Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikifan12345 (talk | contribs) at 00:26, 15 July 2009 (→Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:26, 15 July 2009 by Wikifan12345 (talk | contribs) (→Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

AfDs for this article:
Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This page is a POV Fork dealing with a subject matter which does not have enough mainstream notability to warrant its own entry. It has also traditionally been a magnet for original research from editors who pile on their own criticism through claims about the organization which are not found in secondary sources -- e.g. Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations#CAIR members facing charges. Other article issues have not been dealt with in months and the talk page indicates a consensus to merge with Council on American-Islamic Relations. Since the entry survived a previous AfD I thought it best to bring it here instead of simply merging.PelleSmith (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. POV fork whose only purpose seems to be to showcase a handful of fringe voices and their increasingly shrill attacks on the organization. Some of this material should be removed for BLP reasons alone. If there is any truly notable criticism here it should be properly sourced and put in the Council on American-Islamic Relations article. csloat (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Consensus has changed on "Criticism of..." articles since the previous AfD.—S Marshall /Cont 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge Getting rid of notable controversies is POV pushing that is just as bad as trying to include non-notable issues to smear. Well sources controversies and criticisms should be included, despite the success of of those censoring much of our political coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There is already a criticism section in the main entry. The point is that this topic is not notable enough to warrant its own entry. If you believe that the mainstream media and other reliable sources are censored then your problem is really with WP:RS.PelleSmith (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Thoroughly cited, well-referenced and the amount of solid information would make it impossible to merge it effectively in the CAIR article without compromising due weight/npov rules. What is this article a fork of? The content here is entirely independent from CAIR and is not an attempt to misconstrue the organization's image. For example, wikipedia hosts plenty of similar articles: Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of Human Rights Watch, etc..etc..Don't site OTHERCRAPSEXIST - I'm just pointing out Criticisms of Cair meets the same requirements as the above articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is supported by an acceptable number of reliable sources. I never said CAIR's inherit notability warrants a criticisms page. Someone claimed the article is a fork, so answer my question: What is this a fork of? Forks tend to take the shape of the original article and replace NPOV content with a biased and POV slant. This article is simply expanding on the notable criticisms of CAIR that cannot be included in the pertinent article because it would compromise NPOV rules and due weight. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree in the least about the "acceptable number of reliable sources." There is a criticism section of the main entry, and this is simply a pile on of non-notable criticisms split off of the main entry which makes said criticism seem more notable than it is. Like I said a POV FORK.PelleSmith (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you please be more explicit? Just saying "POV FORK" over and over again doesn't make it so. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Even those supporting the page seem to agree that's what it is -- they are claiming that it was created in order to keep the main page (this page) more NPOV and to move the less notable criticism here. That is, frankly, the exemplar of a "POV fork." csloat (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
See POV fork for details: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." That's exactly why this page was created. csloat (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
So how has NPOV been avoided? Criticisms articles tend to be made up of criticisms but voice is given to CAIR. If you could be more explicit as to how this is a POV fork - i.e, content examples, please do. We could copy and paste your reasoning in any of the criticism articles and the same reaction would occur. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, it was you yourself who said that it was "impossible to merge it effectively in the CAIR article without compromising due weight/npov rules." You cannot have it both ways -- if the material is truly NPOV and not an undue weight, it can go in the article without compromising those rules. But if it cannot be in the main article without compromising those rules, it cannot be here without doing so either. csloat (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the quote csloat provided is clear in regards to your question (emphasis mine): "... to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." Highlighting non-notable but negative viewpoints is exactly what the entry does.PelleSmith (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds nice. But what is non-notable? You seem to be very adamant about how there is criticism in the article but do not understand what constitutes notability. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I "don't understand what constitutes notability"? Criticism of an Islamic organization coming from Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, Brigitte Gabriel, Nonie Darwish, etc. is not notable in the least. Nor are any number of other fringe views published as editorials in fringe publications like FrontPage Magazine, Middle East Quarterly, and Daniel Pipes' personal blog. The two or three notable instances of criticism which remain be dealt with in the main entry.PelleSmith (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • CommentIt's perfectly notable. Those are mainstream historian/authors. Regardless, Newsweek, Washington Post, and many other 3rd party references are used to support. CAIR press releases are also provided throughout the article. Be more explicit in terms of what content does not meet wikipedia:criticism guidelines. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
There are not "many other" such sources at all. Regarding other policy violations whole sections of the page are WP:OR (see nomination). Regarding your question about criticism "guidelines", there are no real guidelines or policies, just an essay. Per Misplaced Pages:Criticism:
  • Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork, per Misplaced Pages:Content forking: "Misplaced Pages articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." For example the "Criticism" section of Igor Stravinsky should not be moved to a separate article such as "Criticism of Igor Stravinsky".
The notability issue of course does not directly relate to criticism guidelines but to general article guidelines. I am going to disengage these tangents, red herrings and misdirections. People coming here should evaluate the entry themselves because regarding notability you are just turning this into he said she said while providing an inaccurate view. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Keeping "criticsim" articles and main articles separately helps to improve NPOV. If anything, this might be merged. But an AfD nomination is not the way to discuss merging (see WP:Deletion).Biophys (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That is contradictory logic -- suggesting that the entry should exist in order to keep the main entry NPOV by keeping the criticism out of it but then at the same time suggesting that it "might be merged" into the main entry. There is, as we know, already a criticism section at the main entry and I think the criticism entry should be deleted. I did not nominate in order to "discuss merging", but "merge" is also viable result of an AfD. I don't see anything int he guideline you link to suggest that there is anything wrong with this nomination. Criticism of CAIR is simply not notable enough to warrant an entry.PelleSmith (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Nothing contradictory. If the "criticism" takes a lot of space, it can be placed to a separate article, leaving only a brief summary in main article. This improves readability and makes main article more neutral.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Please address the actual article in question here. In this case should the standalone article exist? Arguing interpretations of policy and guideline in the abstract is not exactly helpful. Is this an objection on principle to the AfD? There are no such "ifs" regarding specific cases. I don't see an argument for maintaining the specific content here as an entry, only general arguments about hypothetical uses of spinning off or splitting content. PelleSmith (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep Although I usually hate "Criticism of ..." articles, and my initial reaction was to support a merge, after a lot of consideration I have concluded that it should be kept separate from the main article on CAIR for one main reason: there's just too much content to merge. Simply put, the criticism of CAIR is, by itself, a subject that is way too large to be properly merged into the CAIR article. Therefore, while I'm hesitant to support keeping any "Criticism of ..." article, I agree with Biophys that if the content was to be shoved into the main CAIR article, it would disrupt readability and smack of undue weight. -shirulashem 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well then that material doesn't belong here either -- if it creates an undue weight problem, the solution is to delete the undue material (e.g. crap from frontpagemag and other questionable sources), not to create a separate page for soapboxing. Any notable criticisms of CAIR can be easily summarized in 3-4 paragraphs in the main article. csloat (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the lines are being blurred too much between two separate (but, in this particular case, related) issues. Undue weight is one thing, and "questionable sources" is another. This should not be a debate on whether to include material from unreliable sources. Such content should simply be deleted. If enough content is deleted (through consensus) from the Criticism article so that its contents can be properly merged into the main CAIR article, then I will reconsider. Otherwise, I maintain that it is undue weight for an article on an organization to have such a large part of it be devoted to criticism. -shirulashem 20:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've made a head start in this direction by removing stuff that had no citations as well as blogs etc. I also think an entire section needs to be summarized in a sentence or two if not entirely deleted since it is entirely based on guilt by association, which WP:BLP explicitly warns against. What's left is not much at all -- Barbara Boxer expressed "concern", and some extreme right-wingers such as Daniel Pipes have repeatedly criticized the organization for condoning terrorism -- this too could be summed up in a sentence or two and there is no reason it needs a separate page. I will continue to pare down the page as I get time to because there is still a lot on it that is not really "criticism" and ultimately doesn't really amount to much. csloat (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Per what you quote the entire "CAIR members facing charges" section should be deleted since none of it is "attributed to a specific critic." The individuals I mentioned above are critical of Islam in general, as their entries make clear. They also publish their views in fringe sources. Do you really think Misplaced Pages needs a "Criticism of" article for every Muslim, every Islamic institution, etc. that these individuals have expressed criticism of?PelleSmith (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what I think. It is you who thinks these historians/experts/political commentators are unreliable and non-notable. Whether or not they are critical of Islam in general is irrelevant. And what fringe sources? I see newsweek, Washington Post, etc..etc. You are currently deleting government cited information with false summaries. You really don't know what OR is. Also looks like you and User:Commodore Sloat are meatpuppets. I suggest you revert the article back to its pre-AFD state and then read wikipedia policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Editors using sources about alleged activities in order to criticize a person or group is original research. As in the quote you brought here unless the criticism itself is reported and can be attributed to a critic it does not belong. Please strike your accusation. If you wish to pursue it please do in an appropriate forum.PelleSmith (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Please indicate which of my edits (or PelleSmith's) you have a problem with. And cite your evidence of meatpuppetry. Otherwise it's a really unwarranted personal attack. csloat (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I just cited very lengthy edit above. You removed paragraphs of cited information (by the US Department of Justice) and claimed it was original research. Dubious as best, malicious at worst. I request that you revert the article back to its original pre-AFD state. It is extremely bad-faith to remove content you disagree with without consensus, doubly so during an active AFD. My meatpuppet accusation is simply based off the fact that you two seem to have a very similar editing style and are removing information with unsubstantiated summaries. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That was Pelle not me; I did however flag that stuff as extraneous and explained why in talk. It's a guilt-by-association attack on the organization without any real evidence connecting it to "criticism." If there is actual criticism based on these incidents let's quote that, not have links to a few criminals who had some connection to this organization however distant. It borders on an attack page to fill it up with stuff about a few terrorists or with links to every lawsuit that anyone's filed even though they received no mainstream media coverage. I'm not opposed to a brief paragraph detailing the collective attacks of Pipes and crew (including frontpagemag and such) against the organization and the organization's response to that. We have the beginnings of that in fact. But all of this should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. And do not accuse people of bad faith for responding to the concerns expressed on this very page by editing the article. You can always link to the pre-AFD page if you think it helps make your point, or if you disagree with these edits, take issue with them on the talk page. csloat (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You claimed cited material from the US justice department and 3rd party RS as original research. Whatever personal angst you have as clearly demonstrated in the above paragraph has no binding on content. I suggest you revert to the untampered pre-AFD version.Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stop commenting on editors and please strike the meatpuppet accusation. I already clarified this. It is the use of the sources that constitutes OR -- as is always the case with OR. The fact that some sources are from the US justice department, or from newspapers doesn't make a lick of difference if they are not used properly. When these sources are not actually reporting on criticism attributable to a critic but are instead used as evidence of supposedly bad (or criticizable) behavior by individuals associated with the organization then I'm afraid the encyclopedia is doing or implying the criticizing and that is clearly WP:OR.PelleSmith (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you really understand what OR is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The synthesis of different sources to make a point that is not made in those sources is a type of original research that is unacceptable on an encyclopedia. csloat (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Precisely ... and this has been explained far too many times by now. This particular mantra of denial is getting a hair away from trolling at this point.PelleSmith (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed^^^. Pelle's original rationale for delete was flawed and now he just continues to make up reasons. He had little understanding of what constitutes OR by his habitual removal of cited information. Hopefully when this article is kept (I hope at least) we can return some of the information. I'd argue much of the dissent is sourced from POV issues rather concern for the actual article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Also - Just a heads up. The current article has been severely reduced by Peppe and some others under dubious summaries, such as labeling entire paragraphs with strong references (from both the US DOJ and CAIR itself) as OR. It would unfair to consider the current state as a valid assessment. I believe this was an attempt to remove valid information to push a merge result. This is the version that should be considered. I think it's very inappropriate to do such heavy editing during an AFD especially when little discussion was allowed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Categories: