourself with the cites you used for "largest Muslim newspaper in California" when they just make a passing repetition of InFocus' masthead claim. Anyway, I consider this debate to be sterile until it can pass WP:N. <<-armon->> 23:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly a broadsheet; please read the entries and look at the newspaper. "largest muslim paper in california" is not just Infocus's claim as you know, and it is hardly "mined." csloat 23:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I'm wondering if this page meets Misplaced Pages notability guidelines as outlined in WP:Notability. By that guideline, we should have: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I'm not seeing evidence that we have this here. Also, please see WP:CORP, likely relevant for this publication. Bigglove 03:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As the largest Muslim paper in California it certainly meets WP:N. We've got articles from the LATimes, St Louis Post Dispatch, and City News Service discussing this paper, as well as some comments from the ADL. It's certainly at least as notable as this paper, about which nobody appears to have raised notability concerns. csloat 00:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I will put the same message on that paper's page as I did on this one. Bigglove 02:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I do note that that is an independent paper, so I didn't put the part about WP:CORP there. Bigglove 02:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the LAtimes article that discusses InFocus? what exactly does CNS say about InFocus? Isarig 01:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the LATimes article myself; it is cited by the ADL but I do not see the full cite information. The full CNS citation is in the article so you can easily find that. I'm not going to engage further questioning or argument with you for reasons I spelled out above. csloat 01:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So, contrary to your claim above, we do not have an "article from the LATimes". Any particular reason why you made that claim, obviously knowing it is false?

The only quote attributed to CNS is 'Muslim Newspaper". would you care to elaborate on the context in which CNS wrote "Muslim Newspaper"? Isarig 02:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(reoutdenting) By the notability guideline at WP:Notability, we need ALL of the following:

1. SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE
2. in RELIABLE sources
3. INDEPENDENT of the Subject

WP:CORP outlines the following regarding the sources

1. NOT Press releases for the organization
2. NOT other works where the organization talks about itself — whether published by the organization or re-printed by other people
3. NOT merely trivial coverage

Of the two RS, we have:

• 1. Muslim Newspaper," City News Service (4 February 2005), we need to know if this source specifically meets the above criteria, and whether the coverage is more than especially repeating a press release. Given that article in City News SErvice has the same pub date as the inception of the paper, I'm concerned that it is essentially a press release.
• 2. From the article: "Tim Townsend, 'St. Louis Post-Dispatch (4 December 2005) p. A1, who calls InFocus "Southern California's largest Muslim newspaper." What we actually have in the article is, "For a lot of Americans, Islam is the unknown, and often it is the unknown that is feared," said Saaqib Rangoonwalla, an editorial board member of InFocus, Southern California's largest Muslim newspaper." This is not SIGNIFICANT coverage of the newspaper. The topic of the article is not INFOCUS. The paper gets a brief mention when the editorial board is quoted and identified. It is unclear if this is self referential by the organization. Bigglove 02:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes CNS is probably a press release, I haven't seen it. As for SLPD, I disagree. We also have ADL citing a LAT article (that I also haven't seen) that is apparently specifically about the paper. And we have clear evidence that the ADL thinks the paper is notable. It's certainly as notable as any college or university newspaper, or any other community newspaper, many of which have pages here. Anyway, I'm not going to fight about this with someone who appears to be bent on making a case against it; if you want to put it up for AfD, you don't need my permission. csloat 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just looked over your edits Biglove; I see you've turned this page into a smear piece lambasting the paper, with about 75% of the page taken up by hysterical ADL ranting about two articles reprinted from other sources. At least we see where you're coming from. This is also inaccurate - I'm not sure I ever said the CNS article called it the "largest Muslim newspaper," and I seriously doubt it said that, since that article was published when the paper was founded. You've also removed the quote from the SLPD, which I suppose is a way to bolster your case against notability here? I'll go ahead and restore the stuff you deleted and summarize the ADL slurs. csloat 06:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• First, per notablility, "largest" of anything is not mentioned above as a notability criteria.
• I thought your version had the CNS cite after "largest muslim newspaper". This is why I made my change. I haven't seen the article--what does it say? If it IS a press release we shoudl get rid of the cite per guideline and it can't be used for notability.
• I discussed the SLPD removal above--it is not an article about the paper itself, it only quotes somenoe who works for the paper and identifies it as the "largest mulsim newspaper". This may or may not be self referential, but I think the ref is being used here to say more than it actually does.
• I also think that the stuff the ADL pointed out is a concerning reflection of editorial policy and deserves mention.
• Of course, we need MORE about the paper from RS for BALANCE, unfortunately there isn't anything except what they write about themselves which doesn't meet notability criteria.
• I might change some of your changes back based on my comments above. Perhaps if you decide to roll all my changes back enmasse we might reach a middle ground instead. Bigglove 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree with the selective way you are applying notability criteria to this paper. As I said, if you don't think it's notable, you don't need my permission to AfD it, but I'm not going to bicker with you -- it's clear your mind is already made up. csloat 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The criteria are above and so is my discussion of the points. Bigglove 21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is the fact that I disagree with the selective way you are applying notability criteria to this paper. As I said, if you don't think it's notable, you don't need my permission to AfD it, but I'm not going to bicker with you -- it's clear your mind is already made up. As for your revert, you stated in the edit summary that you would edit based on my changes so I'll wait to see what you come up with before reverting you. csloat 21:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I am not sure why you think I am applying anything selectively. I wrote the criteria above and discussed. We disaagre on the one st louis cite so I put it back. I don't have a huge problem with it. I am also not really interested in afd of articles. I am more interested in improving them. Bigglove 21:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested in improving this article rather than deleting it, the energy you're putting into denying its notability is completely misplaced. I don't see you applying these criteria to any other papers (though you did put a note on the Jewish Journal but you haven't followed up on it or edited the article in the contentious way you have been editing this one). I will try to work with you on improving the article but I do have problems with some of your edits. But I don't plan to get sucked into further debates about its notability here, as I see that discussion to be fruitless. csloat 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, I can only do one thing at a time and I have a day job! You mentioned the Jewish journal thing, and I raised the same question I did here. Maybe I'll edit over there after improving this article. It is on my watchlist now. As for my energy on notability discussion, it would have been shorter if we'd actually had a rational discussion on the points I raised. Bigglove 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, no offense. I just don't see anything helpful or productive about continuing this line of argument. I'll put the Jewish Journal on my watchlist too and I look forward to seeing your contributions there. Personally I think both these papers are notable, and if either goes to AfD I expect to engage in the discussion there, but I don't see the value in discussing it here. csloat 22:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

size is irrelevant

I don't think the size of the paper is relevant to establishing notability. It is probably the biggest muslim paper, but size is not a criteria for notability. Notability issues are all listed above. Bigglove 21:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think it's notable, AfD it - I'm not going to bicker with you about it; suffice to say that I think you are wrong. csloat 21:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be more helpful to discuss the criteria themselves and whether this fits or not rather than who is right and who is wrong. Bigglove 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be helpful to argue with someone whose mind is already made up. If you want to AfD it, I'll take my arguments there. csloat 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

muslim activists

why was the fact that the paper was started by muslim activists expunged from the article? This is directly from the 'about us' page of the newspaper. i'm putting that back. Bigglove 21:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't expunged, it was moved to a more appropriate place. It doesn't belong in the intro. csloat 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I put it back. I think the founding goals of the paper belong in the intro. Why not? I found the rest of the sentence as well. See what you think. Bigglove 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

content of hezbollah and antisemetic materia

this is relevant to understanding the editorial policy of the paper. i'm putting it back. Bigglove 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be re-summarizing it if you do. Familiarize yourself with WP:UNDUE. We don't need 75% of the article to be filled with hysterical charges of racism. csloat 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I shortened it. See what you think. Please add more from other sources to balance this material. I've looked and can't find much. Bigglove 21:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've shortened it again. If I see other sources on this I will add them. I don't see the need for the extreme level of detail that you inserted -- ADL is upset because of two articles, one that it perceived to be supportive of hezbollah, and another that was reprinted from a saudi paper. ADL's discussion of why it thought the article was supportive of hezbollah, or of what was wrong with the saudi paper's discussion of Israel, are minutiae that are not really relevant here. I looked at the Arab News page and saw nothing about this article about Israel; if it is not notable enough in its original source for comment on that page, why is it worth such extensive discussion on this page? csloat 21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I put it back to my last version, which actually was a response to your concerns. I had shortened considerably from my first version to my second and tried to remove the adl editorializing and just stick to direct content description. It is not transparent to me why whether Arab news right now has anythig about this article is relevant here. Please try to do the same to reach a middle ground rather than just reverting to your original version. Bigglove 22:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider this move; there is no need for a revert war here. First off, you made other changes in your revert which shows me you didn't even bother to read what I did before you reverted. I made some minor copyediting that you should change back. Second, you haven't explained why we need this much description of two articles from the paper. Should I go read some articles I like and summarize them here too? It seems silly -- we have the necessary information that the ADL criticized these two articles; that is all we need. If the article that was originally printed in Arab News is not notable enough to be included in the Arab News article, it most certainly does not belong here (where it is only reprinted). I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:UNDUE and make changes accordingly -- right now you have about 50% of this page devoted to criticism of two articles in a newspaper, and all that criticism comes from a single source (a self-published website, at that). I'll let you go ahead and shorten it rather than revert-warring with you as I don't think that will be productive and you seem to be approaching this in good faith, but if you don't make any such changes I will likely do it myself. csloat 22:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

i have already changed the paragraph once as noted above in response to your concerns. Here is what I did. In addition to shortening the text and removing editorializeing from adl (I'm repeating myself here now), in order to respond to your comment of undue weight, I added other stuff about the newspaper that was descriptive about what the paper includes. We now have the CNS cite for this, altho that is not really more than a press release. The reason it is very notable to mention this stuff is that it shows something about the editorial policy of the paper, and that is relevant to a wikipedia article about the paper. I don't think the adl web site is the best cite, honestly, but there are pretty slim pickins in terms of citations. Finally, I am apologetic about your copy edits I will look. Bigglove 00:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't show anything about the "editorial policy of the paper"; it shows what ADL's pet peeves are. And there is nothing added by the excess verbiage you added to the summaries; it is enough to have a sentence or two about this. Again, if this article from a saudi paper is so important, why isn't it mentioned on the page about the paper it was originally published in? this is a reprint! It's like spending half the article on the New York Times with some leftist organization's whining about the paper because it republished a right-wing editorial cartoon. I'll be fixing this. csloat 10:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What a newspaper chooses to print (or reprint) reflects the editorial policy of the paper. Bigglove 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Bold facing your comments does not make them any more persuasive. I have not deleted the comment that the newspaper chose to print or reprint these things; what I am deleting is the unnecessary editorializing about it by ADL. And, again, you have to account for why this article is not even mentioned in the Arab News article if it is so important. csloat 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arab News, I think you are rasing an irrelevant point. Why should this particular article be highlighted on the Arab News page? It may not be an atypical or unusual or special article for Arab News or Saudi Arabia. However Infocus is an American paper, and these views are rather ususual for Americans most of whom would probably consider them inaccurate. When an american paper reprints this stuff, it is quite notable.

I did not say you deleted a "comment that the newspaper chose to print or reprint these things". You are deleting the CONTENT of the pieces which IS relevant to the paper's editorial policy. Bigglove 19:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Arabnews -- that's where the article was first published. If it is important here as a reprint, it must have been a highly significant event when they published it first! You are saying this is an unusual viewpoint here; where is your evidence for that and why should that matter? If it is not representative of infocus, why is it here at all? If it is not representative of the Muslim community, find a quote that says infocus is not represetnative of the muslim community. Otherwise that opinion is prohibited as WP:OR. The quotations you are including that I am excluding do not say "this is unusual in an american paper." They simply belabor the obvious point that ADL is critical of what it perceives to be pro-Arab sentiment that borders on extremism. We can say that much without filling 1/3 of the article with extensive quotes from a single critic on a self-published blog. csloat 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion not leading anywhere. The fact that they chose to reproduce an article like this reflects their editorial policy and that is relevant. We can disagree on this. I took half the quote out, including all of the ADL editorializing re "antisemitism" and their interpretation, and just put in what infocus printed. This should suffice to meet you halfway. Bigglove 21:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Arab News chose to print the article too, so presumably it reflects their editorial policy; why aren't you insisting on putting these quotes there too? I think you've got a pretty telling double standard here. Would it be ok for me to pick another article from InFocus to quote extensively in order to make the same point that you are trying to make? And again, you still have not told us what you are adding to the article with these quotes. What are we learning from the quotes that we don't already know in the version I suggested? csloat 22:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already addressed all of these points. Please read my earlier comments rather than asking the same questions over and over. (And I am kind of beginning to resent your insinuations about my "double standard" etc. those kind of comments don't belong here). Bigglove 18:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You have not at all shown what is relevant and not redundant specifically in the words I have deleted. Which words are vital, and why? As for you resenting my "insinuations," it was a claim, not an insinuation. I think you have a double standard; you should examine it. csloat 06:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

CNS cite

Since none of us have seen it, and we don't have any content based on it in the article, and it is likely press release based since it came out concurrent with founding, I removed it. Bigglove 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be restoring it, since it is the source of the date of the founding of the paper. Please do not remove sourced content just to bolster a flawed notability argument. csloat 21:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My reasons for removing this are stated above. None are to bolster any notabillity argument. I simply NEVER cite anything if I haven't read it, but if those are your editorial standards, feel free. This is not my article. Bigglove 21:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm trying to get a copy of it now. I have access to university library databases, and will report what I find. For me it was not a problem because it was only being used to document the date the paper was founded (something I didn't see anywhere else). Anyway I'll be back with details in a bit if I find it. csloat 21:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Bigglove 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

here it is --

Copyright 2005 City News Service, Inc.  
City News Service
February 4, 2005 Friday
LENGTH: 83 words
HEADLINE: Muslim Newspaper
DATELINE: ANAHEIM
BODY:
A newspaper focusing on events and issues related to Southern California's Muslim community 
published its first issue today. Southern California InFocus will provide local, national and 
international news and commentary, its editor, Asma Ahmad, said. The publication includes 
coverage of events, youth, children and Islam and profiles of community leaders. Southern 
California InFocus is distributed at businesses owned and catering to Muslims, mosques and 
community centers, Ahmad said.

Good. that can be a cite for the date of establishment and also for the stuff about content in a lower paragraph. could you put the cite in? I've gotta go now. Bigglove 22:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

When you return, please restore it yourself since you took it out. I would do it but I fear I am close to my revert limit and I'm really trying not to revert war. csloat 22:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

All set. I put it in two places. Bigglove 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

undue weight and tag

I have added text to balance the article. I must really insist on letting the critcism stand; it is an important reflection of one aspect of this paper's editorial policy that they printed this stuff. Bigglove 00:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No it's not, and I am not removing it anyway - I am just summarizing it and removing the unnecessary editorializing that says a lot more about ADL than anything else. csloat 10:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And when I get a chance I am going to put it back. Please make a suggestion at middle ground rather than reverting to your original text, which you have done several times now without even suggesting a compromise. Bigglove 13:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, as of now the criticism is about 1/3 of the article (word count for total 363, crit 108). Bigglove 18:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is way too much, since all the criticism comes from a single source, and all of it describes only two articles, only one of which was actually written by this magazine. I'll try again, but please note that I did not simply revert to the original text but I rather rewrote the whole paragraph again. Can you please tell me what part of the criticism you think is essential here beyond what my rewrite keeps? csloat 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, when you answer that question, please also indicate exactly which quotations are from the InFocus article and which ones are from the ADL's mischaracterization of that article. Do the same for ArabNews. Thanks. csloat 18:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption that the ADL mischaracterized betrays a bias that not all Wikipdeia readers would share. The quotes from the ADL are in double quotation marks. The quotes from the paper are in single quotation marks. Bigglove 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Sorry, that refereed to my first version. In this version, I was careful that the quotes come from INFOCUS so as not to be confusing. Bigglove 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I put a direct quote from infocus rather than by way of ADL. Bigglove 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The content. Your version is devoid of content.Bigglove 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A quote cherry picked by ADL, of course; it is completely misleading to state that this quote did not come to us "by way of ADL." csloat 22:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you please answer the question above? I highlighted it in bold so you don't miss it this time. csloat 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The question again, since you missed it again: Can you please tell me what part of the criticism you think is essential here beyond what my rewrite keeps? Can I get an answer here? csloat 17:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yor rewrite removes essential aspects of the content, admiration the author showed for Nasrallah and Hezbollah and the characterization of Israeli army as "Anglo-American-backed Zionist forces". Bigglove 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope; my rewrite leaves no mistake about what that opinion piece is about; all I did in that section is remove redundant soapboxing. csloat 06:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how quoting a publication is soapboxing. This is something that the paper printed and as such it reflects their editorial policy. Misplaced Pages readers have a right to know this. Bigglove 17:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Biglove

Please stop this revert war immediately. This is out of control. You have a problem with my edits to one section, focus on that section, but you are reverting other changes - including basic grammatical usage changes - that have nothing to do with that. Do you really think this page is better off with improper use of commas and periods? All your reverts show is that you haven't read my rewrite at all. I'm going to rewrite again - not revert (though I will revert the grammatical changes) - and I ask you to actually read what it says before reverting. csloat 18:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not going to do any of that. I'm already at my revert limit and this has gotten silly. I ask you to at least correct your own grammatical errors. I will deal with the absurd undue weight paragraph tomorrow. Good day. csloat 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm probably too stupid and uneducated to fix the commas and periods so why don't you help me out. I honestly tried to find the copyediting changes you made and couldn't see them. Bigglove 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to do it and run afoul of the 3RR. These are basic grammatical conventions -- if you really consider yourself "too stupid and uneducated" to properly use a comma, what are you doing editing an encyclopedia? I'm not saying you are -- those were your words -- and I know people make mistakes, but what you're telling me is that your reverting is so careless that you can't even be bothered to notice separate changes that I clearly explained in the edit summaries. csloat 22:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and fix it. I can't see exactly what you are talking about. Bigglove 00:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Comoodore sloat

why not try to meet me halfway rather than going back to your original version again, and again, and again.....????? Bigglove 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert; there were changes as you could see if you read them. They were minor but I did not just go back to my original version. What do you consider "halfway"? csloat 20:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The changes were in no way substantive. The fundamental content was the same. I changed my fundamental content in reponse to your concerns, but you refuse to do this. Have a good weekend. Bigglove 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Your alleged compromise went even further in the opposite direction! Now we have almost half of the article devoted to whines by the ADL about two articles. It really doesn't help establish good faith to pretend that you are compromising while you load even more excess verbiage into the article. You have not responded to my concerns at all; you have made things worse. Can you please explain what part of WP:UNDUE you have a problem with? csloat 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

oNE The quote is directly from the newspaper, not from ADL. It demonstarates an aspect of the editorial policy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that that violates undue weight. Bigglove 00:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're ok with other quotes from the newspaper then? Since this quote is cherry picked from the ADL and it is included only as "criticism," I do fear we have a WP:UNDUE problem. I will try to address it. csloat 01:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition of sourced relevant material to an article is always ok. Bigglove 16:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. Read WP:UNDUE as I have suggested. Thanks. csloat 17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I read the policy. Bigglove 17:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if you read and understood the policy, you must understand why your edits are unacceptable.csloat 06:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I disagree. My edits are not unacceptable; they are perfectly acceptable. You disagree with me, but you do not own this article. Bigglove 16:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC) I put my edits back. Bigglove 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The undue weight problem

I've gone ahead and edited down the quote about Nasrallah, and I've pretty much left the rest of it alone. There are still UNDUE problems with that paragraph, so the NPOV tag stays for now until we really shorten that nonsense. It's not that the quotes are out of context -- the one article does indeed praise Nasrallah, though I didn't find the other one the ADL was whining about. It's that they are cherry picked and not representative of the paper. Looking through a couple of issues, I really don't see those two articles as in any way representative of their editorial policy (as you say). Besides reprints from Arab News I see reprints from AFP and AP. I see a piece about Muslim lifeguards patrolling a beach in Sydney. I see several articles about terrorism and civil rights, clear concerns of Muslim communities in the US. I don't see any support for terrorism or suicide bombing other than the Nasrallah article about the war. I see an AFP piece about how Australian Jews are distancing themselves from racist comments by Raphael Israeli. I see a piece, "Teacher suspended for inviting anti-Muslim speaker," that does not side with suspending the teacher and quotes the ACLU at length. I see original pieces about marriage and about Muslim youth -- in short, all the sorts of things one would normally expect from a community newspaper. Its politics do not seem to be especially out of touch in any way. Cherry picking these two articles to make a big deal out of makes it sound like this paper is nothing but a propaganda rag filled with hate for America and Israel, but in fact you have to search really hard to find anything like that in the paper. That is why we have a WP:UNDUE problem here. csloat 01:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to put a summary of the above in than to remove my sourced relevant content, which I returned to the article for the reasons stated above. Bigglove 16:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually you have not given a single reason why that "sourced and relevant content" adds anything to the article. You are the one refusing to compromise, and at this point your editing is simply disruptive. csloat 17:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have done so, ad nauseum at this point. It reflects the editorial policy of the paper. Bigglove 17:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And I have responded to that. I have not removed anything that "reflects the editorial policy of the paper." Additionally, you are wrong, and I am starting to think you are simply being disruptive. It reflects what ADL thinks is the most egregious thing about the paper, not the paper's editorial policy. Please re-read my longer comment above regarding what the paper's actual editorial policy looks like. Let me know if you have any further trouble understanding what I am saying. csloat 06:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

YOu need to stop calling me distruptive. I have explained my reasoning. I have added sourced relevant material that you have deleted. IF ANYONE is being disruptive it is actually you. Bigglove 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-read the long comment at the top of this section, and read WP:UNDUE; hopefully at this point you will be able to understand my point. Thanks. csloat 00:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the policy, but disagree with your point. Bigglove 14:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you do not understand the policy; please re-read it, and re-read the paragraph above. csloat 17:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read the policy. YOu need to understand that what YOU consider undue weight is not the universal interpretation. Let's end this particular discussion, because we disagree and are not going to agree.

I like your recent edit. It is more helpful to add stuff rather than to keep deleting sourced relevant content. Are you happy with the section now? Bigglove 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but I will continue to add things as I get time. In general I agree with the principle you state, that it's better to add than delete stuff that is sourced, but it is also better to delete stuff that is only put in to create an undue weight problem. In order to more accurately portray the paper, I now need to summarize several otherwise insignificant articles from the paper in order to counter the rather hysterical charge that this is some kind of pro-terrorism rag. It's a really silly game to be playing and it's better if Misplaced Pages does not give such a strong voice to fringe critics to begin with. But since you insist on it, we are going to have to balance out that hysteria. csloat 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

LA times

I couldn't find anything in the LA times about this newspaper's editorial independence from CAIR, so I removed that sentence from the intro. Bigglove 17:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's in the ADL article you are so on about. csloat 06:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please extract and quote. Bigglove 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) It would be better to find the actual article so we could get some context. This is a publication published out of the headquarters of an advocacy organization, free to the public. I'd like to see some proof that the paper is journalisitically independent rather than a paper to fulfill the mission of the advocacy organization. Bigglove 17:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - please find the LATimes article and add it. As for what you would like to see - I agree and would support adding such information to the article as well. But don't delete the LATimes stuff again. In addition, if you feel the need to make other changes to what I've done (such as re-adding the contentious nonsense from the Nasrallah article), please do not also re-introduce your punctuation errors along with those changes in yet another blind revert. Thanks. csloat 00:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote above that I tried and can't find the LA times article at the LA times Web site. It is quite a claim that a paper published out of the offices of an advocacy organization is intellectually independent of that organization. I am being 100% reasonable to want some proof of that here. DO you really disagree with that? Bigglove 14:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not "quite a claim"; it is a claim, and it is backed up by the ADL quotation on the matter. I would love to see the LATimes article too, and when you find it, I encourage you to add it, but in the meantime, the ADL statement will do (unless you think they are lying, in which case we should remove all of their comments and concerns). csloat 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can have the ADL statement on this without the LA times orig cite, as it is an extreme claim (independence of editorial policy despite financial dependence???). Could you try to find it? YOu were good at finding the city news thing. Bigglove 18:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

punctuation

CS--please tell me exactly the nature of the horrible punctuation mistake I am making and I will not do it again. Bigglove 14:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not horrible, it's just embarrassing. You keep putting extra commas before open quotation marks and then you put periods after close quotation marks. csloat 17:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, these specifics are more useful way to help another editor improve puncutation than your actions above. Bigglove 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Political Cartoonist for CAIR-California's monthly tabloid, In Focus"