Talk:Muslim Mafia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Use of unreliable sources.

Unreliable sources are not reliable for anything. Some guys youtube video is not a reliable source for what did or did not appear on CNN. Frontpagemag.com is not a reliable source for what Sue Myrick thinks. Neither is thecuttingedgenews.com. I don't know why the courthousenews.com reference was removed. Phyllis Chester's views are not notable unless adressed in a reliable source - pajamasmedia.com is not one. Investigativeproject.org's views on something are not notable unless adressed in a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're wrong, but let's discuss. Pls leave them in as we discuss. Are you saying that the following sources are not RS, even for the purposes for which they are used? If so, please point to the basis for your statements. The sources I see you addressing here are:

1. youtube video
2. Frontpagemag.com
3. thecuttingedgenews.com
4. courthousenews.com you think is OK (or at least are not objecting to)
5. Phyllis Chester's views review of the book
6. pajamasmedia.com
7. Investigativeproject.org

Is that list correct? If not, please correct the list. When we have it right, pls tell me the basis for your saying that they cannot be used for the statements made.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That list appears correct, but I reserve the right to add or remove sources, and my incorrectness about the reliabilty of any given source does not mean I am wrong about any other source.

Previously adressed on RSN

Youtube: [1]

Frontpagemag: [2]

Pajamasmedia: [3]

My evaluations

thecuttingedgenews: The cutting edge is published by an "all-volunteer staff" which includes "Martin in Flint, Eduardo in Argentina, Uwe in Germany, Eve in Brooklyn, Jason in Boston, Adam in London and many others." None of these individuals is evidence to be engaged in any sort of fact checking. There is no evidence of this site being used by other obviously reliable sources without qualification. It fails WP:RS

My changes of opinion

Investigativeproject: It appears this may be reliable as the personal opinion of notable Steven Emerson. It needs to be attributed to him in text, however. Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'm being called away, but will get back to you asap. In the meantime, can you address the Youtube issue w/Firefly (if I'm correct and he is the one who added those ... not sure, but wasn't me). And as far as changing opinions (either way), of course ... Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Youtube qua youtube is never used a source in this article. Clips merely embedded links in the CNN, CSPAN, etc. reference citations. The discussion about youtube is about footage of a flying saucer attributed to NASA. The embedded link clips here are of FOX NEWS, etc. Apples and oranges.--Firefly322 (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add per your suggestion a mention of Steven Emerson to the article. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Other RSN discussions depreciating YouTube -> [4] Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree the reference syntax could be greatly improved if someone was so inclined to put forth an effort. No doubt youtube links can be problematic. Can you identity a specific instance similar to this situation? I think that there is no blanket ban on youtube.--Firefly322 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well:

1. FrontPage. I wasn't the one who put it in, and someone seems to have deleted it. I believe that Fire or Squid may be the one who put it in, and I see Squid feels it is an RS. You might address w/him. Though he may well not care, as there are other RS sources for that proposition at this point. Which of course means that FP was accurate in reporting on that matter. (I note that YF's discussion of it focused on whether it is ever printed on paper, which is of course irrelevant).
2. Cutting Edge. Again, not my add. I believe Fire's. And its not in any longer (perhaps deleted by him?). I'll leave it for him to discuss if he wishes to. It seems to have some notable writers, but as again there are already RS sources for the proposition it stands for, likely no need for it.
3. Youtube I punted to Fire, who I see has written his thoughts above.
4. Investigativeproject I see he is also addressing that as you suggested.
5. PajamasMedia. The one S that I disagree w/you on--for the purposes used. I don't read the discussion that you referred me to as indicating I can't use it as a source. Especially for the purpose used -- the opinion. Since its not being used for a fact, "fact-checking" is irrelevant. (Plus, with a name like that, how can you not take them seriously?)--Epeefleche (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest adding mention of Phyllis Chesler and Keith Ellison into the impact section. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Phyllis Chesler's piece on PajamasMedia is clearly attributed to her, so it can source this fact (community consensus would be with us here if I'm reading things correctly). Though beyond that, it might not be wise (consensus may be against it) to use such a source.

FYI, I've brought up the issue of the Chesler book review, another book review, and a Politico article at the RS/N, to seek some input from others.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment YouTube, FWIW, can be reliable if there is little doubt the poster owns the copyright and they are considered RS, For instance if XYZ News has their own channel and posts the video. Similarly if the video link is simply being used for verification of reliable source - like PQRS News broadcasted but Janey Schmo uploaded the video - cite the original broadcast as the reliable source and add the YouTube link for those wishing to see for themselves. -- Banjeboi 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits

Hi. I'm concerned that you deleted edits that people should be able to see to evaluate the notability of the article. For now, I'll put the refs/language on the AfD page. But can you do one think in the meantime -- explain why you reverted my chrono move of the litigation to where I believe it belongs (lower down)? Also, we should discuss why you are deleting the material, as I think all or nearly all is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• The article was becoming a coatrack. Notability isn't about writing alot or expansion. Need to go slow and be careful. Not sure what "my chrono move of the litigation" means? --Firefly322 (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I had moved the litigation section down one below where it now stands. You moved it up. It is in better chronological order and makes more sense IMHO if it is move down one section again. OK w/you? Also, if you added the Youtube cites, can you pls address them w/Hipo on the article talk page, as he is seeking to delete those footnotes (I wasn't the one who added them)? tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm addressing it now on the talk page. I didn't notice the litigation section move. I'll take a look (probably move it to where u suggest). If I don't remind me and we can talk about it. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that in a recent deletion you deleted the book infor from the body of the article. If you look at WikiProject Books instructions on article structure for non fiction works, they suggest both the template and the information that you just deleted from the body. I'm not sure why, but my guess is that as with most templates, they repeat info in the body of the article (think of every bio template that reflects the date of birth -- invariably also reflected in the body of the article). Make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Here's what I understand. Quoting: "A general book article includes:

1. A brief lead (introduction) to the book and its writers.
2. A book synopsis.
3. Information about its publication.
4. A balanced analysis regarding its reception (abiding by neutral point of view).
5. Noteworthy citations and sources."

Where does it say that you need to add that info to the body, even if repeated in the box? One of these 5 points? It might I just don't see it. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you keep on reading, below it gives greater detail. Under the heading "Intro" it says:

"Infobox (Template:Infobox Book)

• add into the infobox the first edition and possibly the first paperback edition ISBN, any others would go in ==Release details== section at the end of the article

And then under the heading "Headers":

Release details / Editions / Publication

• {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) . ISBN 1234567890. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• title, author, publisher , year, pages, ISBNs — The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870—1914, David McCullough, Simon & Schuster New York 1977 Octavo, pp. 698, ISBN 0671225634, ISBN 0671244094 (Pbk.)—David Hackett Fischer (2004). Washington's Crossing, p. 564, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195170342.
• year, country, publisher (ISBN), Pub Date, edition — 1989, UK, Fontana (ISBN 0006165745), Pub Date 9 February 1989, Paperback
• list the first editions and perhaps the most respected current editions, mention if it is a partial list. Possible order: hardcover, paperback, audio book, e-book....

• Hmm....well your interpretation is a good reason to include this section. Sorry I took it out. Thanks for describing it for me. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for listening. Do you want to be the one to put it back? (since one of our colleagues has suggested that I was edit warring on that page). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Title

Do we really need to include the whole title? It seems excessively long, and isn't the common name by which the book is known. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Which title do u suggest? (Be exact). --Firefly322 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Both "Muslim Mafia" (is not confused with anything else currently in Wikipedia) and "Muslim Mafia (book)" (more specific, but not unduly so) seem fine to me. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I actually wrote both first and the second of your suggestions. Either one is fine with me. I originally titled the article "Muslim Mafia", but changed it to "Muslim Mafia (book)" after someone suggested it in the AFD. --Firefly322 (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, we do need to include the whole title. We also need to redirect the likely other variations here for those looking for it. In the lede it can spell out that the book is commonly referred to as just Muslim Mafia and that can be used in the rest of the article if desired. -- Banjeboi 12:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• No we don't. To me, it seems somewhat silly to use such a huge and un-weidly title for an article. So far I don't understand your reasoning. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• We accurately title articles but as we do have a naming convention in place I agree that it can be moved to Muslim Mafia, if a second article is created it can be disambiguated with (book). -- Banjeboi 00:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles which indicates that the article should be called Muslim Mafia (book) or the like. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Colonel Warden. This should redirect back to Muslim Mafia (book). Location (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support calling this Muslim Mafia (book). it appears to fit naming conventions, and, of course, avoids the problem of the article sounding like its about "the muslim mafia" which, regardless of the accuracy of this book, is an inflammatory name for an article, unless there was an actual group calling itself that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the book by CAIR spokesman

Can someone more expert than I am determine if, and how, to reflect these two videos in the article -- they primarily consist largely of comments on the book by Ibrahim Hooper, the spokesman for CAIR (the subject of the book), on "Current Issues TV", hosted by Hesham Tillawi.[5][6]

• This is insteresting. Not sure about Tillawi, first time I've ever heard of him. His wiki-article is weak. By the way, mention of the Politico articles would definitely benefit the article. Just go very, very easy on quotes. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hipo -- are you ok w/me adding the video? To support a statement re the reaction of CAIR's spokesman to the book. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and inserted it. If anyone thinks that is a problem, let's discuss it here. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues

It may have been removed or simply overlooked but we state - portrays the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a subversive organization allied with international terrorists - and yes, I think I added it - without any real response. Something like "charges which ____ denounce" or "CAIR refutes the assertions and characterizes the book as ____". To me these would seem balancing that we simply lay out there that CAIR are terrorists. Is there not some strong direct reactions to present other sides to this? Similarly if Republicans have buoyed this up have Democrats in turn denounced it? -- Banjeboi 12:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand. Comment seems like a call for tendentious, WP:SYNTH edits. Wikipedia is not in the business of creating material "to balance". --Firefly322 (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think in the lead, since this is about the book we should emphasize more what the book says. Beyond that, when we speak about what others day, we are balanced to the extent that we reflect what's out there (which does include comments pro and against). Sound good?--Epeefleche (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems a bit better, BTW I certainly was never calling for tenditiousness or synthesis - just NPOV. -- Banjeboi 00:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Waste of time?

The AfD strikes me as a waste of peoples' time at this point. There's clear consensus, and the last seven eight or so have all voted keep. Is there any way anyone can suggest to accellerate closure, so as not to waste any more time on that page?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

!voted. Important to write that and keep it in mind. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Let the AfD run out. Unless it's a snow we want more input; also premature closes can cause their own drama. -- Banjeboi 00:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope everyone had fun. Haven't seen that one-side a vote that wasn't snowed in a long time.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)