Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:15, 23 May 2014

It has been suggested that this page be merged into Pamela Geller. (Discuss) Proposed since April 2014.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stop Islamization of America article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Discrimination Low‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stop Islamization of America article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Included Response from Pamela Geller to CAIR Remark About Smoke Screen

"Pamela Geller, who leads Stop Islamization of America, said the adverts were designed to help provide resources for Muslims who were fearful of leaving the faith."

Request to remove "Islamophobia" from the lede

None of the newspapers, or web citations call SIOA an Islamophobic organization. This can't be a mistake. It appears that a decision was made not to use this term. Anyway, it is not supported by the citations, and should be removed.Livingengine1 (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Islamophobia" is an English word, which has a defined meaning. I've quoted it twice above. Are you making the argument that SIOA doesn't satisfy this definition? If so, can you make it explicitly so that others can understand what you mean? If it's your position that before we can use a specific modifier to describe a noun we have to have a reliable source that explicitly uses that modifier to describe that noun, maybe you can point at some Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that supports that view. It's very hard to respond to you when you keep repeating the (rejected) assertion that calling SIOA Islamophobic is not supported by the sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm hatting this discussion. I think Livingengine is aware by now that the description is extremely well supported, and his own personal disagreement is an issue he needs to deal with on his own time, not by wasting the time of productive users. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Islamophobia may have a defined meaning according to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation after they promulgated the term, but it's still a problematic one because there is no published definition that meets EU human rights, or US civil rights scrutiny. It is clearly not our place as Wiki editors to perpetuate the use of undefined or ill-defined words and terminology, or alter old definitions so problematic words like Islamophobia will fit into our vocabulary. The fact that it is frequently misused by the media, and other liberal resources doesn't make it acceptable. The International Civl Liberties Alliance (ICLA) has provided a true and accurate definition for Islamophobia along with information on its origin. You can read it here. The time has come for editors to stop using ill-defined terms including but not limited to Islamophobia, intolerance, discrimination, racism, hate, and zenophobia without reference to any underlying claims or facts. It is clearly a POV violation. Ms. Atsme (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's actually in the Oxford English Dictionary, so it's a little implausible to argue that it's "undefined" or "ill-defined." Being in the OED is pretty much the zenith of reality for words in English. Are you claiming that the OED is a "liberal resource"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, that was an interesting read. However, the ICLA cannot unilaterally assume the right to define Islamophobia in contradiction with various respected entities such as the Runnymede Trust, UNESCO and the United Nations. Rather, the ICLA's definition joins those other ones to help set the boundaries for the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that the views of any of these organizations are salient to the meaning of the word. None of them employ linguists and their attempts at definition are all shot through with multiple instances of the etymological fallacy and other day-dreaming. Words obtain meaning from their general usage by native speakers of a language, which is then picked-out and articulated by professional linguists and collected into dictionaries. If we have to figure out what words mean by reading essays by advocacy groups on any side of an issue we're going to be in serious trouble. I would prefer that we just stick to dictionaries, since they don't have axes to grind but are purely descriptive regarding the actual meaning-as-determined-by-use of words.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite its misleading name, the Int'l Civil Liberties Alliance is actually an anti-Muslim group, so their view on what Islamophobia is is not especially useful to us. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Binksternet in that one organization "cannot unilaterally assume the right to define Islamophobia" which further validates my belief that it becomes the responsibility of Wiki editors, especially considering there are many other respected entities world-wide in addition to the ones he mentioned who have an opposite view and support the ICLA's position. So the obvious question is who makes the choice of what position to portray? The obvious answer is the Wiki editor, but wait - it's not supposed to be a matter of choice. The latter is what creates POV, and results in imbalance as is the case with SIOA. The imbalance and POV is apparent in the comment made by User:Roscelese wherein she automatically excluded ICLA for being what she considers "anti-Muslim". What if editors decided that every organization who supported Islam or Muslims were anti-Semitic? It's ludicrous. I also agree with User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah in that I see no problem using Oxford as a reliable source. The problem is not Oxford, rather it is the misapplication of the definition by Wiki editors who are violating NPOV, be it intentionally, or inadvertently, it matters not. I'm sure we've all been a little guilty of losing our way from time to time especially when it involves a controversial subject where two very strong POVs are in conflict. Editors are only human, and we all have opinions. Our ability to disengage, and assume a neutral position is what sets Wiki editors apart. That's why corroboration is such a valuable tool. Oxford defines Islamophobia as a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially when feared as a political force. The definition is ambiguous at best because of its application of two very different emotions - hate, and fear. The ambiguity further validates my belief that the term is ill-defined. An editor's POV creates the misapplication. For example, the SIOA article focuses on "hate", and omits reliable resources that clearly demonstrate justifiable fear, or grave concern. The lack of balance in SIOA is quite obvious. It portrays the "hate group opinion" of the SPLC…"SIOA was named a hate group in June 2011 by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)." User:Binksternet made an excellent point when he said one group cannot unilaterally assume the right to define. In that same context, a Wiki editor cannot unilaterally assume the right to choose one opinion/ideology/religion over another. It is our responsibility to present a balance that can only come from NPOV, and doing so often requires editors to dig a little deeper than the obvious. Don't forget, the criteria for Wiki content must be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented. It is not a multiple choice criteria. Wiki readers will not be able to distinguish the difference between hate and fear when hate clearly dominates the SIOA article. With the latter in mind, how can anyone claim the article is balanced, or neutral? There are plenty of reliable sources to substantiate SIOA as being pro-Israel, anti-terrorism, anti-Islamlist extremism, and that they are driven by the "fear" of losing human rights, and religious liberty to Sharia, the sociopolitical dictate of Islam. Their position does not target all of Islam, or all Muslims, rather they are focused only on radicalism. SIOA is defined in the article as "an American Islamophobic organization" which is clearly POV, not to mention presumptuous. It is the goal of political pundits, partisan organizations, and liberal media to influence public opinion, so I'm not the least bit surprised that some editors believe the general consensus supports their view when in fact their view was formed by biased opinions. Again, corroboration is key which leads to my next line of questioning. Why wasn't the Dec 3, 2013 article on Front Page Magazine included in SIOA to balance the paragraph about the UK banning? Why wasn't the Jan 2012 Reuters' article, International Freedom Organizations Unite to Create Stop Islamization of Nations (SION), included? Reuters contains no reference to "hate", or "fear mongering", and succinctly and accurately portrays SIOA and SIOE as "the foremost organizations in America and Europe dedicated to defending human rights, religious liberty, freedom of conscience and the freedom of speech against Islamic supremacist intimidation and attempts to bring elements of Sharia to the West." That view has been totally omitted. It is not the job of Wiki editors to inject POV by choosing only those resources that agree with their own philosophies or ideologies. There is without a doubt a serious condition of POV in the SIOA article. Further, I oppose the creation of a series on Islamophobia for all the reasons I've mentioned above with regards to POV issues, and the term itself being ill-defined. It is our responsibility and moral obligation as editors to make sure our articles are NPOV. I thank you kindly for your time and consideration. Ms. Atsme (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"I don't believe in Islamophobia" or "I think Islamophobia is justified" are never going to be policy-compliant reasons for removing cited material. ICLA isn't Islamophobic because it supports Jews or Israel, it's Islamophobic because its sole purpose appears to be opposing Muslims. Your Reuters "article" is a press release from an affiliate of SIOA. Front Page is another fringe anti-Muslim source. The fact that these are the only sources you can come up with that don't support the depiction of SIOA as anti-Muslim only reinforces that depiction. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Where's the "unlike" button?

Atsme, have you completely forgotten that SIOA foments hatred against Muslims? The group is identified as doing so by many of the reliable sources. Your concern with the word "Islamophobia" might be best applied to an edge case, where someone made rational arguments. In the case of SIOA, they make irrational calls to fear and hate. SIOA is the poster child of Islamophobia. Take your concerns to an article where the word is less apt. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Dislike?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. You link to the Oxford Dictionary of American English. The Oxford English Dictionary is more specific, although perhaps not in a way that's useful for your argument: Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims. This is just a word, and it's used in this article to mean what the dictionary says it means. That's neutral. We let the dictionary decide what words mean. As far as the two sources you suggest, they're not reliable for much. The first, FrontPage Magazine, is arguably usable for some purposes, but the article you link to is not journalism, it's a reprint of a letter received by the author, seemingly written by Pamela Geller. The second, although hosted by Reuters, is also not journalism. It's a straightup reprint of a PR Newswire press release. It's hard to see how either of these sources might be useful for anything in this or any article. If you have specific and concrete ideas about improving the article content, perhaps you can put them in the article and/or discuss them here? It's hard to see the trees for the forest in your comment.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Binksternet and User:Roscelese your arguments are based on POV, subjective resources, and omissions, all of which violates Wiki criteria. alf laylah wa laylah, your definition of Islamophobia further reinforces ill-defined, and exacerbates misapplication by adding hostility and prejudice to the equation. It also doesn't resolve the issue of EU human rights, or US civil rights scrutiny. Just because a term is in the Oxford that doesn't make it applicable for all situations. For example, anti-Christian is also in the Oxford, but I've not seen it used to describe Muslims. There's not a person on earth who can deny the numerous attacks on Christians, Hindus and Sikhs by Islamic terrorists around the world. Read the Wiki article on Christianity and Islam, and tell me again how it reflects an accurate balanced portrayal of real world events. It is the most superficial treatment of reality that I've ever seen. My Iranian Muslim grandson also agrees. I digress…back on point - the article on SIOA is neither neutral, nor balanced, and actually conflicts in some instances with Pamela Geller as evidenced by the following: Pamela Geller is an outspoken opponent of political Islam and radical Islam. Explaining her position she says, "I have no problem with Islam. I have a problem with political Islam." In particular, she says jihad is a threat to civilization. After expressing her anti-jihad views in controversial subway ads she has been called an anti-Muslim bigot. Responding to these charges, she says the ads are not directed at all Muslims but only those "engaged" in what she calls "jihad.". Excuse me, editors, but I've not seen one factual piece of information to substantiate the claims that SIOA is a blanket hater of Islam or Muslims, or that either Pamela Geller or SIOA should be linked to a series on Islamophobia. All I've seen are POV and speculation, most of which are political or biased toward Islam. I am amazed that Admins and other editors have allowed what is clearly POV and possibly even libellous discrimination in a BLP and in the SIOA article when there has not been one trial or legal conviction against either for hate crimes, hate speech, or what could be termed as Islamophobia other than what has been represented by the biased views of organizations like the ADL who needs controversy and bigotry to survive. It is all based on opinionated controversy. You should be ashamed of yourselves. For example, an article published by the ADL on the Boston bombing led off with criticism of "anti-Muslim bigots", a term they apparently use as loosely as some of the editors here on Wiki. They continued their rant under a paragraph entitled Blaming Muslims wherein they criticized Pamela Geller, describing her as an anti-Muslim activist and founder of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), stating that she published a post on her blog provocatively titled, “Jihadi Arrested in Horrific Boston Marathon Bombing.” And you consider the ADL an unbiased resource knowing full well Pamela Geller was correct, and was actually vindicated of the ADL's libellous comments when prosecutors disclosed that when Tsarnaev was questioned by the FBI in a Boston hospital after his arrest, he "reaffirmed his commitment to jihad and expressed hope that his actions would inspire others to engage in violent jihad." It was reported on NBC News, and you can read the article here. The truth certainly didn't lend credence to ADL's credibility. Not one mention of it was included in SIOA, or Pamela Geller, yet you expect others to believe POV is not an issue? It's actually laughable that you would consider Reuters to be unreliable, or that you don't like the English version of Oxford. All I can say is that even if POV was not the issue, your research leaves much to be desired. Here's another example of omission - a BBC report dated 5 February 2011 - Prime Minister of the U.K., David Cameron, criticized "state multiculturalism" in his first speech on radicalisation and the causes of terrorism. He also communicated a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism. You can read the article here. Because of the controversy created by POV, and what appears to be a small group of obstructionists who refuse to allow NPOV updates on both Pamela Geller and SIOA, I think a team of NPOV editors should be appointed to oversee the Pamela Geller and SIOA articles so that editing may continue without incident. Atsme (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You quote Pamela Geller: "I have no problem with Islam. I have a problem with political Islam."

You give the Oxford Dictionary of American English definition of Islamophobia: Oxford defines Islamophobia] as a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially when feared as a political force.

You say that Pamela Geller is not islamophobic.

What's wrong with this picture?

P.S. It's really hard to read your long comments. Can you at least break them into paragraphs?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I humbly apologize for the inconvenience, alf laylah wa laylah. I will not only add breaks to my paragraphs, I will also try to shorten them. Hopefully, doing so will add palatability to the points I've brought forward for consideration.

You asked, "What's wrong with this picture?" I'll respond with the following hypothetical sequence which basically replaces the word Islam:

I have no problem with Christians. I have a problem with the politics of Christianity.

I have no problem with Catholics. I have a problem with the politics of Catholicism.

I have no problem with Catholicism. I have a problem with the politics of the Vatican.

Where are the labels depicting anti-Christian groups that segregate them into a series on anti-Christianity (Christophobia) along with other active, and sometimes violent groups who protest against Christianity, all of which are based on articles from reliable sources that were primarily written by notable atheists, and atheist sympathizers? These are simply rhetorical questions to prove a point. Keep reading, and I'll show you why I did it this way.

Now compare the following paraphrases from WP articles on Islam to the Geller quotes:

the nature of Israeli-Palestinian conflict was not religious but political.

the issues surrounding anti-Semitism are political rather than religious.

Muslim anger is not against Jews, it's against Israel.

Jews, by the nature of Judaism, possess fatal character flaws.

Where is the WP series on anti-Semitism? Does it include all Muslims, or is there segregation of only those Islamist groups who actively speak out against Judaism as with Islamophobics who speak out against known terrorist groups who identify as Muslims following the teachings of Muhammed?

Where is the WP series on Islamic extremism that includes only those groups linked to terrorism, and confirmed terrorists who have been tried and convicted of terrorist acts against Jews?

The answers to the above questions clearly demonstrate why Islamophobia should be considered contentious labeling, and as hostile and prejudiced against the target subjects as would be any racial epithet or slur against Islam. It is without a doubt reverse discrimination. Wiki editors are obligated to exercise a much keener sense of responsibility. Perhaps it would serve the greater good if editors would refer back to WP Manual of Style/Words to watch from time to time.

At this time, I want to refer all editors to the Wiki article on Islam and Anti-Semitism which is policy compliant, and meets all the criteria for a well written, well sourced, well formatted, and very informative NPOV article. It doesn't matter whether editors agree with or oppose the dictate that is the subject matter of the article; i.e. Islamic views on Judaism. Our job requires that we look past POV so that we can provide factual information from a neutral perspective. I think the aforementioned article should be required reading for all editors. Please notice the two legends to the right of the article - the one on top is titled "Islam and Other Religions", and the one below is titled "Part of a series on Criticism Of Religion". Brilliant! Total neutrality. Get rid of the contentious label, Islamophobia, and replace it with a neutral term, like anti-Islamic Extremism, and make the series title, Criticism Of Islamic Extremism.

There is a list of designated terrorist organizations, as well as a 2nd list of foreign terrorist organizations. They are very real, and quite active in carrying out their jihad around the world. It would be irresponsible for editors to totally omit the activities of these groups, and the very real threat they pose to Jews, Christians, kafirs, secular Muslims, and converts. Excuse me, but I don't consider it a phobia when extremists really are trying to kill you. To accuse targeted victims of religious intolerance is ludicrous at best, but to label them Islamophobic while extremists are burning down their places of worship, and killing thousands of people around the world goes beyond the pale. Yes, it is our job as editors to maintain NPOV, but that doesn't mean we should omit historic events, and terrorist activity for the sake of political correctness. Atsme (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Quoting Geller as a rebuttal to her critics is laughable. To be perfectly honest, this article does not care very much what Geller says. She contradicts herself too many times for us to pick and choose her words. No, what we do is refer to secondary sources who analyze Geller's words. The secondary sources, especially the scholarly ones, are in agreement that Geller spreads hateful messages that demonize all people of the Islamic faith. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Binksternet. It further validates my talking points on POV issues, and the use of biased resources. Quoting Geller to rebut her critics is laughable indeed, but guess what? The quotes I used were copied straight from WP: Pamela Geller under the heading Views, and are the only apparent rebuttal to the overwhelming criticisms that are laced throughout the entire article. The cited sources are all negative, clearly biased, and POV considering there are many other reliable sources that provide a much different view of Geller from what is portrayed in her bio. They should be included, along with the most notable recognitions and awards she has received. The fact that this information was omitted further confirms POV.

There is an undeniable prejudice to Islam in all three articles - Geller, SIOA, & Choudary - but the good news is that they can be fixed by simply neutralizing the sources, adding the important omissions, and performing a few tweaks here and there to eliminate contentious labeling, and POV. Atsme (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

And not to kick a long-dead horse, but even if she doesn't demonize all people of the Islamic faith, even if she happens to only demonize some percentage (< 100%) of Muslims for some percentage (< 100%) of qualities that Muslims (< 100%) might have, it'd still be accurate to call her Islamophobic, because that's what the word means. If she hates Muslims who blow shit up because they're Muslim and they blow shit up she's still Islamophobic, because of the meaning of the word as given in reliable and neutral sources such as dictionaries of the English language. Just like Karl Marx is anti-capitalist, even though he had a lot of good things to say about capitalism as a world-historical force, and probably some of his best friends were capitalists... like Engels, e.g.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, alf laylah wa laylah, for your comments, but again, they only serve to further validate my position. Your use of the term "demonize" is POV, and a notable exaggeration of the very issue we're discussing. As I pointed out above, secular Muslims recognize terrorism, and the differences of political and religious views throughout Islam, the latter having been the basis for tribal wars for centuries. Fear of jihad, or a potential strike by the Taliban is very real, and far from being an extreme or irrational phobia. Warning others of dangers presented by radicalism when one's own country is under attack, has been attacked, or is in high alert over the potential of a terrorist strike is not the result of Islomophobia.

With regard to the contentious labeling of an entire group as a "hate group" or "Islamophobic", keep in mind, the organization itself is not a person, and it has no feelings, so the label actually defines all members of the labeled group as "phobic" by association? And you don't believe that is contentious, or contrary to WP policy on words to watch? As I stated earlier, the contentious labeling of persons or groups as Islamophobic is as hostile and prejudiced against the target subjects as would be any racial epithet or slur against Islam.

Read the following excerpt from the same WP article I cited above as recommended reading...

Islamist Groups

Many Islamic terrorist groups have openly expressed antisemitic views.

Lashkar-e-Toiba's propaganda arm has declared the Jews to be "Enemies of Islam", and Israel to be the "Enemy of Pakistan".

Hamas has been widely described as antisemitic. It has issued antisemitic leaflets, and its writings and manifestos rely upon antisemitic documents (the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and other European Christian literature), exhibiting antisemitic themes. In 1998, Esther Webman of the Project for the Study of Anti-Semitism at the Tel Aviv University wrote that although the above is true, antisemitism was not the main tenet of Hamas ideology.

The above is undeniable justification for the natural human emotion of fear, and far from being considered justification for labeling a group as a "hate-group", or "Islamophobic", or an individual as a "Muslim bigot", or "Islamophobe". Atsme (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Break at nominal vs. evaluative

There is still a general concern of how to write non-POV leads. I argue here and elsewhere that an appropriate style for an encyclopedia is to define the subject in nominal terms, not evaluative terms, in the lead with critical assessment following the nominal description. For example, we don’t start an article on Stalin by saying he was a vicious dictator who slaughtered millions. There’s no disagreement on that but our lead says “leader of the Soviet Union” who rose to power by “eliminating any opposition” and advocated “socialism in one country.” Or take Hitler. The lead says “chancellor,” “dictator,” and “was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust.” There is nothing about being a virulent racist whose aggression led to over 20 million deaths, although the Holocaust is mentioned.

I suggest a better lead for our article would use the more neutral “anti-Islamic” (or perhaps even anti-Islamist) with a separate sentence at the end of paragraph two mentioning that critics charge that the organization crosses the line into anti-Muslim bigotry. I prefer to spell out what the sources mean by Islamophobic because our article on Islamophobia shows there is considerable disagreement on the term. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your very rational comments Jason from nyc. I hope you will take the time to read my rationale which precedes your comments. It addresses the use of the Islamophobia label which is POV and clearly contentious. I've included valid reasoning in my statements above, and I sincerely hope all editors will consider it with careful deliberation. Ms Atsme (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I’m somewhat surprised at the OED’s definition as a fear of Islam as a political force. That would be a fear of Islamism. Now many sources (going back to Runnymede) consider it Islamophobic to broad-brush Islam as a political ideology. Perhaps the OED had that in mind or perhaps the word is changing in meaning yet again. That should give us pause and suggest we spell out what our sources mean. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the word "Islamophobic" occur in the first sentence. It is a defining term for SIOA, a group that sets the example of Islamophobia. Professor Carl W. Ernst emphasizes the Islamophobia of Geller, Spencer and SIOA in Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, a Palgrave Macmillan book. See his Introduction titled "The Problem of Islamophobia". Binksternet (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That’s the question: what is a defining term? A nominal definition would use a general neutral term. Upon analysis, one may very well conclude that the central principle behind a person or group is quite reprehensible. What is the better way to write an encyclopedia? Of course, an author like Ernst who dismisses any criticism of Islam as Islamophobic (I just read his introduction) finds the analysis relatively straight forward. But it is still an evaluation, not a definition. I suggest we define the subject first, in nominal terms, before telling how and why critics find the organization bigoted. Martha Nussbaum does a better job in her analysis as she acknowledges problems with the Park51 backers but explains why she considers these problems as too remote to warrant the hysterical opposition lead by SIOA. But an analysis is just that, a post-definitional assessment. Reconsider your position as this is an important question for all our articles. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc It is refreshing to read your comments, and the questions you've been raising, even though I don't agree with you 100%, I do agree with most. At least you have taken the initiative to ask questions. Following is an excerpt from Muslim Center ProCon. I'm not presenting it as a rock-solid reliable source, but there are some valid points that counter Nussbaum's comment that the problems with Park51 backers as too remote to warrant "hysterical opposition". IMO, it is worthy of further research.

The Muslim community center debate traces back to the July 2009 purchase of an empty building (formerly a Burlington Coat Factory) at 45-47 Park Place, New York, NY, for $4.85 million in cash by real estate company Soho Properties. The purchase was led by developer Sharif El-Gamal and backed by an eight-member investment group, which also took over the lease of neighboring 49-51 Park Place for an additional $700,000. El-Gamal has refused to identify his fellow investors except for businessman Hisham Elzanaty, who claims to have provided most of the financing. Elzanaty has come under scrutiny for his 1999 donations to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a popular Muslim charity that had its assets frozen by the US and EU governments for providing material support to Hamas.(end excerpt)

We have consistently seen negative connotations attributed to SIOA's actions, and have yet to see the counter-balance explaining why SIOA, countless Americans, and notable politicians opposed the mosque. It is our responsibility to present an informative, balanced article from a NPVO. Atsme (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't untangle the saga ourselves. We rely on the popular press to investigate and if they aren't interested, our hands our tied. Think of Wiki as a "readers digest" to the mainstream media and other standard sources. Even if I'm convinced by argument and evidence, I don't count. We need to report what's "out there" not what we write "in here" in the talk. But a good discussion gives everyone the heads up on what to look for. Whether we find anything is another matter. When a good source does the reporting, we can reflect it, among contrasting opinions, in the article. Thanks for your comments. (end of detour, back to main arg:) Jason from nyc (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A few things: @Jason from nyc:, if I correctly understand your distinction between "nominative" and "evaluative" from the examples you've given I wonder what it would tell us about the lead sentence of an advocacy organization? Like "SIOA is an organization."? Certainly with organizations, especially small organizations with simple goals run by only a few people, as opposed to human beings, who are infinitely complex, we ought to be describing them in terms of what they're organized to do and that's "nominative." I'd also note that saying "Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union" is not actually NPOV according to some people. Just ask a Romanoff. I'm not seriously claiming this point of view needs to be represented in that article, but it does make me wonder if your distinction can actually be made in objective terms. Any sentence that strikes X as a declarative statement of facts may well strike Y as a covert assertion of an ideological world-view.

Second, I'm surprised that you think "anti-Islamic" is more neutral than "Islamophobic," but I certainly won't argue that point with you. I think they're synonyms and would be happy with either, although I lean slightly towards "Islamophobic" because it's actually in dictionaries. I don't think "anti-Islamist" is acceptable, because it's torturing English usage in order to make a distinction that (a) will be lost on most of our readers and (b) is too accepting of SIOA's own pronouncements rather than of reliable sources.

Third, I'm surprised at your surprise at the OED's definition of "Islamophobia." The compilers of dictionaries don't sit around thinking of what definitions for words would make sense in the world, they go out in the world and see how words are used and then record the range of usages. No one uses "anti-Islamist" except Islamophobes who are trying to get people to stop calling them that. Just like no one contrasts the etymology of "antisemitic" with its meaning except people who want to say that they aren't it because they don't hate Arabs.

TL;DR: I don't think an objective distinction between "nominative" and "evaluative" can be made, and either "Islamophobic" or "anti-Islam" are fine with me but not "anti-Islamist."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There are schools of epistemology that declare all statements are subjective statements. We have to operate assuming that facts can be ascertained and aspire to do so. As to advocacy groups, their stated aim is often the nominal purpose. Obviously reliable sources (RS) can and in this case do say “they don’t buy it.” We then report what, upon analysis, RS say. I know there is a fear that using the nominal definition “whitewashes” or “defends” an organization. But that’s not so. It merely puts forth the alleged aim followed by the refutation of such a claim. In both Hitler and Stalin, the salient fact of their position of power is established before the bloody record is investigated and reasons given. There's no fear of whitewashing here. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough with respect to facts, but I'm not advocating such an extreme position. I think that using Hitler and Stalin as models will be misleading, because, as human beings rather than organizations they're much more complex. Another problem we have with SIOA is that it's so narrowly focused, as opposed to e.g. the ACLU, that it's hard (for me, anyway) to think of other models we might look to. I'm not so much worried about whitewashing as I am about the accurate use of words to reflect what secondary sources say about the organization.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

On the minor points: I choose “anti-Islamic” because SIOA often uses that as a nominal descriptor. Islamophobia is stronger and suggest unduly and unfairly critical; and sources suggest SIOA is indeed unfair. As to OED and common use, it’s a work in progress. I detect shifts which makes our article unstable. Anti-Muslim bigotry, when describing the evaluation by RS, spells it out and is preferable to controversial ever-changing jargon. As to Islamist, it is used by Muslims who advocate it and Muslim in their Criticism of Islamism. American usage general refers to a modern political variant of Islam. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "Islamist" is used by Islamists and many other people, it's "anti-Islamist" that bothers me, as I don't think it's used by anyone who's not defending themselves against accusations. Anyway, as you and I agree on the acceptability of "anti-Islamic," but for different reasons, I guess we wait for others to weigh in?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to go to such lengths to avoid using the accepted term for these sorts of views. I also don't buy the nominal vs. evaluative distinction and it seems like a fancy way of saying "prioritize promotional material over reliable sourcing"; SIOA's statements about themselves are also "evaluative," even if you agree with them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Another break

As there is limited interest in my suggestion at the moment, let me just finish the thought for future reference by giving a few examples of other articles that I think are doing it right: Baader-Meinhof Gang, Weather Underground, Unibomber, Socialist Workers Party (United States), Nation of Islam, and Dianetics.

Take the Nation of Islam. The 1st two sentences read as a NoI blurb. It's not until the 3rd sentence do we read: "Its critics accuse it of being black supremacist and antisemitic." Neither black supremacist nor antisemitic were part of the defining lead sentence. In Dianetics we don't read that it is pseudoscience until sentence three. Critical evaluations come after nominal definitions. This is more scholarly. It's not required by Wiki rules; but we evolve the culture and practice. I rest my case. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in your suggestion, I just don't feel that I understand it. What's not evaluative about "American radical left organization," Weather Underground, "American mathematician and serial murderer" (Unabomber), "prominent left-wing militant group" Baader-Meinhof Gang, "far-left political organization" Socialist Workers Party (United States), and so on. I just can't see how those differ from "American Islamophobic organization" as we have here. SIOA is Islamophobic by the plain meaning of the word as given in a source universally agreed to be reliable and neutral: the OED. How is that different from calling the socialists "far-left" or the Baader-Meinhof Gang "left-wing militant"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I would be willing to give the organization more of its own rein in the first sentence if they actually accomplished something good, if they were not so widely condemned in scholarly sources. Because of its dismal record and because of the descriptions in our best sources, the group gets the short leash here, and the description about them is accurate but not lenient. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In all those cases they would mostly likely talk about themselves in those terms. I remember and knew “radical left” individuals during the Vietnam War days and both “radical” and “left” were considered descriptive if not a badge of honor. The Unibomber was a convicted mass murderer so he doesn't get to define himself. But he wasn’t a mathematician for decades. He was a misanthropic hermit, yet our article says “he is known for his wide-ranging social critiques, which opposed industrialism and modern technology.” It doesn't seem he was seen, yet known, for decades. His 15 minutes of fame doesn't strike me as generally known for anything. "Pseudoscience" isn't used by Scientologists. "Antisemitic" isn't used by Nation of Islam. "Terrorist" isn't used by the Weather Underground (although they'd use "revolutionary" as our article does.) "Islamophobic" is a pejorative that implies an excess. Our definition used to read “irrational fear” until recently and the word is still used in the sense of “beyond reason.” It’s not a self-descriptor. As I said, "anti-Islamic" is often used as a self-descriptor. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Now I really don't understand the distinction you're making between "nominal" and "evaluative." You seem to be relying on what the groups call themselves; is that really what you mean by "nominal"? And you seem to be judging the neutrality of the descriptions of your examples based on your feelings about what members of the groups might think, rather than by what reliable sources say about it. Anyway, Bernadine Dohrn called herself an "outlaw." Does that mean that should go in the lead of the Weather Underground article, then? And I still don't see why you're so sure that "islamophobic" is pejorative. No dictionary I've seen labels it so, and they're usually quite careful to tag bad words. Are you proposing an objective distinction or going by gut instinct or something else? (Side note: once a mathematician, always a mathematician, and Kaczynski did some reasonably good work while he was at Berkeley; some of it still cited today).

A straight definition without the use of a pejorative. Clearly, what a group calls itself or at least what it wouldn't see as an insult, is one test of a straight definition. Use "revolutionary", as opposed to "terrorist." Use "alternative medicine" as opposed to "pseudo-science." Use "socialist" as opposed to "pinko commie." It's true that a term may be considered a criticism by some and descriptive by another. Some would consider "conservative" an insult but it is also purely descriptive even if one abhors conservatism. "Reactionary" would be a pejorative and we all know that calling someone "reactionary" is meant as an insult. "Islamophobic" is meant as an insult. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your distinction well enough to apply it practically. Perhaps you mean something like "use labels that subjects might conceivably apply to themselves whether they actually do so or not"? That would handle "reactionary," which no one would ever use non-sarcastically, non-rhetorically, and non-humorously about themselves, and "commie" too, although not "communist." Probably that's also the case with "Islamophobic." But "revolutionary" and "terrorist" don't work that way. People and groups will call themselves terrorists, as it's a legitimate methodology of struggle (I mean "legitimate" only in the sense of "explicitly advocated for under that label"). What I worry about is that, too my knowledge, there are no reliable sources that distinguish labels this way, if this is what you mean. If it were to be a general principle to label in this way, how would we then apply it? It also seems to lend itself to granting too much gravitas to defense self-image management, as in your suggestion of "anti-Islamist." Perhaps we'd want to only use labels that could conceivably be applied by both subject and observer? In any case, you and I do still agree on "anti-Islamic," yes? If so, perhaps others can weigh in on that. If not, I'm not sure what to do.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to promote this principles beyond this article. I choose examples without cherry picking because I'm willing to deal with the difficulties. Nominal would mean "in name only" or "on paper" and that would generally be a self-definition or a definition of the stated aim of an organization. Thus, the words would be seen as fair to the groups/individuals and as you note a word which is acceptable to A may not be to B. The nominal definition is followed by a summary of a critical analysis. Nation of Islam is a good example: "The Nation of Islam (NOI) is a syncretic new religious movement founded in Detroit, Michigan by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad in July 1930. The Nation of Islam's stated goals are to improve the spiritual, mental, social, and economic condition of African Americans in the United States and all of humanity. Its critics accuse it of being black supremacist and antisemitic." Or consider: "Dianetics is a set of ideas and practices regarding the metaphysical relationship between the mind and body which was created by L. Ron Hubbard and is practiced by followers of Scientology and separate independent Dianeticist groups. Hubbard coined Dianetics from the Greek stems dia, meaning "through," and nous, meaning "mind". Dianetics has achieved no acceptance as a scientific theory, and is an example of a pseudoscience." In both cases it is a nominal "on paper" description that states what we are allegedly talking about, or what the aim is. It ends with the reality or what critics claim is the bottom line upon analysis. We see the same with Hitler and Stalin. Nominal titles and description precede horrendous reality. My summary many not be clear but you can abstract from the examples a pattern and express it yourself. Perhaps that would help. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm entirely unmoved by arguments based on pointing to other articles as examples. Instead, I continue to emphasize that our best sources tell us that SIOA is the most prominent example of Islamophobia in America, which is why I find it ridiculous to argue against that word in the first sentence. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there's no consensus here for my stylistic recommendations. It's still a concern of mine for all of our article and the discussion moved to my talk page. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The opening section really needs to be fixed. It's not neutral at all. 'Islamophobic' is always a term of criticism, unlike for example 'conservative', 'far left', or even 'militant', 'revolutionary' or 'extreme right'. Of course, add the allegation somewhere in the article. But, to have it phrased in such a way and in the opening section? That's not NPOV at all. Frankly, even replacing 'Islamophobic' with 'anti-Islam' would be an improvement, since 'anti-Islam' is sometimes used as a self-label. Also I don't see how the words 'extreme right' add anything meaningful to the section. Renren8123 (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I also note that the consensus in this discussion has reached that agreement on average. "Anti-Islam" may be a good phrase to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrinSudan (talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

I don't see agreement. And I don't know what saying that the lead is not neutral means. We don't aim for neutrality. Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I see two users arguing for the claim, and many comments from readers that it is biased. As such their is consensus. Also, let me introduce you to NPOV standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (talk), 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? With your 10th edit you are lecturing me on NPOV? Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you comment above indicates that you are not understanding it. To quote the article referenced: "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view" which is in direct contrast to your claim that "We don't aim for neutrality". As such I would kindly suggest you rethink your aggression my way.

GrinSudan (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you try to make your case for ignoring the large number of sources? Neutrality isn't about making sure all article subjects look good, it's about reflecting what the sources say. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

When you use political sources you will get a large number of biased and loaded terms. "anti-Islamic" (or similar) is the term used by the credible news organizations referenced. Choosing political sources will obviously create bias which should not be perpetuated. I will also point out that, as it has come up numerous times here it is obviously considered a loaded term by a large section of the public. GrinSudan (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that of the references cited and available for review only 2 use the term Islamophobia. All others (4) use some variant of "Anti-islam" or "anti-muslim". The remaining source I have not been able to review (text book). Of the two that use islamophobia one is referencing CAIR which is a political organization with a a strong agenda to push in this instance.

Continued insistance on the addition of Islamophobia is purely politicizing of the article. It is quite obvious with "Anti-islam" what the organization's goals are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrinSudan (talk • contribs) 23:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

In reference #3 the books are titled Islamophobia but the newspaper articles don't use the term. I think you're right that anti-Islam would be better since it is more general and would reflect all the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The new editor GrinSudan chose as his first-ever edit to remove "far-right" and "Islamophobic" from the lead section. This is the same concern held by the now-blocked disruptive editor Livingengine1 who started this discussion thread. It was also the concern of the now-blocked disruptive editor Σαμψών who started a previous discussion, now archived. In all the previous discussions, the consensus was that the reliable sources were conclusive that the SIOA was far-right and Islamophobic. So you'll understand why I am not convinced by the total absence here of "credible news organizations" which GrinSudan says will prove his point. Somebody who wants to succeed in their argument will have to find that argument carried by a WP:Reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the other banned editors. I came here to learn more about the organization after seeing an article in the New York Times, and was shocked to see the politicalization of the article. As noted here the majority of credible sources do use "anti-islam". Reading the discussion above there is no consensus that I can see implying that "Islamophobic" is more appropriate. The claim of one professor is not more WP:Reliable source than the common news usage. Further, the fact that it has come up multiple times (including the editors you appear to dislike) is evidence that it is definitely a biased term. GrinSudan (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You are correct in that it is "Far-right" in the American sense. That should be included and was a mistake to omit on my part. To add "Islamophobia" is NPOV and furthering (what appear to be your own) political goals. GrinSudan (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet rushed to judgment by saying that GrinSudan's insertion of "anti-Islam" is unsourced and tendentious. Had he taken three seconds to look at the source (not even click on the link, but just see the summary at the bottom of the WP page) he'd see that "anti-Islamic" is repeatedly mentioned in the cited sources. Steeletrap (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit in 2010 Section

sentence now reads as follows - "SIOA first entered the public eye with its early opposition to the construction of Park51, a 13-story Muslim community center proposed for a location whose nearness to the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building."Livingengine1 (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

So it does. You have plucked a few words from a reputable source (the New York Times), where there was a particular context for them, and inserted them into our article in a way that makes a mockery of that context. That as far as I'm concerned is the last straw added to an already considerable pile of tendentious editing and gaming the system from you on this article, and I have accordingly warned you on your page. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen FYI - the New York Times has been on the low end as a reliable source for quite a while now. According to a Rasmussen Report in 2003, Only 46% of Americans believe the info reported in the New York Times is "very reliable" or "somewhat reliable." 23% say it is "not very reliable" or "not at all reliable." Then there's the CBS News 60 Minutes report in 2010 that states "The New York Times (8 percent) and the Wall Street Journal (7 percent) reflect an increasing diminution of old model, mainstream news delivery. In a 2012 Pew Research poll, the New York Times continues to decline. In 2014, the New York Times drove the last nail in it's coffin of lost credibility with its Obamacare editorial. U.S. News wrote about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 05:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting the bot sign your comment. If you'd remembered to sign it your own self it would have forced me to rethink a number of preconceptions of mine, and I just don't have the time right now to do that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotected

With apologies to all decent IP editors, I've semiprotected this talkpage for 10 days because of all the disruption from open proxies. Bishonen | talk 01:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

Atsme's latest edit to this page

Atsme, you have made it impossible for anyone to understand the conversation. In your last edit you refactored everyone's comments so they're no longer next to what they were responses to, removing them from their contexts, and therefore misrepresenting them. That section is now incomprehensible. Will you please revert yourself and try to figure out some way to respond so that everyone can keep track of the conversation? Is it just me?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

alf laylah wa laylah I didn't change the order of the discussion. *LOL* The responses still follow in line, and should not be confusing. I just added red text to the breaks that were already there because you complained my paragraphs were too bunched up. I did it for you!!! *lol* The comments were running so far to the right they were at the edge of my computer screen, and difficult to read, so I simply brought the indentions back to the left. Instead of using 20 ::::::: I went back to 2. It was only on my comments in that one section. I didn't touch anything else. I'll just delete the dashes and red text in the breaks if it's confusing to you. Gee whiz - it's called "editing". Atsme (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Great; I'm glad it makes sense to you.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's fixed - took all of 1 minute. Hope that helps. Atsme (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Geller and Spencer barred from UK

I just removed this:

On June 26, 2013, the United Kingdom ] acted to prevent Geller and Spencer from entering the UK to attend a rally organised by the far-right ]. Intended to mark ] on June 29, 2013, the march was due to end in Woolwich, scene of the ].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23064355|title=US bloggers banned from entering UK|publisher=BBC}}</ref> The government described the pair as "inflammatory speakers who promote hate"<ref name=gran26jun13>, ''The Guardian'', 2013-06-26. Retrieved 2013-06-28.</ref> and that they had been excluded as their presence was not "conducive to the public good".<ref name=indy26jun13>, ''The Independent'', 2013-06-26. Retrieved 2013-06-28.</ref>

My feeling is that (a) it's well-covered on Geller's and Spencer's individual pages, (b) it's not actually about SIOA in particular, (c) if we feel, and this is a colorable argument, that SIOA is little more than a front for Geller's and Spencer's views and activities, we ought to be honest about it and redirect this page to one of their pages, (d) given that that's not likely to happen since SIOA has a reasonable amount of coverage independent of the two, we need some selection criteria for this page to keep it more about its subject, and (e) by this removal, I am proposing that those criteria include a restriction to material that's explicitly about SIOA in the sources it's based on, rather than about Geller and/or Spencer. I fully understand that there may not be consensus for this criterion, and am ready, friends and colleagues, to engage (one hopes) productively in the WP:BRD cycle!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Surely they were speaking at the EDL rally as representatives of SIOA, though? All the sources (both pre-ban and post) mention their leadership of this group (the Guardian also says that Geller co-runs Jihad Watch, but that's a mistake, I think?) and I'm not aware of their having other ventures together. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I take your point. The problem I have is that all indications seem to be that SIOA is nothing more than a front organization for these two. I'm really not sure how to handle it. If we acknowledge it's a front and that whatever either of them does is SIOA news we're going to end up with a bunch of stuff in here that's also in their articles. But if a RS could be found to support that I'd say we shouldn't really have a separate article on SIOA anyway. In the absence of such a source, I thought maybe it'd be best to stick to stuff that's explicitly about SIOA here, rather than stuff that mentions SIOA in conjunction with the individual activities of the founders. I don't know, maybe it doesn't matter that much. I just thought an explicit criterion for what goes in here would be good so we don't end up with another sentence every time PG says something stupid.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It raises the general question of what goes on the BLPs and what goes here. The ban is a ban on the individuals, suggesting that it belongs on the BLP. Is SIOA mentioned in the articles for affiliation purposes or is it the work of SIOA that is the cause of the ban? Looking at a few sources (BBC, Independent, and US coverage) they don't make it clear but the emphasis is on Geller and Spencer suggesting its personal. Looking at Teresa May's letter (a little original research) supports either position. She notes Geller's statements as a blogger (individual initiative) and her writings on American Thinker. But she also notes that she and Spencer originated SIOA and that it has been condemned by SPLC. Secondary sources focus on what she has to say and whether it is bigoted, hateful, and whether the ban is an abridgment of free speech, etc. I lean towards coverage of the ban by our BLPs as secondary sources seem to stress that it is an individual ban of controversial (to say the least) people. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A new place to discuss Breivik in the light of the above section

It occurs to me that if we are to restrict this article to material that's strictly about SIOA we might want to restart a conversation about the following material:

In July and August 2011, Geller and Spencer were discussed in the media because Norwegian mass-murderer ]'s anti-Muslim manifesto quoted Spencer at length and also cited Geller's blog.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/25debate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 |title=Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S. |last=Shane |first=Scott |date=July 24, 2011 |newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref> According to Heidi Beirich, Deputy Director of ], Geller and Spencer's writings were "the primary sources for the anti-Muslim propaganda that had helped give voice" to Breivik's 1500+ page manifesto.<ref name=Beirich2013/> SIOA published a statement jointly with ] and ] condemning Breivik's attack.<ref>{{cite news|title=U.S. Critics of Islam Vow To Continue Activism After Oslo|publisher=The Forward|last1=Nathan-Kazis|first1=Josh|last2=Guttman|first2=Nathan|date=August 5, 2011|quote=A statement published on July 25 on Jihad Watch, by Spencer and Geller ’s SIOA and Stop Islamisation of Europe, their group’s European ally, condemned the attacks. The statement went on to say that Breivik had attempted to join SOIE but had been kept out of the organization 'because of his Nazi ties.'}}</ref>

As I think I noted above, I came to this article thinking that it'd be best to remove all discussion of Breivik, but was convinced by the views of other editors that some material about him was warranted. This bit is what's left after that vigorous conversation. I think it's reasonable to keep it in even though it was Geller and Spencer rather than SIOA that Breivik discussed in his writings. The reason is, not only that Heidi Beirich ties SIOA in with Breivik, but that SIOA itself thought it was important to issue an official condemnation on its own part. My thinking is that the material before the last sentence in this paragraph is necessary to give context to the last sentence, which is explicitly about SIOA and supported in that by the source. Anyway, this doesn't have any edit tied to it, I just thought it'd be good to open a (potential) conversation on the matter given my last edit.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Far right organization

Regarding this material:

I'm glad to see it's out of the lead. Regardless of whether the issue SIOA focuses on is "far right" or not, it's clear to me that it doesn't belong in the lead because it doesn't relate to anything in the body. Now, it's not actually that informative to just quote the epithet; the relevant way in which SIOA is far right is in its relations to actual far right political parties in Europe. As far as I can see from the sources SIOA is not actually far right purely in the context of the US, and when Heidi B. calls them that she's talking about their alliances with European extreme rightists, as are e.g. Audrey Osler and L. Feteke, and probably everyone else. As it stands in the article now I think it's misleading from being without context; it seems to hint that SIOA has something in common with e.g. the Klan, which it does not. I'm not arguing that it should be removed, just announcing that I'm going to try to contextualize it and asking for input.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have made a further edit to the header. "Extreme right" and "Islamophobia" are loaded political terms which distract from the content of the article. There is a discussion of them (and their application to the organization) further into the article, and as such no need to include them in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrinSudan (talk • contribs) 01:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine, let's also discuss the lead sentence

I think we should leave anything about "far right" or "extreme right" out of the lead until we have a reasonable description of what that epithet means in relation to SIOA. Right now it's not summarizing anything in the body of the article, it's repeating a decontextualized statement in the body of the article. When we get the right material for the body written I think the lead should say something about "ties to European far right organizations" or even "ties and shared goals with European far right organizations" or whatever. With the article in the state it's in now "far right" anywhere just looks like name-calling. This is not an American far right organization, it's an American Islamophobic organization with strong ties to racist far right European parties, which changes the meaning of the descriptor.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Rather than remove the far-right category and related text, I agree that more context can be built up for the assertion. Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see that. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I also don't believe it's going to be possible to label SIOA as "far right" without qualification. It's not far right in an American context, it's just not, and I don't believe there are sources that can sensibly be made to say that it is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Mina Ivonova agrees with David Campbell that “there never has been a country called ‘America,’ nor a people known as ‘Americans’ from whom a national identity is drawn.” Geller is “extreme” in believing that there are principles and a culture that constitutes “American” and which Islamic political strictures reject. It’s not clear that believing America is a country of a specific nature is unique to the right. The rejection of Islam in total is generally called extreme and perhaps Ivonova could have explained if that was the basis she called SIOA “extreme right.” That being said, it isn't clear that this is “far right.”

I think alf laylah wa laylah is right that many authors talk about Geller as associating with or aligning SIOA with Europe’s far right. That would not necessarily make SIOA far right as alliances are often formed for a variety of reasons. Being singly focused on Islam, it would be prudent to select those who are careful to use words like “aligns” or “collaborates” while avoiding “far right” as an ontological statement. That requires more arguments than they authors have given us. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Alliances don't make SIOA "far right full stop." I plan to start (or hope someone else will start) by describing the alliances and working from there to suggest material for the lead if the alliances seem important enough. My sense is that they are, given Geller and whatshisname's being barred from entering the UK. The European groups SIOA works with are obviously far right in the European sense, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

SIOA has been called right wing, far right and extreme right. Geller and Spencer have individually been called right wing, far right and extreme right. The SPLC says that Geller promulgates extreme right conspiracy theories such as Obama being the bastard of Malcolm X, Obama having an affair with a crack whore, Obama's Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery, that Obama's mother posed for porno, and that Obama has been a Muslim since he was a young boy. The SPLC also says Geller is far right because of who she associates with, for instance the German far-right group Pro Köln. Furthermore, the SPLC says Geller's admirers are largely extreme-right including neo-Nazis, which is notable because she is Jewish. Geller has posted on extreme right websites such as Stormfront, VDARE, etc. Think Progress calls SIOA a "radical right-wing group" which fans the flames of "paranoid hysteria" against Muslims in the US. Many UK media outlets called Geller and Spencer "far-right" or "incendiary right-wing". The Center for American Progress's "Fear Inc." study listed Spencer as a "radical ideologue" promoting misinformation, paranoia and fear. Geller is called a "radical right-wing blogger". The Anti-Defamation League describes SIOA as extreme right in their report, "Extremism: Backgrounder: Stop Islamization of America (SIOA)". The Nation noted that CAIR described Spencer as "an extremist, right-wing anti-Muslim rabble rouser". CAIR calls SIOA co-founder John Joseph Jay an "anti-Muslim, far right fringe activist". Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

CAIR as a source for critics of Islam? If this was a joke, it ain't funny.... It is an islamic fundamentalist organization with established links to terrorists (Daniel Pipes, with links to other sources). A polemical but true portrayal: . Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Daniel Pipes as a source for the unreliability of CAIR is like putting gasoline in your fire extinguisher. It's pot/kettle if one's trying to write a neutral article. I respect the SPLC's opinion about SIOA, but I think it's important for us to distinguish between sources that label Geller/Spencer as far right and sources that label SIOA so. This is such a tricky case since no one actually seems to belong to this organization but those two. I'd still like to see actual political scientists, historians, anyone besides polemicists, calling SIOA far right. Maybe the SPLC is enough, I'm not sure.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, does the SPLC actually say Geller or SIOA is far right? I can't find it in the link you provided. They seem to agree with my thesis that she hangs out with anyone who believes her spiel about Muslims, which naturally includes a lot of racist rightists, both foreign and domestic. That's more or less what I was saying above, and I don't think it's enough to make "far right" an either accurate or useful label for SIOA.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet which European 'far-right' groups does the SIOA cooperate with? UKIP (now officially declared fa-right by some editors)? The right wing of the Tories perhaps?Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This can't be laughed off with references to the Tories; it's too easily sourceable. There's Pro Köln, Bloc identitaire, the EDL, Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom. Probably others. She allies with them on the one issue of Islamic conspiratorialism.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Out of those you mentioned only Bloc identitaire is typically far-right. Wilders is highly anti-Islam, but as much as some people who'd like to defame him as some kind of a Nazi, it is obvious that even in the Dutch spectrum his party is situated in the centre-right with the sole diverging thing being its hardline opposition to Islam and islamic immigration . If you consider the party's positions one by one, you'll inevitably reach the conclusion that it's neither on the economic nor the social permissiveness scale anything near extreme right () (most people probably don't know what the SGP is but out of all Dutch parliamentary parties this is the closest you can get to an extreme-right party, but only in the original, 19th century sense of having reactionary views). Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have the actual Venemous Speech book?

The page with note 4 on it is missing from the gbooks preview I can see. I ordered the book from ILL just now. Anyone want to make a friendly bet that footnote 4 cites Beirich and that we don't have two independent sources for the epithet?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Bang! Y'all should have taken the bet. I was totally wrong, and Ivanova has her own reasons for saying this. I added a quote to the reference, including a quote of the supporting footnote, which is not available through the gbooks preview that we link to.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Membership?

Is there a membership? If this is actually just a 2 person organisation, should we even have an article? And even if we should, how do we make it clear that this isn't really an organisation but a website and publicity? Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a join here link on the home page. Interestingly, it's broken on the page, although I fixed it there. I can't look at it right now because I set my hosts.deny file so I can't see facebook and I don't have time to fix it right now just to look at this. Perhaps one can tell from that? Maybe it's like friending them, or whatever that's called.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So we call it a Facebook page? I really don't know. It has 18,000+ likes - not really a lot when you consider that God has 1.5 million likes, and he's an atheist! But seriously - do our sources call it an organisation? It looks to me that they call it a group - in fact our article calls it a group except in the lead sentence, which is a bit odd. And Geller doesn't even call it any of these names, she calls it an 'entity'. Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The sources almost always talk about SIOA as if it was the face of Pamela Geller. I once went through a previous version of this article and virtually every source closely identified SIOA with Geller . I don't think we need a 2nd article on Geller. Her bio is sufficient. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It would solve a lot of problems if we could just redirect this thing to Geller's page, although, sadly, I think this page is in better shape than that one. I wonder if we could get consensus for it... I agree with Jason from nyc about the sources; it's incredibly hard to sort out material about SIOA from material about her.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that the AFDI, which seems to be somehow the same as SIOA and somehow not looks like the same kind of thing: . The "join" link goes to paypal to donate. They don't seem to have members either.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd be behind merging this page to Geller's page (rather than Spencer's, if we have to choose, which a merge would obviously require us to do). However, I'd like to register now my opposition to any idea of using this merge as an excuse to remove sourced negative material about SIOA. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree to that with the one exception of the edits of the past week which violate 2 RfC's just established a few months ago after extensive discussion. If alf laylah wa laylah would be generous to oversee the merger (he/she has won everyone's respect with rewrites of this article) I'd support subsequent trimming of the Geller article's duplicate coverage in the SIOA section--most of which I've written and will have to go--to achieve a better final product. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Overseeing the merge seems somewhat daunting, but I'll certainly participate regularly. I think that the easiest way to do it would be to redirect this page to Geller, and then all of us move over to Geller's page and work on the SIOA section, using material from here as appropriate. The two sticky issues I can see are (a), the one Jason from nyc mentions, which is that Geller is not to be described as right-wing per RfCs, and (b) (I hesitate to mention this, because perhaps it'll destroy the potentially developing consensus to merge) that we'd have to deal with SIOA and the Islamophobia template if it redirects to Geller, since there's no way that having living individuals in that template is a good thing. Perhaps we can redirect this page to the specific SIOA section of Geller's page and leave it in the template? The only possible benefit to having this page separate from Geller that I see is that it gives us a way to put SIOA in the template, which I think is important. I don't think it's important enough to justify keeping this page, though, since if SIOA doesn't actually exist apart from Geller, I think we're doing our readers a disservice by acting as if it does.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Leaving the redirect in the template seems like a good idea. Re the RFCs, does it mean that the group cannot be described as right-wing? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed unjustified merge. There are more than enough reliable sources discussing this organization to warrent a stand alone article. Yambaram (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No one disputes the existence of the sources. It's the existence of the organization apart from Pamela Geller that's in doubt. I think that every source in the entire universe that discusses SIOA as a distinct entity apart from Geller is already used in this article. There are literally thousands that discuss SIOA as if it were identical to Geller that we have trouble using in this article because they don't discuss the two entities in distinct enough terms. If we were to merge and redirect this to her article it would open up the variety of usable sources immensely and allow both articles to be more accurate. Thus no one is arguing for a merge on the grounds that SIOA isn't notable, but, rather, on the grounds that there's neither a plausible nor a useful distinction to be made between SIOA and Pamela Geller. Do you have a response to that argument?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"I think that every source in the entire universe that discusses SIOA as a distinct entity apart from Geller is already used in this article." Well, you think wrong. Baseless exaggerations cannot win an argument. There are multiple sources discussing this organization using one of its three names: Stop Islamization of America, American Freedom Defense Initiative, and Freedom Defense Initiative, without mentioning Pamela Geller. And even if many do, do you have a policy-based argument for your merge proposal? Yambaram (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Per the discussion in the section directly above this one, I propose that this page be merged into Pamela Geller's page. I believe that the evidence shows that this organization does not really truly exist apart from Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. This is reflected in the paucity of sources that discuss SIOA apart from Geller and in the fact that joining the organization seems to consist in nothing more than friending them on facebook. If we merge the article, we will be able to draw from the broad range of sources that cover Geller and SIOA together, without having to try scrupulously and painfully to parse out what's about her and what's about SIOA. Also, I see no problems with this merger creating an undue weight problem on Geller's page since her notability rests entirely on her activities associated with SIOA. Note that I am creating this discussion on this, the source page, rather than on the target page, because there's already been extensive discussion here. While this isn't customary, it is allowed for in the merge proposal guidelines.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom, and for reasons explained above.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support As I wrote above: The sources almost always talk about SIOA as if it was the face of Pamela Geller. I once went through a previous version of this article and virtually every source closely identified SIOA with Geller. I don't think we need a 2nd article on Geller. Her bio is sufficient. The merge should go smoothly. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Looked up on JSTOR and couldn't find anything new. Support as per above --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Support as article creator. I think the arguments being made that the group is, and is depicted as, another name for Geller's own activities are valid. Spencer doesn't seem to be associated with it in the same way by sources even if he is ostensibly a co-founder. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - evidence simply does not show that "this organization does not really truly exist apart from Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer", and as I've said, there are more than enough reliable primary sources and secondary ones discussing this organization to warrent a stand alone article - just take look at the article. The above arguments in favor of this proposal are clearly not policy based and can ultimately be seen as an attempt to discredit the organization and delete its page. The organization is not different than many other similar organizations that have an article of their own, and the article should remain as. The above arguments consist of baseless exaggerations. Yambaram (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Creating undue weight in Pamela Geller's biographical article will be a problem according to Misplaced Pages guidelines, therefore I strongly believe it wouldn't be wise to let that happen. Furthermore, this organization seems to be affiliated with other anti-Islam(ism) organizations across the pond, as a subsidiary. It may be led by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer today, but that isn't to say that the organization would be discontinued without their contributions. Furthermore, if we were to apply this methodology consistently throughout Misplaced Pages, then I assume that hundreds of other articles (of institutions or organizations) would be merged with biographical articles as well, which would lead to many problems. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, this organization has been involved in certain activities with other anti-Islamist organizations in Europe, specifically the United Kingdom. Therefore, adding information of these activities to the biographical article of Pamela Geller would probably be less appropriate than if the information was to be added here. I'm therefore opposing this merger. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. How can we merge this page to Geller when it is just as much a product of Spencer? That's the problem: SIOA is a combination of people, and Geller cannot claim so much primacy that the whole thing is subsumed under Geller's flag. Plenty of observers describe Spencer as equally important, or more so, than Geller. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Kutsuit, do you have any evidence that this organization even has a membership? The main reason a number of editors decided to propose a merge is that it seems that SIOA doesn't actually have members. This isn't a case of merging an organization to its leader's biography, but rather of merging a front organization with no members to the article on the person it's a front for whose notability relies completely on her having that organization for a front.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, to be perfectly honest. But might I suggest we merge this article with the articles of the other "Stop Islamization" organizations? It would make more sense. Isn't SIOA just a branch of an organization with a similar name in Europe? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't actually seem to be. The other ones hold demonstrations and have their membership figures mentioned in sources. That's not the case with this one. If you go to their website and click to join, it sends you to their facebook page to friend them or alternatively to paypal to give them money. We've found no evidence that they have meetings or events or anything. There are very, very few sources that even discuss SIOA apart from what Pamela Geller did or said in its name. The problem with merging it with other "Stop Islamization" organizations is that they seem like real organizations and this one doesn't.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In any case, even if SIOA wasn't an organization per se, it would be much easier to simply reclassify the "entity" as something else, instead of moving the entire article. Perhaps we could call it a group or an initiative, rather than an organization -- and that could be done with a quick and simple edit. My point is, it doesn't have to merge with the biographical article of Pamela Geller just because it's not an organization in the strictest sense. I don't think that's a good enough reason to move the article. Having said that, I should note that some reliable websites have labeled SIOA as an actual organization, such as the Anti-Defamation League: http://www.adl.org/civil-rights/discrimination/c/stop-islamization-of-america.html.
In my opinion, there are a number of reasons why the proposed merger shouldn't happen:
1. Pamela Geller's article is meant to be a biography. Adding detailed information on the activities of SIOA to a biographical article will most likely ruin the balance/neutrality of that article. If anything, Pamela Geller's article should briefly describe the activities undertaken by the SIOA organization, and the details should be included in a separate article instead.
2. The information that will be merged into Pamela Geller's article would also have to be merged into Robert Spencer's article, given that he's also involved with this organization. Therefore, rather than having detailed information about SIOA in two different biographical articles, which would give them undue weight, it would be much better if most of the information (relevant to SIOA) is added in this article, where I believe it would be far more appropriate.
3. Equally important is the fact that SIOA is strongly affiliated, in some way or another, to the anti-Islam(ism) groups in Europe that have similar names, such as Stop Islamization of Europe (SIOE). There are many joint activities undertaken by these groups, therefore any information pertaining to these joint events, as well as the potential controversies surrounding them, would be more suitable for inclusion in a non-biographical article such as this one.
In my opinion, since many of the "Stop Islamization" groups are interlinked, it would be best if they're all merged into one article where all the relevant information could be added there. Otherwise we could leave them the way they are, but I strongly oppose merging this article with a biographical article as I believe it will be more problematic than beneficial. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The SIOA article is about 700 words while the SIOA section of Geller's article is currently over 900 words. Normally when a section of a parent article is broken off because of space needs, the parent article retains a summary stub while the extensive discussion is in the child article. It seems to be backwards here. Most of the sources mention SIOA but go into detail about Geller, her activities, her statements, etc. Even Spencer only gets an occasional or perfunctory mention. There doesn't seem to be much material to merge into a Spencer article even if one worried about Spencer not getting his due; Geller appears to be the focus of most of the sources. Geller's support of the EDL is already in her article. Critics claims about Geller supporting Serbian extremists and others are in the Geller article. The merge might not actually increase the section in the Geller article but (following the lead here) decrease the coverage to the essentials. Since that means much of what I put into the Geller article may wind up on the cutting floor, I'll have reconsider my contributions and bow to consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Spencer

Binksternet brings up a reasonable point. The organization was founded by Geller and Spencer. However, I have to dispute his point that the two play equal roles according to the sources. The sources overwhelmingly paint SIOA as Geller's baby. Spencer helped found it, and where is he now? The vast bulk of the sourcing, if it mentions Spencer mentions his name alone. Little if any of it discusses his role in the organization if he has one. If Binksternet has sources to show that my argument for merging to Geller applies equally to Spencer it would indeed be a good reason not to merge. I don't believe there is such sourcing, but would love to be proved wrong.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The ADL report refers to their duel role as follows: "While Pamela Geller has become the public face of SIOA, in many ways Robert Spencer's established record of anti-Muslim activism serves as the group's foundation." This suggests that you and I might be wrong to downplay Spencer's importance. In the section "Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer Join Forces" Spencer does get respect as a player in SIOA. Perhaps "Geller's public face" gets more attention giving us the impression that it's "all Geller all the time." What do you think? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's really hard to know what to do. From the ADL report it looks like Geller and Spencer worked closely together on the first adverts, then against the mosque, and for some amount of time afterwards, but that Breivik's manifesto drove a wedge between them. All SIOA activity in the ADL thing from after Breivik seems to be described as Geller's work. Also, we have good sourcing that says that AFDI is the same as SIOA, and the ADL refers to AFDI as Geller's only throughout. This all may be moving too close to original research, I know, but it's only a merge discussion, right? By the way, I know you're opposed to calling SIOA or Geller extreme right, and I take your point, but one thing they have in common with many American extreme rightists (I'm thinking of Eustace Mullins and dozens of others of his ilk) is a propensity for creating a profusion of seemingly nominal organizations as fronts for their various activities. I think the sources suggest solidly that at least post-Breivik SIOA is Geller's thing. I guess I still think the best thing is to merge and redirect this to Geller since Spencer has wide notability apart from SIOA and his article doesn't have much in it about his role and post-Breivik sources suggest (but, I admit, do not seem to state explicitly) that Spencer's not really involved any more.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Court Says Controversial Anti-Islamic Extremism Group Won’t Be Granted a Trademark, group advocates suppression of Islam as a faith

See. "The Wall Street Journal reported that the website’s name, according to the three-judge panel, “suggests an association between ‘peaceful political Islamization’ and terrorism that many Muslims would find offensive.”" "“Appellants contend the essays posted on their website do not advocate suppression of the Islamic faith, but only oppose political Islamization,” the court said in its ruling. “The board disagreed, as do we.”" Dougweller (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Post Gazette

The only mention of SIOA in that article is "... Websites such as Stop Islamization of America and Creeping Sharia only fuel the flames ..." I can't see how anything as vague as "fueling the flames" can be used to establish a more ambitious characterization. There seems to be a inference (hence "synthesis") on what this exactly means and how the author thinks this relates to our lead sentence. We have better references that use the exact phrase plus extended explanations. Why weaken the citations with a drive-by passing reference? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Articles to be merged from April 2014
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Start-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Start-Class Islam-related articles
• Unknown-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class organization articles
• Unknown-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Low-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles