Jump to content

Talk:Southern California InFocus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

disruptive editing by User:Isarig

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

Your accusations are baseless, and border on incivility. You introduced this dubious source as a reference for a highly controversial claim you are insisting on inserting into the MEMRI page, and quickly created page for it - I (and other editors) querstion its notability, both there and here. A self-published freebie leaflet claiming to be the largest paper serving a small minority community in a certain geography is not, in and of itself, notable. For it to be notable, it must be the topic of several independent works. If it is, you should be able to find them. Isarig 12:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Your stalking goes way beyond the border of civility. Third party sources are already published on the article page, so your objection is baseless (and your bogus and self-serving claim that a newspaper must be the "topic of several independent works" is simply your opinion). The claim that this paper is self-published is a pathetic joke at best. Read the web page for the paper yourself; there is an editorial staff. It is not a "leaflet" but the biggest paper in California serving the Muslim community. If you believe your complaint, submit this article for AfD and let the chips fall where they may -- perhaps others will agree that it does not merit an encyclopedia entry. But I don't think you even believe your claim; I think you are simply disrupting wikipedia, reviving a stupid feud you have with me from months ago -- a feud I thought we had laid to rest -- because you want to censor legitimate criticism of MEMRI even though that criticism comes from authoritative published voices. csloat 12:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not stalking you, and if you repeat this uncivil charge agian, you will again find yourself the subject of an ANI report, hopefully with more teeth this time, as your uncivility and disruption of the project must stop. My claim that the article's subject must be the "topic of several independent works" is not my opinion, it is what Wikipedia's guidelines on notability states: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - please familiarize yourself with that guideline. Isarig 13:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, guys, cool it (both of you)! Methinks Isarig doth protest too much, as (to take one example) it's obvious that In Focus is no more self-published than, say, the nearby Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles (which, incidentally, I think publishes some good stuff). To Isarig I suggest that you could have looked for independent 3rd-party sources yourself, rather than just slapping on a {{notability}} tag. That would demonstrate a genuine search for the truth, and would help avoid accusations of disruptive editing. I have some sympathy for csloat, as the changes he is seeking to make on the MEMRI page are basically correct, but it is still important not to let yourself be provoked (it is for instance sound policy to ask for several, independent, third-party sources), however difficult that may be.
--NSH001 14:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The JJGLA has a public editorial staff, listed here. I can't say the same for SCIF, whose editor is a bit of mystery, let alone its editorial staff. Regardless, your argument is the logical fallacy of Tu Quoque, also known on WP as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't know if JJGLA is notbale, but its notability or lack thereof has no nearing on the notability of this article. It is not up to me to establish the notability of article whose notability I dispue, but rather on the editors claiming that it is notable - that is what the {{notability}} tag is for. Isarig 14:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You are right that you don't have to establish notability yourself; what I am saying is that it is open to you to be less provocative, and that doing so would make a pleasant change for all concerned. Just occasionally? I'd like to see a more co-operative spirit of editing, and that means looking at other people's arguments, and sometimes even helping them out. Certainly it would help defuse the antagonism you seem to have with csloat. But as I said, you don't have to do so.
--NSH001 16:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Changed wording to Infocus states that it is "California's largest Muslim newspaper". Cites given don't establish this as a fact -fails WP:V. <<-armon->> 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense; do the google search - there are multiple sources for the fact that it is california's largest muslim paper. If you are so sure it isn't, can you please name the muslim paper that is larger? As for your other argument, you are simply casting empty aspersions on my good faith, and I ask you to stop it. There were no violations of WP:POINT, and your claim that this paper -- the largest of its kind in California -- is not notable is absurd; my only explanation for such an irrational position is that it stems from an extremist Islamophobia. In which case, I pity you. csloat 10:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

edits by Isarig (talk · contribs)

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

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

Isarig changed the sentence to read as follows:

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

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

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

"Americans Against Hate has described it as "CAIR-California's monthly tabloid".[1]

I have several problems with the quotation:

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

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

As a starting point, please stop labeling these paragraphs as disruptive editing by me. That is uncivil, and I will reprot you if you do it again. If you have issues with my grammer, suggest a better formulation, but do not removed well sourced content. The claim that InFocus is the larget paper is just that, a claim, by them. It is not fact, and the material you cite that supposedly supports that, does not. The SLD quote calls them the largets in Southern California, which is something differnt. The other results of the google search are either repeat teh SLD claim regards "southern californai", or are unreliable sources. If you don;'t knwo what a tabloid is - look it up. The motivations of AAH are irrelevant. It is a well sourced comment, and the fact that you don't like it is, well, irrelvant. Isarig 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
If you stop making disruptive edits, I stop calling you on it. However, your edits were clearly disruptive, so if you must report me for telling the truth, feel free to, but please stop threatening me. I did suggest a better formulation for your grammar and you simply reverted it, apparently without reading it. Please revert it back. The fact is that the paper is the largest muslim paper in california, as 143 google citations show, as well as other cites. Yes SLD mentions southern california but the claims are not exclusive - it is both the largest in SoCal and the largest in Cal. Do you know of a larger one, or of a citation disputing the fact that it is the largest? If not, please drop this silly matter.
The fact that I disagree with you does not make my editing disruptive. Please cease using that terminology. Consider this your final warning. Isarig 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Warn me all you want, but when you are engaged in disruptive editing, you can expect me to call you on it, whether or not you threaten me. Please stop threatening me -- filing bogus reports is simply further disruptive editing. csloat 22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
On the second issue, you have not responded to the arguments above except to tell me to look up the word "tabloid." I refer you to the four arguments above explaining why this quotation should not be here, and remind you that you must respond to each one convincingly in order to meet your burden of proof. csloat 21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I addressed all 4 of your argumets. Your argument (1) was that calling it CAIR's tabloid is meaningless - I suggested you look up the meaning of the term you don't understand. Your argument (3) was that it comes from a site whose purpose is to attack CAIR. That may or may not be true, but the motivations are irrelevant. Your argument (4) is that it is not from a notabale source, but we have had that discussion on the AAH page, and it appears to be a much more notable organization than InFocus is. With regards to (3) - that is the section heading under which the criticism is found, and is intended to help the reader. I am open to other suggestions. Isarig 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) I didn't say I didn't understand the term; I said the name-calling is meaningless. You have not established anything encyclopedic about it. (2) Ah, yes, you forgot #2 again, and yet deceptively claim you addressed all 4 arguments. That one alone is enough reason to exclude the quote. (3) the motivations are not at issue; the notability of this attack site is all that is at issue here; this "criticism" (or more accurately this ad hominem) is not encyclopedic; (4) nope; it appears to be not notable at all -- it has a website and the entire organization seems to be one fringe activist using an organization as a front. We do not need to give space to every silly comment by every website launched by every activist. csloat 22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to your opinion that calling something a tabloid and associating that tabloid with a much critcized advocacy organization is "meaningless" - but that's your persoanl opinion, which is quite worthless. I addressed (2) {though mistakingly labeld it (3)]. If you have a better suggestion for the label of that reference, I'm opne to hearign it. (3)+(4) It has been established at teh AAH page that the organization is notable . Give it up already. Isarig 22:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to your opinion that my opinion is "worthless," but that opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you cannot articulate any encyclopedic value of this immature name-calling. You did not answer argument #2; if you mislabeled it, you still completely ignored the point that your quote was taken deceptively out of context in a manner that appears intentional and mendacious. AAH's notability is not at issue here (as you should be well aware), what is at issue is the notability of this throwaway sentence that you quote mined out of a page full of defamation. csloat 22:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, your opinion (and mine, for that matter) is worthless. So you can complain as much as you want about something being meaningless to you, but that is, simply put, irrelvant and wortheless. What this boils down to is your assertion that the claim is not notable - and I disagree. A notable organization has claimed that the magazine in question, which poses as an independant newspaper is in fact a tabloid produced by and funded by an adcvocacy group. Surely such information is relevnt to the article. Isarig 22:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You're hand-waving and ignoring the arguments. The worthlessness of anyone's opinion is not at issue here; what is at issue is that there is nothing encyclopedic furthered by the name-calling "tabloid" quote. We already have the bogus whine that it is a CAIR-funded publication, so that part of the quote adds nothing. Second, you are ignoring the argument that the quote is out of context and that your quote mining was deceptive and mendacious. Third, you are ignoring the argument that the quote, not the organization, is not notable. csloat 00:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You are cautioned, yet again, to stop commenting about editors and their alleged motivations. One more violation of WP:NPA and we will meet, yet again , at WP/ANI. Your constant vilification of editors in lieu of actual arguments must stop. Isarig 01:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You are cautioned, yet again, to stop threatening me. It is getting tiring, and it is nonsense. You are the one not responding to the arguments here. csloat 03:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to your arguments, and your response was to call my edits "deceptive and mendacious." I am not threatening you - I am explaining the inevitable consequences of your uncivil editing style. Isarig 03:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Go back and read argument #2 -- I explained how your edits were in fact deceptive and mendacious. You have not responded to those points. Nor have you, for that matter, answered the other three arguments -- the fact that you were deceptive was only one of the four arguments I was making. csloat 05:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the title to your proffered version - there was nothing decpetive nor mendacious about it to begin with. we are now done with argument 2, and with your opposition to this quote. Now quietly go away, and take your little uncivil comments with you. Isarig 15:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You are the one being uncivil; I have been asking you to stop. Yes you did change the title, which resolved the most blatant aspect of the deception, but argument #2 is still quite accurate -- the quote is fundamentally out of context, quote-mined from an article that is simply not about the InFocus paper at all. Of course, you have also forgotten arguments 1, 3, and 4, and, as I have said, any one of them independently is a reason to reject this quotation from the article. I'll go ahead and make the necessary change. csloat 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
All your objections have been addressed. You are now just being disruptive. Isarig 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1)There's a reason I linked Tabloid - it is that so that you could familiarize yourself with the meaning of the term. Please do so, and you wil lsee that Tabloid may refer not to the format, but to the content, frequency and price.. The previos quotes allude to the paper being susbsizdized by CAIR, this one makes the connection more explict.
(2)There' no requirement that an an article be focused on the subject in order to quote from it when it addresses other subjects. If readers are wondering about the article - they click on the refernce and see what it is about.
(3) You've basiclly folded thsi into 4, claimign non-notability, so see below.
(4)You acknowledge that AAH is notable, and it is notable for being a critic of CAIR, thus it's commentary on CAIR-related subjects, such as CAIR's tabloid, are notable. Isarig 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(1)Please see broadsheet and then see the rest of my comment - it's not encyclopedic to note that a lone extremist used the wrong (or even right) word to describe the paper's format, frequency, or price. As for CAIR, what makes this "more explicit"? It is implicit at best. The funding quote makes it explicit.
(2)Again, you're not responding to the point, which I urge you to re-read. The point is the quote is mined out of context from an article that has nothing to do with this.
(3)The ad hominem nature of this quote is separate from its complete lack of notability.
(4)You're saying that everything this lone extremist has to say about CAIR is notable? I don't think so. This is not "commentary"; it is a one line ad hominem, and it is not notable just because you were able to manufacture a thin veneer of notability for this guy's little defamation website. Again please read WP:RS and stop making bogus arguments here. Thanks, and have a good day. csloat 23:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) It is encyclopedic to note that a critic has described it as a tabloid, even if you think the critic is wrong
(2)I've responded to the point. Re-read my response
(3)You wrote above, WRT to (3) "What is relevant is that this is not notable " - so 3 and 4 are one and the same
(4)yes. that's what I'm saying. You disagree, but that doesn't make your POV the correct one. Isarig 23:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(1)No it is not. We would not include on the New York Times page the fact that Rush Limbaugh has called it a "leftist rag." Not everything everyone says is notable and encyclopedic; please see WP:NOT.
(2)Perhaps you will have better luck if you re-read my objection to your response more slowly. Get back to me when you have done so; in the meantime I will take this as a concession on point #2.
(3)The ad hominem issue is separate from its notability. We do not include empty ad hominems on critiques of newspapers.
(4)Actually it's not my POV, it is clearly laid out in WP:RS.
It looks like we're done here; the quote stays out. Thanks for your input. csloat 23:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(1)yes it is, and yes, we might.
(2)I have read your objection and responded to it.
(3)You were the one who said th eobjection is based on lack of notability. reread what you wrote.
(:4)WP:RS says nothign of the kind.
It looks like we're done here; the quote is in. Thanks for your input. Isarig 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) no, it's not. This much is clear, and you are just making empty assertions now.
(2) No you haven't actually responded to it; again, try more slowly next time.
(3) I also said it was an ad hominem. You still have ignored this point. You're just playing games with the fact that I also said notability. Please try to approach this argument in good faith rather than engaging in empty sophistry.
(4) WP:RS is pretty clear on the matter; a self-published web page with no editorial oversight is simply not a WP:RS.
The quote goes. csloat 23:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) Yes, it is. This much is clear, and you are just making empty assertions now.
(2) I have responded to it, by both addressing the substantial issue in the article, and by addressing your "not the topic" objection. Please re-read.
(3) So you also said it was an ad hominem. Whoop tee do. You said notability wa sthe main issue. Your welcome to your opinion about the ad hominem, but we disagree.
(4) WP:RS is pretty clear on the matter; a notable organization making a notbale criticism is ok to use
The quote stays. Isarig 00:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) this is getting silly. it is not encyclopedic, and you don't have an argument as to why it is. If you do, you have failed to articulate it, despite the proliferation of comments here.
(2) you did not address the objection at all that this was quote mined totally out of context from a web page about something else.
(3) if we disagree, it might be about time to explain what you think our disagreement is so we can resolve it. "whoop te dos" and other uncivil comments do not cut it here - if you can't explain why you think you're right, we must assume you're wrong.
(4) This is not a reliable source, it is a self-published web page. And this specific comment is not notable -- again, not everything said by every idiot with a wikipedia page is "notable." csloat 00:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) this is getting silly. it is encyclopedic, and I've explained why it is.
(2) I did
(3) I've explained why I am right - starying with the fact that you have already conceded (3) is the same as (4)
(4) it is. Isarig 00:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

It's clearly a tabloid. It's clearly as notable as Americans Against Hate so if these articles do end up being kept, I don't see a case for removing commentary from them. As for quote mining, sloat, if you're going to accuse Isarig of it, don't do it yourself with the cites you used for "largest Muslim newspaper in California" when they just make a passing repetition of InFocus' masthead claim. Anyway, I consider this debate to be sterile until it can pass WP:N. <<-armon->> 23:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It's clearly a broadsheet; please read the entries and look at the newspaper. "largest muslim paper in california" is not just Infocus's claim as you know, and it is hardly "mined." csloat 23:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability

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

As the largest Muslim paper in California it certainly meets WP:N. We've got articles from the LATimes, St Louis Post Dispatch, and City News Service discussing this paper, as well as some comments from the ADL. It's certainly at least as notable as this paper, about which nobody appears to have raised notability concerns. csloat 00:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I will put the same message on that paper's page as I did on this one. Bigglove 02:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I do note that that is an independent paper, so I didn't put the part about WP:CORP there. Bigglove 02:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Where is the LAtimes article that discusses InFocus? what exactly does CNS say about InFocus? Isarig 01:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see the LATimes article myself; it is cited by the ADL but I do not see the full cite information. The full CNS citation is in the article so you can easily find that. I'm not going to engage further questioning or argument with you for reasons I spelled out above. csloat 01:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
So, contrary to your claim above, we do not have an "article[s] from the LATimes". Any particular reason why you made that claim, obviously knowing it is false?
The only quote attributed to CNS is 'Muslim Newspaper". would you care to elaborate on the context in which CNS wrote "Muslim Newspaper"? Isarig 02:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


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

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

WP:CORP outlines the following regarding the sources

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

Of the two RS, we have:

  • 1. Muslim Newspaper," City News Service (4 February 2005), we need to know if this source specifically meets the above criteria, and whether the coverage is more than especially repeating a press release. Given that article in City News SErvice has the same pub date as the inception of the paper, I'm concerned that it is essentially a press release.
  • 2. From the article: "Tim Townsend, 'St. Louis Post-Dispatch (4 December 2005) p. A1, who calls InFocus "Southern California's largest Muslim newspaper." What we actually have in the article is, "For a lot of Americans, Islam is the unknown, and often it is the unknown that is feared," said Saaqib Rangoonwalla, an editorial board member of InFocus, Southern California's largest Muslim newspaper." This is not SIGNIFICANT coverage of the newspaper. The topic of the article is not INFOCUS. The paper gets a brief mention when the editorial board is quoted and identified. It is unclear if this is self referential by the organization. Bigglove 02:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes CNS is probably a press release, I haven't seen it. As for SLPD, I disagree. We also have ADL citing a LAT article (that I also haven't seen) that is apparently specifically about the paper. And we have clear evidence that the ADL thinks the paper is notable. It's certainly as notable as any college or university newspaper, or any other community newspaper, many of which have pages here. Anyway, I'm not going to fight about this with someone who appears to be bent on making a case against it; if you want to put it up for AfD, you don't need my permission. csloat 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just looked over your edits Biglove; I see you've turned this page into a smear piece lambasting the paper, with about 75% of the page taken up by hysterical ADL ranting about two articles reprinted from other sources. At least we see where you're coming from. This is also inaccurate - I'm not sure I ever said the CNS article called it the "largest Muslim newspaper," and I seriously doubt it said that, since that article was published when the paper was founded. You've also removed the quote from the SLPD, which I suppose is a way to bolster your case against notability here? I'll go ahead and restore the stuff you deleted and summarize the ADL slurs. csloat 06:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • First, per notablility, "largest" of anything is not mentioned above as a notability criteria.
  • I thought your version had the CNS cite after "largest muslim newspaper". This is why I made my change. I haven't seen the article--what does it say? If it IS a press release we shoudl get rid of the cite per guideline and it can't be used for notability.
  • I discussed the SLPD removal above--it is not an article about the paper itself, it only quotes somenoe who works for the paper and identifies it as the "largest mulsim newspaper". This may or may not be self referential, but I think the ref is being used here to say more than it actually does.
  • I also think that the stuff the ADL pointed out is a concerning reflection of editorial policy and deserves mention.
  • Of course, we need MORE about the paper from RS for BALANCE, unfortunately there isn't anything except what they write about themselves which doesn't meet notability criteria.
  • I might change some of your changes back based on my comments above. Perhaps if you decide to roll all my changes back enmasse we might reach a middle ground instead. Bigglove 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree with the selective way you are applying notability criteria to this paper. As I said, if you don't think it's notable, you don't need my permission to AfD it, but I'm not going to bicker with you -- it's clear your mind is already made up. csloat 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

What I'm talking about is the fact that I disagree with the selective way you are applying notability criteria to this paper. As I said, if you don't think it's notable, you don't need my permission to AfD it, but I'm not going to bicker with you -- it's clear your mind is already made up. As for your revert, you stated in the edit summary that you would edit based on my changes so I'll wait to see what you come up with before reverting you. csloat 21:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, well I am not sure why you think I am applying anything selectively. I wrote the criteria above and discussed. We disaagre on the one st louis cite so I put it back. I don't have a huge problem with it. I am also not really interested in afd of articles. I am more interested in improving them. Bigglove 21:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If you are interested in improving this article rather than deleting it, the energy you're putting into denying its notability is completely misplaced. I don't see you applying these criteria to any other papers (though you did put a note on the Jewish Journal but you haven't followed up on it or edited the article in the contentious way you have been editing this one). I will try to work with you on improving the article but I do have problems with some of your edits. But I don't plan to get sucked into further debates about its notability here, as I see that discussion to be fruitless. csloat 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey man, I can only do one thing at a time and I have a day job! You mentioned the Jewish journal thing, and I raised the same question I did here. Maybe I'll edit over there after improving this article. It is on my watchlist now. As for my energy on notability discussion, it would have been shorter if we'd actually had a rational discussion on the points I raised. Bigglove 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, no offense. I just don't see anything helpful or productive about continuing this line of argument. I'll put the Jewish Journal on my watchlist too and I look forward to seeing your contributions there. Personally I think both these papers are notable, and if either goes to AfD I expect to engage in the discussion there, but I don't see the value in discussing it here. csloat 22:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

size is irrelevant

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

If you don't think it's notable, AfD it - I'm not going to bicker with you about it; suffice to say that I think you are wrong. csloat 21:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be more helpful to discuss the criteria themselves and whether this fits or not rather than who is right and who is wrong. Bigglove 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how it would be helpful to argue with someone whose mind is already made up. If you want to AfD it, I'll take my arguments there. csloat 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

muslim activists

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

It wasn't expunged, it was moved to a more appropriate place. It doesn't belong in the intro. csloat 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I put it back. I think the founding goals of the paper belong in the intro. Why not? I found the rest of the sentence as well. See what you think. Bigglove 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

content of hezbollah and antisemetic materia

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

I'll be re-summarizing it if you do. Familiarize yourself with WP:UNDUE. We don't need 75% of the article to be filled with hysterical charges of racism. csloat 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I shortened it. See what you think. Please add more from other sources to balance this material. I've looked and can't find much. Bigglove 21:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've shortened it again. If I see other sources on this I will add them. I don't see the need for the extreme level of detail that you inserted -- ADL is upset because of two articles, one that it perceived to be supportive of hezbollah, and another that was reprinted from a saudi paper. ADL's discussion of why it thought the article was supportive of hezbollah, or of what was wrong with the saudi paper's discussion of Israel, are minutiae that are not really relevant here. I looked at the Arab News page and saw nothing about this article about Israel; if it is not notable enough in its original source for comment on that page, why is it worth such extensive discussion on this page? csloat 21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Please reconsider this move; there is no need for a revert war here. First off, you made other changes in your revert which shows me you didn't even bother to read what I did before you reverted. I made some minor copyediting that you should change back. Second, you haven't explained why we need this much description of two articles from the paper. Should I go read some articles I like and summarize them here too? It seems silly -- we have the necessary information that the ADL criticized these two articles; that is all we need. If the article that was originally printed in Arab News is not notable enough to be included in the Arab News article, it most certainly does not belong here (where it is only reprinted). I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:UNDUE and make changes accordingly -- right now you have about 50% of this page devoted to criticism of two articles in a newspaper, and all that criticism comes from a single source (a self-published website, at that). I'll let you go ahead and shorten it rather than revert-warring with you as I don't think that will be productive and you seem to be approaching this in good faith, but if you don't make any such changes I will likely do it myself. csloat 22:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
i have already changed the paragraph once as noted above in response to your concerns. Here is what I did. In addition to shortening the text and removing editorializeing from adl (I'm repeating myself here now), in order to respond to your comment of undue weight, I added other stuff about the newspaper that was descriptive about what the paper includes. We now have the CNS cite for this, altho that is not really more than a press release. The reason it is very notable to mention this stuff is that it shows something about the editorial policy of the paper, and that is relevant to a wikipedia article about the paper. I don't think the adl web site is the best cite, honestly, but there are pretty slim pickins in terms of citations. Finally, I am apologetic about your copy edits I will look. Bigglove 00:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't show anything about the "editorial policy of the paper"; it shows what ADL's pet peeves are. And there is nothing added by the excess verbiage you added to the summaries; it is enough to have a sentence or two about this. Again, if this article from a saudi paper is so important, why isn't it mentioned on the page about the paper it was originally published in? this is a reprint! It's like spending half the article on the New York Times with some leftist organization's whining about the paper because it republished a right-wing editorial cartoon. I'll be fixing this. csloat 10:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What a newspaper chooses to print (or reprint) reflects the editorial policy of the paper. Bigglove 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Bold facing your comments does not make them any more persuasive. I have not deleted the comment that the newspaper chose to print or reprint these things; what I am deleting is the unnecessary editorializing about it by ADL. And, again, you have to account for why this article is not even mentioned in the Arab News article if it is so important. csloat 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Arabnews -- that's where the article was first published. If it is important here as a reprint, it must have been a highly significant event when they published it first! You are saying this is an unusual viewpoint here; where is your evidence for that and why should that matter? If it is not representative of infocus, why is it here at all? If it is not representative of the Muslim community, find a quote that says infocus is not represetnative of the muslim community. Otherwise that opinion is prohibited as WP:OR. The quotations you are including that I am excluding do not say "this is unusual in an american paper." They simply belabor the obvious point that ADL is critical of what it perceives to be pro-Arab sentiment that borders on extremism. We can say that much without filling 1/3 of the article with extensive quotes from a single critic on a self-published blog. csloat 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This discussion not leading anywhere. The fact that they chose to reproduce an article like this reflects their editorial policy and that is relevant. We can disagree on this. I took half the quote out, including all of the ADL editorializing re "antisemitism" and their interpretation, and just put in what infocus printed. This should suffice to meet you halfway. Bigglove 21:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Arab News chose to print the article too, so presumably it reflects their editorial policy; why aren't you insisting on putting these quotes there too? I think you've got a pretty telling double standard here. Would it be ok for me to pick another article from InFocus to quote extensively in order to make the same point that you are trying to make? And again, you still have not told us what you are adding to the article with these quotes. What are we learning from the quotes that we don't already know in the version I suggested? csloat 22:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

CNS cite

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

I'll be restoring it, since it is the source of the date of the founding of the paper. Please do not remove sourced content just to bolster a flawed notability argument. csloat 21:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
My reasons for removing this are stated above. None are to bolster any notabillity argument. I simply NEVER cite anything if I haven't read it, but if those are your editorial standards, feel free. This is not my article. Bigglove 21:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'm trying to get a copy of it now. I have access to university library databases, and will report what I find. For me it was not a problem because it was only being used to document the date the paper was founded (something I didn't see anywhere else). Anyway I'll be back with details in a bit if I find it. csloat 21:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Bigglove 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

here it is --

Copyright 2005 City News Service, Inc.  
City News Service

February 4, 2005 Friday

LENGTH: 83 words

HEADLINE: Muslim Newspaper

DATELINE: ANAHEIM

BODY:
A newspaper focusing on events and issues related to Southern California's Muslim community 
published its first issue today. Southern California InFocus will provide local, national and 
international news and commentary, its editor, Asma Ahmad, said. The publication includes 
coverage of events, youth, children and Islam and profiles of community leaders. Southern 
California InFocus is distributed at businesses owned and catering to Muslims, mosques and 
community centers, Ahmad said.

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

When you return, please restore it yourself since you took it out. I would do it but I fear I am close to my revert limit and I'm really trying not to revert war. csloat 22:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
All set. I put it in two places. Bigglove 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

undue weight and tag

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

No it's not, and I am not removing it anyway - I am just summarizing it and removing the unnecessary editorializing that says a lot more about ADL than anything else. csloat 10:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
And when I get a chance I am going to put it back. Please make a suggestion at middle ground rather than reverting to your original text, which you have done several times now without even suggesting a compromise. Bigglove 13:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

That is way too much, since all the criticism comes from a single source, and all of it describes only two articles, only one of which was actually written by this magazine. I'll try again, but please note that I did not simply revert to the original text but I rather rewrote the whole paragraph again. Can you please tell me what part of the criticism you think is essential here beyond what my rewrite keeps? csloat 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, when you answer that question, please also indicate exactly which quotations are from the InFocus article and which ones are from the ADL's mischaracterization of that article. Do the same for ArabNews. Thanks. csloat 18:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Your assumption that the ADL mischaracterized betrays a bias that not all Wikipdeia readers would share. The quotes from the ADL are in double quotation marks. The quotes from the paper are in single quotation marks. Bigglove 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Sorry, that refereed to my first version. In this version, I was careful that the quotes come from INFOCUS so as not to be confusing. Bigglove 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I put a direct quote from infocus rather than by way of ADL. Bigglove 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The content. Your version is devoid of content.Bigglove 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
A quote cherry picked by ADL, of course; it is completely misleading to state that this quote did not come to us "by way of ADL." csloat 22:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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


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

Yor rewrite removes essential aspects of the content, admiration the author showed for Nasrallah and Hezbollah and the characterization of Israeli army as "Anglo-American-backed Zionist forces". Bigglove 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope; my rewrite leaves no mistake about what that opinion piece is about; all I did in that section is remove redundant soapboxing. csloat 06:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how quoting a publication is soapboxing. This is something that the paper printed and as such it reflects their editorial policy. Wikipedia readers have a right to know this. Bigglove 17:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Biglove

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

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

Look, I'm probably too stupid and uneducated to fix the commas and periods so why don't you help me out. I honestly tried to find the copyediting changes you made and couldn't see them. Bigglove 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to do it and run afoul of the 3RR. These are basic grammatical conventions -- if you really consider yourself "too stupid and uneducated" to properly use a comma, what are you doing editing an encyclopedia? I'm not saying you are -- those were your words -- and I know people make mistakes, but what you're telling me is that your reverting is so careless that you can't even be bothered to notice separate changes that I clearly explained in the edit summaries. csloat 22:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Please go ahead and fix it. I can't see exactly what you are talking about. Bigglove 00:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Comoodore sloat

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

I didn't revert; there were changes as you could see if you read them. They were minor but I did not just go back to my original version. What do you consider "halfway"? csloat 20:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The changes were in no way substantive. The fundamental content was the same. I changed my fundamental content in reponse to your concerns, but you refuse to do this. Have a good weekend. Bigglove 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Your alleged compromise went even further in the opposite direction! Now we have almost half of the article devoted to whines by the ADL about two articles. It really doesn't help establish good faith to pretend that you are compromising while you load even more excess verbiage into the article. You have not responded to my concerns at all; you have made things worse. Can you please explain what part of WP:UNDUE you have a problem with? csloat 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
oNE The quote is directly from the newspaper, not from ADL. It demonstarates an aspect of the editorial policy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that that violates undue weight. Bigglove 00:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So you're ok with other quotes from the newspaper then? Since this quote is cherry picked from the ADL and it is included only as "criticism," I do fear we have a WP:UNDUE problem. I will try to address it. csloat 01:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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

No it is not. Read WP:UNDUE as I have suggested. Thanks. csloat 17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I read the policy. Bigglove 17:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well if you read and understood the policy, you must understand why your edits are unacceptable.csloat 06:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I disagree. My edits are not unacceptable; they are perfectly acceptable. You disagree with me, but you do not own this article. Bigglove 16:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC) I put my edits back. Bigglove 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The undue weight problem

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

It would be better to put a summary of the above in than to remove my sourced relevant content, which I returned to the article for the reasons stated above. Bigglove 16:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually you have not given a single reason why that "sourced and relevant content" adds anything to the article. You are the one refusing to compromise, and at this point your editing is simply disruptive. csloat 17:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have done so, ad nauseum at this point. It reflects the editorial policy of the paper. Bigglove 17:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
And I have responded to that. I have not removed anything that "reflects the editorial policy of the paper." Additionally, you are wrong, and I am starting to think you are simply being disruptive. It reflects what ADL thinks is the most egregious thing about the paper, not the paper's editorial policy. Please re-read my longer comment above regarding what the paper's actual editorial policy looks like. Let me know if you have any further trouble understanding what I am saying. csloat 06:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Re-read the long comment at the top of this section, and read WP:UNDUE; hopefully at this point you will be able to understand my point. Thanks. csloat 00:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand the policy, but disagree with your point. Bigglove 14:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Then you do not understand the policy; please re-read it, and re-read the paragraph above. csloat 17:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I have read the policy. YOu need to understand that what YOU consider undue weight is not the universal interpretation. Let's end this particular discussion, because we disagree and are not going to agree.
I like your recent edit. It is more helpful to add stuff rather than to keep deleting sourced relevant content. Are you happy with the section now? Bigglove 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
No, but I will continue to add things as I get time. In general I agree with the principle you state, that it's better to add than delete stuff that is sourced, but it is also better to delete stuff that is only put in to create an undue weight problem. In order to more accurately portray the paper, I now need to summarize several otherwise insignificant articles from the paper in order to counter the rather hysterical charge that this is some kind of pro-terrorism rag. It's a really silly game to be playing and it's better if Wikipedia does not give such a strong voice to fringe critics to begin with. But since you insist on it, we are going to have to balance out that hysteria. csloat 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not playing any games, but thanks for being honest about your mo. Bigglove 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:DICK. I was not describing "my mo"; I was explaining why your continued violations of WP:UNDUE are leading to a less-than-desirable situation with this entry. csloat 00:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You should actually look at that section yourself :=). Bigglove 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

LA times

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

It's in the ADL article you are so on about. csloat 06:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Please extract and quote. Bigglove 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) It would be better to find the actual article so we could get some context. This is a publication published out of the headquarters of an advocacy organization, free to the public. I'd like to see some proof that the paper is journalisitically independent rather than a paper to fulfill the mission of the advocacy organization. Bigglove 17:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - please find the LATimes article and add it. As for what you would like to see - I agree and would support adding such information to the article as well. But don't delete the LATimes stuff again. In addition, if you feel the need to make other changes to what I've done (such as re-adding the contentious nonsense from the Nasrallah article), please do not also re-introduce your punctuation errors along with those changes in yet another blind revert. Thanks. csloat 00:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I wrote above that I tried and can't find the LA times article at the LA times Web site. It is quite a claim that a paper published out of the offices of an advocacy organization is intellectually independent of that organization. I am being 100% reasonable to want some proof of that here. DO you really disagree with that? Bigglove 14:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not "quite a claim"; it is a claim, and it is backed up by the ADL quotation on the matter. I would love to see the LATimes article too, and when you find it, I encourage you to add it, but in the meantime, the ADL statement will do (unless you think they are lying, in which case we should remove all of their comments and concerns). csloat 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

It is not an extreme claim at all. All newspapers are financially dependent on someone, and we don;t automatically critique their editorial independence. I think it is fine to have the ADL statement if we are going to publish their criticism of other things (talk about extreme claims!) I did look for the LA Times article without luck, but I don't think we need it, as I don't think they're going to lie about such a basic fact. But when you find the LA Times article do let us know. csloat 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, clearly we are not going to agree on this. From my way of thinking, a FREE paper published from the offices of an ADVOCACY organization is different from an independent paper supported by a combination of ads and subs. It is just not the same thing. For this reason, I think we need to see the article from the LA TIMES (I don't even see the quote in the ADL cite, but you say it is there and I believe you). I don't think they are lying, but we are missing the context of the statement. Bigglove 00:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to think whatever you want; you are not welcome to delete this sourced and relevant comment. When you get the LATimes article you can strengthen this section even more. csloat 00:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


If I deleted anything, it was not sourced in a WP:RS. Take care, I think you and I are the only ones reading this little stub on a california give-away paper! Bigglove 02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if ADL goes, so does that nonsense about the paper being supportive of hezbollah. That quote was only notable because the ADL commented on it; since we are removing their hysteria, we can remove that, as well as the bogus line that the paper has been supportive of hezbollah. As I proved above, most of the paper has nothing to do with hezbollah. Cherry picking this one article out of thousands to make it look like a terrorist paper is a violation of WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and probably other policies. It's also a lie - we could just as easily say based on one of the articles I mentioned above that the paper is generally supportive of Australian Jews or of academic freedom.csloat 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


BUT you didn't actually PUT anything in about australain jews or academic freedom, you just took stuff out!!!!! It doesn't make sense. If you are a staffer for the paper or something like that and I've insulted you I aplologize, but it is perfectly reasonable to have some criticism. Most wikipedia pages have some criticism. And please see WP:OWN. Bigglove 02:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

punctuation

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

It's not horrible, it's just embarrassing. You keep putting extra commas before open quotation marks and then you put periods after close quotation marks. csloat 17:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, these specifics are more useful way to help another editor improve puncutation than your actions above. Bigglove 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The state of this page

After removing all of the sources that don't qualify under WP:V we have a thin little article which I don't think even meets WP:N as I and others have noted above. I think we should consider merging to the CAIR page or deleting. Is anyone other than CS reading and does anyone care??? Bigglove 03:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than arguing about a NN article and suffering sloats personal attacks and incivility, I suggest you drop it, or put this up for deletion. This is really just a left-over from an argument on another page -see here. <<-armon->> 12:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to put up for deletion or merge (as I urged you to when you began your little campaign against this paper), but please, both of you, stop attacking me. I really have had enough of the personal attacks and incivility I have had to suffer from Armon over the last year and a half. This is the first I've met Biglove, but the hypocritical jihad he waged on this page, and the personal attacks he delivered throughout the process, have been severe violations of several wikipedia policies. And the hypocrisy is shown clearly by the lack of similar concerns expressed about this journal and this journal; perhaps you will put those up for deletion as well? In either case, Armon's claim that this has something to do with another page (like many of the things Armon writes) is completely false and is yet another attempt to defame me... his attempt to file a report to that effect was laughed off. Now I have backed off from the argument with him on the MEMRI page because I am sick of his abuse, so he comes here to abuse me as well -- Armon, please, just leave me alone. Don't you have anything better to do? csloat 19:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is totally bizarre.
  1. I am being accused of "hypocritical jihad" for not suggesting two other papers should be listed for AFD. The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles and The Forward are the papers mentioned. I am not a CA resident and have never heard of the former, but according to the talk page it is independent and has won some awards. It does need sources. I did post a query on the article talk page about sources awhile back. Sloat nevertheless accuses me of bad faith and threatened me that he will keep looking at the page to make sure I take more action. A glance at the wikipage reveals that The Forward is a very established independent newspaper. I am not sure why my failure to raise notability concerns against the forward qualifies me as a hypocrite.
  2. Additionally, I maintain that it would have been more helpful if csloat actually entered into the discussion I began about the wikipedia notability criteria and whether or not this publication satisfies them rather than sidestepping into a discussion of what he percieves about my motivations and my hypocracy.
  3. I am being accused of personal attacks. Clearly, csloat is not going to have much insight into his own behavior, but a casual glance at this page shows many issues:
I apologize if I've been uncivil, but we all need to uphold the same standards for how we behave towards others and how we would like others to behave towards us. Bigglove 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
A quick review of the arguments on this page shows that you are incorrect Bigglove. As for the Forward, it also has a circulation of 25000. As for the Jewish Journal, it has the same notability problems you think this one has, yet you have not waged a jihad against it. You posted a note after I prompted you about it and then you let the matter drop -- no deletions of content that is not sourced, no threats of AfD, no scouring the internet for any defamatory word you could find about the paper, no cherrypicking through the paper for a single article in support of Mair Kahane or some such like you did here with the Nasrallah article. So, yes, your actions appear hypocritical to me. And they seem targeted against me as some kind of representative of this Muslim newspaper - which is silly; I'm not Muslim, and I'm not a newsperson. All I'm asking is that you back off and leave me alone -- I'm not going to fight with you any more about this article because you are clearly not interested in improving it; you seem only interested in bashing me. I don't know what I did to offend you, but I apologize anyway; let's just move on. csloat 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Add to the list of your uncivil behavior changing your comments after I have replied to them in order to make it look like I am ignoring your claims. I can also make a list of your violations of Wikipedia policy Bigglove but I don't care to. Again, all I'm asking is that you leave me alone, and do not disrupt Wikipedia to make your points. Ideally, treat Wikipedia as something other than a battleground and you might find it easier to get along with other editors. csloat 00:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I thought I wrote in my edit summary that I was revising my entry while you were writing yours so I corrected mine. I don't really expect you to start assuming good faith now, but that is the truth. Bigglove 00:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Either way, I'm not engaging this nonsense. Your list is bogus, as is obvious - at best I am guilty of being honest about my opinion of the arguments and opinions you've been inserting in this Wikipedia entry. You started your participation here making very tendentious claims about a lack of notability, when I tried to respond you jumped down my throat nitpicking every response, until I backed off completely and urged you to AfD the article. Then you edited it so that 75% or more of the article was nothing but hysterical ADL ranting about two articles out of the thousands that had been published, and you used that ranting as a way of characterizing the paper itself as some kind of antisemitic al Qaeda manual. Then you edit warred continuously, ignoring WP:UNDUE and other relevant policies, demanding that your false characterization of the paper remain in effect. Then you removed something from the ADL website because you thought it was too favorable to the paper. When I objected to that, you removed everything from the ADL, but then left in material cherry picked by the ADL from the paper, and used it to defame the entire paper. When I removed that, you removed another paragraph about the paper that was purely descriptive, using the demonstrably false edit summary that you were taking out something that had been put in for "balance." At that point I cried foul -- it became very clear to me that your goal is not to improve this article but to fight with another editor. Now all I'm asking you to do is stop. csloat 00:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. I explained 100% of my edits on the talk page or edit summaries and tried hard to reach a middle ground with you. The "balancing" content I removed, was content that I had added in an effort to address your concerns. Since anything which needed to be balanced had been removed, I removed the long quote from the paper's own "about us" page in favor of a shorter, sourced, summary.
  2. My list of your problematic diffs above is not "bogus". These are things you yourself wrote on the talk page.
  3. It is simply not appropriate to make the kind of personal remarks that you have made towards me and others on this talk page. From now on, I will not reply to any post with any personal remarks which assume bad faith or include personal attacks. I just won't. I am not going to go away as an editor either. If you want to work, then let's work, but please cut the inappropriate personal remarks.
  4. Finally, going back to my original posts on talk, it would been more helpful if you actually entered into the discussion I began about the wikipedia notability criteria and whether or not this publication satisfies them rather than sidestepping into a discussion of what you percieve to be my motivations, hypocracy, jihad, islamophobia, etc. Bigglove 00:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) your explanations were often false or simply ignored the arguments I made against them on the page. Again, WP:UNDUE is policy, it is not just a suggestion. The "balancing" content was purely informative; it did not even address the ADL hysteria, and it certainly did not balance it out in any meaningful way -- it simply described the mission of the paper. And you are just wrong - and I think you know this -- when you say that you added that quote; I added it when I first created this page. (2) It is your interpretation of those diffs that is bogus, not the diffs themselves. You picked on comments I made about the ADL's quotations, or about the arguments you made, and interpreted them as personal attacks. A personal attack is an attack against the person, not an attack on an argument. If you don't like my characterizing the ADL quotes as hysterical nonsense, find material to add to the article that is neither hysterical nor nonsensical. (3) I haven't made any inappropriate personal remarks; I don't even know you. I'm not sure what you're interpreting that way. (4) The notability discussion you began, as I pointed out then, was both bogus and irrelevant. It was bogus because you had clearly already made up your mind and expected to "face off" with me about it. I don't want to play that game and I'm not sure why you would want to. It was irrelevant because my opinion and yours on the topic are not relevant to improving the article. As I said then, if you believe your arguments, you should have filed an AfD. Then we can discuss notability in a forum where it matters. But if this article isn't up for deletion, your opinion about its notability is not really informative. At best, it should spur you on to improve the article - I would welcome that. But to come back now and urge me to fight with you about an issue that you have already made your mind up about seems distinctly unproductive. csloat 01:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I figured that you were talking about the deletion of this which I'd inserted previously. (not responding to the rest) Bigglove 01:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep that's what I'm talking about, and you're still blatantly misrepresenting things even though I provided the link to the very first version of this page proving that I, not you, inserted the text you claim that you inserted for "balance." I give you credit for audacity at least. csloat 19:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I showed the places where I inserted [1]:

and then removed it. The text you had inserted before was the same, but it was not in the article at the time I resinserted it, and I was not aware that it had been in the article previously inserted by you. Your text

. (not replying your statement that I lied) Bigglove 14:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, all you're doing is digging yourself deeper -- you're printing out the evidence clearly for all to see that your claim was a misrepresentation. Whether you misrepresented out of ignorance or malice is not for me to say, but I'll take your word that it was ignorance. Either way, it gives lie to the claim that the paragraph you are now deleting was put in for "balance." It was a ridiculous claim anyway, since the paragraph is purely descriptive of the paper's mission, and it does not "balance" anything else out. Since you've conceded the essence of all of my arguments at this point, can we now restore the page to a decent version without fear of further edit wars? csloat 17:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No reply to your various accusations and assumptions of bad faith above. Bigglove 13:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
No need to, since there were none. Can you reply to the good faith question at the end of that paragraph however? Thanks! csloat 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If you have a question, please ask in a straightforward way without accusations and assumptions of bad faith and I'll be happy to reply. Bigglove 18:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure. "Since you've conceded the essence of all of my arguments at this point, can we now restore the page to a decent version without fear of further edit wars?" csloat 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do not conceed to any of the negative characterizations, outright insults, and personal attacks you have leveled above. I still don't see a civil question anywhere. Bigglove 22:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The question was right above your comment; perhaps you missed it. I wasn't asking about any negative characterizations, insults, or attacks you might have perceived. I'll go ahead and make the appropriate changes in the next few days. csloat 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't miss anything, but as I said above I will not reply to behaviorally inappropriate comments and questions at all. If you edit according to wikipedia guidelines, especially WP:V, there should not be a problem between us. Bigglove 23:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, there are no "behaviorally inappropriate comments and questions" included in the sentence you missed. It's no problem though, I will make the appropriate changes as necessary. Thanks for your input. csloat 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ADL

OK, Isarig - please show where the ADL criticism you mention is published in a WP:RS. The page linked is simply a self-published web page -- certainly not something edited, and certainly not a WP:RS. I'm ok with ADL citations if we have a RS on them, but I don't see that here. Bigglove (talk · contribs) deleted the ADL citations for this reason. Second, please show us what is notable about this particular piece - a throwaway line on a long web page about a bunch of different people that makes an incendiary charge against a community newspaper based on a reprint of an article from some other paper. It's a really odd thing to be reprinting here, especially when the editorial in question is not even mentioned on the page about the original source of the editorial in question. I expect you'll be adding that info to the other newspaper's entry as well once you establish its notability, correct? Thanks for your input. csloat 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The ADL is a human rights group and a reliable source. It does not need your blessing to be used in WP. As to the notbaility of the claim: This hardly known propaganda tabloid generates all of a handful of menitons on the internet, when we discard refernces to its own web site or passing descriptions of the title of one of its staff members. In fact , the only 3rd party source I've seen so far that discusses the tabloid itself is the ADL, and that by defintion, makes the claim notable. If you are still curious, al lyou have to do is check for yoruself the contact info provided by CAIR for its SC office, and compare with the one provided by the tabloid. Isarig 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
My blessing is not the problem here; the problem is the source of the claim is a self-published web page, not a WP:RS. ADL may be a human rights group but this information is not published in a reliable source. Also, have you actually looked at the broadsheet? It's not a "propaganda tabloid," and most of the articles come from Associated Press and the like. If you haven't seen other third party sources you probably should read this entry before you continue editing it, or at least read the above discussion. Your suggestion that I do original research is noted but it really is not something I plan to spend my time on; thanks. I look forward to seeing your edit to the Arab News article; since the ADL's whine is so notable here, certainly it is more notable there. csloat 20:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The source of the claim is a publication of a human rights group. It is a reliable source, and the claim is attributed to that source. Time for you to move on. Isarig 20:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No; the source of the claim is a self-published web page. See [3] ... self-published sources are not reliable sources. While you are reading that, you may wish to consult WP:CIVIL as well. In addition, please read the rest of my response above. Thanks. csloat 00:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The source of the claim is a publication of a human rights group. It is a reliable source, no less so than th report of any other group, of which there are countless on WP. The claim is attributed to that source. Isarig 00:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It is self-published and thus not a reliable source. It is not an official report of any group; it is a self-published web page. Please take a look at Wikipedia:V#SELF. Also can you please explain why this infomration is important on this page but not important on the page about the newspaper that this article originally appeared in? Thanks! csloat 00:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
it is an offical publication of the ADL. It is at least as good a source as a press release by the Lord mayor of London which you are keen on inserting into other articles. AT least apply your standards consistnetly. Isarig 01:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please show the proof that this web page is an official policy statement or other official position of the ADL. This is not even a press release; it looks to me to be a self-published web page. The Mayor of London is not at all analogous. Speaking of applying your standards consistently, why have you not insisted on putting this information on the Arab News page where the editorial in question originally appeared? csloat 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
it's an article published on the official web site of the organization. A human rights organization that has been active in the civil rights movement for nearly 100 years, is a not-for-profit organization recognized as tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3), has a well known, elected governing board of more than a dozen people, makes public disclosures of its financials and is an organization with tens of thousands of members and supporters. A press release from the Mayor of London, a politician, is indeed not analogous - such a press release has no place in a serious encyclopedia, yet here you are, pushing for the inclusion of the self-published PR by the mayor, and the exclsuion of an official publication of a major human rights group. Isarig 02:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You're the one who brought up the Mayor of London, not me. But it's not analogous at all; a press release from the latter would be far more encyclopedic than a random web page from ADL, no matter how notable the organization itself might be. See Wikipedia:V#SELF for details. And please answer my question about Arab News since it cuts to the specific issue here. Anyway, if you want to fight about this anymore, talk to User:Bigglove, who deleted this garbage in the first place. Have a nice day. csloat 09:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
yes, I brought the Mayor up, beucase it is a case where you supported using a self-published press-release by a politician as a source for a critical comment on WP. I want to understand how that is more encyclopedic than a publication of a human rights group on their offical web site. Do you have an answer, or will you just continue to assert that the former is reliable, but the latter is not? I have no answer on Arab News - it's not an artcile I have edited or even looked at, and have no any interest in, at the moment. If I get to it in the future, I may address simialr issues that might exist there. Isarig 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The Mayor of London commissioned a study reaching the conclusion I cited, and I cited it only on a talk page. You are putting a self-published web page written by god knows who on the Wikipedia entry itself. The cases are quite clearly not analogous, despite your shrill and hysterical insistence that they are. Your refusal to explain the contradiction in your behavior regarding the Arab News page shows once again that you are just being disruptive and trying to make a point with your edits. csloat 19:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You are not citing a study, you are citing his personal, self-published press release, and the cite appears not just on the Talk page, but in the article. I find the accusation that because I am not editing a page on WP that I have never visited not have any interest in in a manner that is to your liking to be some "contradiction" to be hystericlaly funny. Isarig 19:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
(1)I am not citing anything; I am referring to my mention of the study months ago on another talk page, only because you brought it up in a totally non sequitur manner here. (2) the press release I was referring to was the conclusion of a study; perhaps when I dig it up again I will add it to the MEMRI page. (3) It is totally irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about a self-published ADL page for which we do not even know the name of the author. (4) I don't particularly care what you find funny, but you totally missed the point of my argument above. (5) Your behavior on this encyclopedia is execrable. Please stop it. csloat 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Your are warned, yet again, aboiut makign perosnal attacks. I take it it's ok to remove the persoanl press release of the mayor from the MEMRI article then? Isarig 19:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't make any personal attacks; I simply pointed out the truth. If you want to make changes to the MEMRI page take it to the talk page there. Since you've conceded the arguments here, please remove the garbage from the ADL web page. And please do not waste administrators' time on the noticeboards with hypocritical reports against users for the abuses that you are actually the one committing. Thanks! csloat 20:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We need to solve this issue. As it stands, we are using the source in an unbalanced way. We don't have any substantive criticism from the ADL page, just the support to the claim that the paper is editorially independent of CAIR. I don't know what the solution is. I need to take another look at WP:V to gain a better understanding of whether ADL source is acceptable or not. I will do this and be back with a considered opinion. (also, CSloat, please refrain from accusations of islamophobia and other personal attacks in your reply as I will not answer them or any statement from you which contains any infraction of Wikipedia behavioral policy, period. And don't bother with the tag sentence where you haven't done these things as you have clearly accused both myself and another editor of Islamopobia in no uncertain terms)Bigglove 12:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the accusations and personal attacks bigglove -- more than half your post is an unnecessary and vitriolic rant against me. We do in fact have ADL's substantive criticism reported here, thanks to Isarig. I am happy to remove all the ADL stuff if you like too. csloat 14:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
no comment, except to reiterate my good faith promise above that I would examine the appropriateness of the ADL page as a cite. Please my comment above if you missed what I said I was going to do. Finally, I would disagree that what is on the page now is in any way substantive in terms of conveying the ADL critisism, but we can agree to disagree at present on this. Bigglove 16:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the current statement accurately and adequately summarizes ADL's whine. I wouldn't be opposed to another sentence that more clearly explains their objection, but we also don't need to return to the version with extensive quoting taking up 75% of the article. csloat 17:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

LA TMES

We need the article and the context. It is essential here if we want the reader to believe that this paper is in any way independent of the advocacy oranization which started it and pays its bills. Please track down the original LA TIMES article if you want to insert this. I will let it stand for now, but can't let this stand forever. You have access, you say, to university databases. Why not use them here in the helpful way taht you did for the citinews press release piece? CSLOAT, please refrain from accusations of islamophobia, unbalanced editing, double standards, and other personal attacks and claims about disruptions with your reply as they are not funny, not helpful, and not productive. I will not reply to any message left below if it contains any of the above. Bigglove 12:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If we cite ADL for other things, then they are OK to cite on the LATimes piece too. I agree that the original LAT piece would be better; feel free to track it down. And BIGLOVE please stop personally attacking me in every post. I don't care whether you want to reply to me but if all you have to say is attacks on me, just stay quiet. csloat 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
you are the proponent of this and it is up to you to find the direct cite rather than this second hand crappy one if you want to keep it in the article. Please dont' bother to tell me again to feel free to look for the cite. It really isn't helpful to say that again. As for the rest, no comment except that you should feel free to retract your comments calling me and another editor Islamophobes anytime. Bigglove 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Stop saying "no comment" when you are actually making a comment - it's a little disconcerting. If we keep anything from the ADL we should certainly keep this statement; if we remove the ADL as a non-RS then it is fine with me to remove this statement. The islamophobe comment was made in a specific context; it was the only explanation I could find for the hypocrisy of launching a full-fledged jihad on a community newspaper entry while leaving virtually untouched another community newspaper entry that suffers from exactly the same problem you think this one suffers from. If you really want me to keep explaining this I will, but my guess is that the dialogue here is better served if we drop it. csloat 17:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please note that you are very freely throwing around strong and insulting epiphets based on very little evidence. Would you like someone to call you insulting names or characterize your edits as "full-fledged jihad"? I don't think you would. I am not an islamophobe and have only tried to improve this article. Bigglove 21:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
If you are only trying to improve the article, you were doing so in a way that betrays hypocrisy. You scour the internet for something rude being said about a single article out of thousands published in what looks like an ordinary community newspaper, and then you use that one article to dismiss the entire newspaper as a pro-terrorist propaganda rag. Yet on another community newspaper that is almost exactly the same except for serving the Jewish community rather than the Muslim community, you post a polite note about notability and that's it. You don't go hunting for a pro-Kahane article and shriek that the newspaper is a Jewish terrorist rag. I find the inconsistency of those actions hypocritical, and the only explanation for that hypocrisy that made any sense was Islamophobia. I apologize if this seems like I am psychoanalyzing you - I don't mean to insult you, and I made those statements because I was exasperated by your behavior - but I stand by my interpretation of these behaviors, at least until you demonstrate otherwise. As for the expression "full fledged jihad," perhaps the phrase has a hyperbolic flair, but it is again quite accurate -- your actions on this page, and your revert warring, has been relentless. Your explanations of your actions has shifted (from supporting the ADL cites to deleting them) and the intensity of your commitment to trashing this magazine has been frustrating. Again, I don't think this is a productive dialogue -- I'd rather we worry about improving the article rather than worrying about whether a comment I made last week was uncivil. csloat 23:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but an accusation of Islamopobia based on the faulty logic above unacceptable. I have been forced to file and rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat. Bigglove 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ADL Website

As promised I read policy and I do not think that the ADL Web site is good source for Wikipedia according to WP:V. I think that quotes from the INFOCUS paper itself are fair game for the article, but they need to be sourced directly from INFOCUS and not via the ADL and we need to stay mindful of the balance issues that Sloat mentions above. Bigglove 01:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate what you read in the policy that led you to that conclusion. csloat 01:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:V ADL is self published so it is not a good source. Bigglove 02:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. csloat 03:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

office location vis a vis CAIR

It is a matter of public record that INFOCUS is published out of the CAIR offices. They share an address, the CAIR Web site hosts the infocus Web site, and the INFOCUS email is hosted at CAIR. I don't think we need the ADL site to have the information in the article that INFOCUS is published out of CAIR.

CAIR - Southern California (LA Area)

2180 W. Crescent Ave Suite F Anaheim, CA 92801

Contact Name: Munira Syeda Main Telephone: 714-776-1847 Alternate Telephone: 714-851-4851 Fax Number: 714-776-8340

Email: socal@cair.com Website: http://www.cair-california.org Southern California InFocus Print Address: 2180 W. Crescent Ave. Suite G Anaheim CA USA 92801

Telephone: (714) 678-1820 Fax: (714) 776-8340 Bigglove 02:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We cannot publish original research like this. The claim that the paper is published out of CAIR offices is made in a clearly pointed manner, but the only source actually making that point is ADL. Even if the point is accurate, and you can prove it, does not matter -- this is a form of WP:SYN and does not belong here if we reject ADL as a reliable source. csloat 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Since when are human rights orgs not suitable for WP? What we need to do is to attribute the statements as I've done. Your rv removed the only secondary sources in the article we have. I'm attempting to fix this article rather than sending it for deletion, which was my first view. Please stop. <<-armon->> 13:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Self published websites are not reliable sources. Nor are blogs, which you also added. See the discussion above and take it up with Bigglove if you feel strongly about this; I could probably be convinced either way on the ADL cites, though I find his point persuasive. csloat 15:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I will add that you should look to the discussion above that about the material you added -- if we are going to cite an ADL self-published web page written by god-knows-who, we should at least cite it properly. When Isarig, who introduced the name-calling section, was defending that material, he cited it in an extremely deceptive manner. I pointed that out above and he agreed to correct it; you have re-introduced Isarig's deception by citing a subhead as the title of the web page. I don't think this material should be here at all but if it is, the citation should not be deceptive. csloat 15:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If it's an "official" statement or research from an org, it doesn't need a byline -you know that even if Bigglove didn't. As for the page title you object to, no problem, fix it rather than edit warring. <<-armon->> 15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You're the one who started edit warring, and you did so without explanation. Please provide the proof that this is an "official statement" -- the web page cited looks like it was thrown together by a researcher at the organization, but I doubt it represents the official position of the organization. Please also show that it was published in a reliable source - that does not appear to be the case. As for the title, I already did fix the citation in an earlier revision and you reverted to the deceptive version of the citation. I have explained twice now why it is deceptive and should be changed if we are going to use it but, again, I don't see any evidence we should be using this self-published web page at all as a reliable source. csloat 18:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


I felt that the location was a matter of public record and not OR, but Sloat disagrees. Bigglove 14:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

He's right, we can't take two primary sources and stick them together to make a point. When in doubt (actually all the time) find a cite. In any case, we already had one. <<-armon->> 14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We had one that everyone who participated in the discussion agreed was not a WP:RS - see above. We can't use this. csloat 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You mean you and Big right? I started with THF's ver, and it looks like Isarig supported inclusion as well. So I guess that's 3 to 2 if this were a democracy. <<-armon->> 15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I stand corrected on the use of address material. Armon, could you say why it is ok to use the ADL stuff? YOu are calling it a "human rights org" and say it is permissible; sloat is calling it a "hate site", but whatever it is WP:V seems thin on guidelines about whether it is ok or not so I don't know what to conclude. Bigglove 16:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I never called ADL a "hate site" and I ask you to withdraw that remark. I think your conclusion earlier, that it is not a WP:RS, is pretty persuasive, short of evidence from Armon that this was published in an edited magazine, newsletter, or journal of some sort, and that it represents the official view of the organization. So far we have neither. csloat 18:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought you had called it that. I struck and apologize if you didn't. I dont' have time to look thru diffs now. I do not think it is acceptable as source, but I want to her what Armon has to say Bigglove 20:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for striking that. I agree with you, and am willing to listen to arguments either way on the ADL stuff (see below). csloat 21:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ADL

I'm starting a new topic here so we can discuss the issue separately from the above. The ADL website does not appear to meet WP:RS, despite the fact that ADL considers itself a human rights organization. However, as I said above, I am open to persuasion on this issue, and could probably go either way. However, the "CAIR Watch" website definitely cannot be quoted here -- that is a self published web page from a single fringe person who appears to have created an "organization" of one. I could be persuaded on the ADL page, if Armon shows it represents official policy, but I don't think I could be persuaded about the Cairwatch page. So Armon, if you would like to defend the ADL site, please do not revert wholesale but only add the material that actually is from the ADL website here. (The Women's Enews website is another matter - I thought it was a blog, due to Bigglove's comment to that effect, but on closer inspection it appears to be a legitimate news service that meets WP:RS.) csloat 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK on Women's enews. I was incorrect to call it a "blog". Let's hear what Armon says on ADL. Agree CAIRWATCH not acceptable at cite. I don't see reason why CAIRWATCH could not be an outside link. Bigglove 00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to make a few salient points and be done with this, because frankly, I don't actually care.
  1. In this case, there's clearly only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about. We have no other cites talking about the paper at all. Repetition of a masthead claim, in passing, as in the Women's Enews, is fine to establish that someone else accepts they're the largest paper, but that's it. It tells us nothing else and doesn't establish notability. The ADL is a highly notable org, therefore the ADL commenting on the paper is the best cite we have to establish notability. "Americans (or American -depends on you POV) Against Hate" isn't highly notable in my opinion, but it still has many more writeups in independent sources than Infocus has. It's still a case of the more notable commenting on the less. Is AAH the best source in the world? No, but we have very little to work with here and considering the ADL states Infocus is "CAIR affiliated" and we do know know that they share office space, (even if it's OR), theirs is hardly an extraordinary claim, and I clearly attributed it to them. This isn't a WP:BLP.
  2. The ADL referred to a LA Times article on the paper. We can't cite them because we don have the LAT cite. Rather than edit warring, it would be much better if sloat used his resources to look it up. I've looked again and I can't find that, or any other secondary source online.
  3. Positions that other editors have taken on material doesn't "disappear" simply because they're not actively "arguing". This is not a game of last man standing -or it shouldn't be, anyway.
  4. Removing cited information, AKA "blanking", can easily be construed as vandalism, especially when it's the complete removal of sources an editor doesn't agree with. Best to avoid it.
Reality check. The subject really doesn't merit this level of debate. It's the same-old same-old on minutia so that's it for me. Later. <<-armon->> 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) ADL is a notable org, yes. An official statement from them published in a reliable source would definitely be worth citing here. A self-published web page with no indication of its status is not clearly notable. AAH is definitely not a reliable source. AAH may be more notable but this is not a contest; the point is it are not a reliable source. And it is only more notable in the sense that more people have commented on Joe Kaufman's outrageous antics because they are so outrageous. There's a lot less to say about a run of the mill community newspaper that rarely publishes anything outrageous. As I showed above, the ADL had to dig hard to find one article that could be construed as pro-terrorist, and the "antisemitic" label is pointless namecalling. While Armon is correct that ADL is a notable organization, this comment from ADL is not notable for this article, and the AAH comment is less than useless.
(2) I did use my resources to look up the LA Times and did not find it. If I find it I will put it here.
(3) I'm not sure what that comment refers to.
(4) Please WP:AGF and avoid false accusations of vandalism.
(5) If you don't care then what brought you here in the first place? I found it strange that you came here right after I created the page, accusing me of creating the article in bad faith. If you don't really care about this article and only came here to argue with me, you should read WP:BATTLE. csloat 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Armon that we don't have much to support notability here. His comment that the only real fulfillment of these criteria is the mention by the ADL is convincing to me, BUT I'm still not convinced that the ADL is a RS. I'll go read WP:RS and see if I can wrap my head around it being a RS.
I disagree on Americans against Hate being an acceptable cite. I don't think that can be used for a cite, but an external link would be ok. I'll look at it again, however, in case I didn't look at the site carefully the first time.
I agree with Sloat's comment way above that if we feel an AFD is called for we should probably just do an AFD rather than pursue more discussion here; I think the AFD guideline says to discuss first on the talk page, so due diligence has been done from that point of view in a very ample way.
I agree with Armon that sourced relevant material should not be removed and that removal could be considered vandalism, however I think Sloat feels that removal of material he may have removed would have been justified because the material is noncompliant with certain guidelines. A discussion of specific diffs would be helpful.
Thanks to Sloat for looking for the LATimes article. It would be very very good to have it and would solve a lot of problems.
Please let's assume good faith and not get into questioning each other's motives. We are all here to edit for the good of the project. OK? Bigglove 17:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not question anyone's motives. I only asked Armon to explain his own words. As for Americans Against Hate, I don't think it can be used as an external source either -- we do not link to random self-published webpages. I did not vandalize anything and Armon's accusation is false, and he ought to know that (he is quite the deletionist himself, and has constantly deleted sourced and relevant material from the MEMRI page, among others). If you want to accuse me of vandalism, try WP:AIV and see how far your request goes. I agree the LATimes article would be good to have; I'm sorry I can't find it. We can probably agree that the LAT article can't be cited here to ADL if we can't cite ADL, but it still helps establish notability if this were to go to AfD (which I don't think it should). csloat 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Steady now, I didn't accuse you of vandalism :=) I asked Armon to show diffs and reminded him that you probably didn't think you were doing anything wrong. It would probably be best if we just kept strictly to discussion of the article itself and stayed away from all discussion of what brings or may bring anyone of us here (and I am referring to ALL OF US when I say this). Bigglove 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood. But let's be clear, you supported the claim of vandalism and said that I probably didn't think I did anything wrong. The proper response was to either ignore the frivolous claim or state clearly that I did not commit any vandalism. This isn't a question of what I think; it's an easily established objective fact. In any case, I agree that it's not necessary to discuss what brought any of us here though I am still curious about it in your case. Have a terrific holiday. csloat 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Reading my comment above I now see how you think I could have meant to support a claim of vandalism, but no, honestly I did not mean to suggest that. I was referring in general to removal of relevant material that is properly sourced. I wasn't referring to anything specifically about your edits, because Armon did not specify exactly what he was referring to. I said I thought it was likely you felt you were doing the right thing if you had removed anything, but I didn't say you HAD removed anything. It is easy in an environment of distrust to read negative stuff into what someone says, but it really really wasn't there. Look, we've closed the RFC. Let's put it behind us and trust each other, OK? Have a good holiday as well. I'm away from my internet connection for a few days after this. Bigglove 19:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed ... towards an atmosphere of trust and good faith. Enjoy your break. csloat 20:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK i'm back from the weekend. On the ADL issue, I guess we can use it as a cite as both you sloat and armon feel it would be ok. The report there seems to be well-researched and they quote a lot of sources. Bigglove 01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In the version I restored there is the adl cite of the la times article and their complaint about the reprinting of the saudi article. This might not be the best content from that piece to have in the article. I restored it as a STARTING POINT only; I am not advocating this particular content. Bigglove 02:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
So have you changed your mind on the ADL topic? Can you explain what has made you decide now that it meets WP:RS? I still have seen no byline and no indication it is the official position of the organization. Is this piece published somewhere other than a self-published website? csloat 03:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, re-reading the ADL website, it becomes apparent that it has been changed. The sentence claiming the paper is "subsidized by CAIR" and mentioning the LAT article has been deleted since editing started on this page. The wayback machine has an older version of the page with the sentence included, but the current version does not have the sentence. This suggests a few things: (1) ADL is not sure of the statement that it is CAIR subsidized and that it claims editorial independence. We cannot use those claims at all, or if we do it should be clear that this is an older version of the ADL page that is being cited. (2) This ADL page probably shouldn't be used at all since it is obviously subject to change; who's to say more substantial claims will be deleted or changed. (3) It is possible that the ADL webmaster made the change in reaction to seeing these comments published on Wikipedia. The timing of the change suggests that could likely be the case. Again, this makes it difficult to consider this self-published webpage a WP:RS. I am going to delete the sentence quoting that, and I probably will delete the rest of the ADL stuff pending discussion. csloat 03:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind based on the following:

    1. you and Armon seemed to be in favor of inclusion--I was going along with consensus
    2. there's not much to support notability other than ADL so rather than afd the article, include ADL
    3. I was a bit persuaded by Armon's statement above that this was an adl research report based on secondary sources

Your conjecture above may or may not be true; we really have no way of knowing. We had an anon editor from Richardson, TX edit the article to remove the sentence regarding financial ties to CAIR. Does that mean the Holy Land Foundation is looking in? Doubtful in the extreme. The bottom line, however, is that none of what you are saying relates to any Wikipedia policy. Bigglove 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it in fact relates directly to Wikipedia policy (see WP:RS). I'm not claiming a conspiracy at work; I'm claiming we cannot use a self-published web page as a WP:RS, especially when we have evidence that the page changes without warning or indication of said changes. It's a moving target. csloat 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, ok, but now we have no sources. Bigglove 18:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
So you agree we should delete the rest of the ADL stuff again? csloat 18:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't agree. When I said "OK" above, I was saying that I hear your opinion on this. I looked at the ADL report and is looks like a well researched one based on secondary sources and acceptable according to WP:V. The sentence as it stands does not really give a great summary of thd ADL's position; I feel it could be expanded to offer a little more information. We are at an impasse, however, since if we did expand in any way you would claim wp:undue violation as you did above. Bigglove 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight -- you think a self published web page that can change (and indeed has changed) without notice is a WP:RS? Care to explain why? How can it be verifiable when we don't know what it will say tomorrow? csloat 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I did explain above. please reivew. thanks. Bigglove 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I did review and I come up with the same answer -- you think this self-published web page is a RS even though we have proof that it changes without warning. I think that view is wrong, and I will be removing the ADL stuff from the article unless you have something more to substantiate that view. On another note, the ADL cite you added to the bibliography needs to be removed completely since that is an entire long web page with only two sentences that mention this newspaper. csloat 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Current version

The current version is dominated by quotes directly from the paper's about us page and (altho I know this was not the intention of any editor here) and reads like an advertisement for the paper. This is problematic. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Special note: advertising and promotion. This guidelines suggests 1) Clean up per Wikipedia:neutral point of view and 2) Delete remaining advertising content from the article. Based on this policy, I think we need to restore a version of the article that is less weighted towards direct quotes from ABOUT US. I am going to restore Armon's last version as a STARTING POINT to achieve this. Bigglove 02:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any advertising copy at all. The about us material does come from the paper itself but that is normal with respect to pages like this. I agree if you find third party content to include that it would be useful here. Restoring Armon's version is simply not at all indicated here -- Armon's revert war had nothing to do with your claim above. csloat 03:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. When an article is primarily composed of quotes from the org's own "about us" with very thin external sources it is essentially an advertisement for the org. Your last version was composed mainly of direct quotes from "about us", contained the bit of wp:or about the wires of interest to the muslim community being reprinted, and the thin little cite of someone referring to someone at the paper as working for the largest muslim newspaper. Oh, and the cite from the press-release based article from cns. That's an ad. That's why I reverted. Bigglove 17:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect. "About us" is not the same as advertising. Again, third party sources are welcome, so we don't have to argue. The CNS part is hardly an ad; it explains what the paper covers; it is directly relevant and informative. csloat 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we disagree on what constitutes advertising. We still don't have any sources other than one brief mention and one brief article based entirely on a press release. We are back to square one. Bigglove 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Square one" is fine by me -- as I said, additional third party sources are welcome, but I don't see a huge problem with the article at this point except for the last sentence. By the way, I see Bigglove deleted the sentence that Armon had added a {{Fact}} tag to. I think we can source the claim that the paper reprints wire services directly to the paper itself; it's not OR. Let me know if there are any objections. csloat 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do object to your putting WP:OR in the article. Sure they print wire services, and yes they are hosted at CAIRs address and web server. But without sources commenting on this, both are OR. It would be nice if you could say why quoting large swaths of "about us" does not constitute advertising rather than just to say, "you're wrong." This tells me nothing other than your opinion. Please be good enough to provide some rationale for your opinion. Bigglove 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(1) the material is not OR; it is clearly sourced to InFocus. Making a statement about webservers or office space is not clearly sourced in this manner (and is not at all clear anyway). (2) You are wrong because it is not advertising. The touchstone for advertising is an exhortation to buy something. A newspaper article describing the mission of a new newspaper does not meet this touchstone, regardless of your assertion that it is advertising. Perhaps you would be good enough to let us know what your rationale is for your own opinion? All I see is your assertion that it is advertising, and you have the burden of proof here. csloat 20:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Any organization's "about us" page is advertising for their organization. Bigglove 23:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a circular argument. I've at least explained my rationale above. csloat 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It's also a primary source. In order to meet notability, a subject needs reliable secondary sources in order to establish WP:N. Bigglove has referred to the appropriate policy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Special note: advertising and promotion, so sloat, please stop bullying him and attempting to shift the burden of proof. This is not an appropriate editing tactic. <<-armon->> 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Armon, I must once again implore you to please stop your ridiculous, insensitive, and completely false personal attacks. You know perfectly well that I was not bullying anyone, and your behavior is simply and utterly unacceptable. You also should realize that you are completely wrong. The "primary source" problem may be an issue for my point #1 about the material sourced to infocus, but we were talking about my point #2 about the CNS article, a third party source that Bigglove insists on calling "advertising" without ever providing a rationale. I repeat -- it is the burden of proof of whoever makes the claim to support the claim; I have refuted it and offered a rationale, and he has offered no support or rationale. So, clearly, the purely descriptive sentence from CNS must be restored to the article. The ADL stuff, meanwhile, must be deleted per the above discussion. Again, Armon, stop the nonsense immediately. You think I'm wrong about something, say so, say why you think so, and stop typing. Then perhaps we can have civil discussions here. There is no need to add a personal attack to every single statement you make. csloat 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
And I actually found a secondary source, paid 4 bucks to download it, and acutally used the material to edit the article! Bigglove 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work, Bigglove -- I'll even chip in two bucks for it if you want ;) Any chance you will share the article with the rest of us? Also, can you please put in the full citation on the reference? Thanks! csloat 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I put as much of a citation as I have (I added the title and edition of LA times). No live link, but you can search la times using "cair" as a search term and it comes up. I think I could't find using InFocus, so eventually I tried that and found the article. I can't post the full text here---copyvio. Bigglove 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, that search brought it up right away. Apparently they were calling it "In Focus" rather than "InFocus" which stymied my search; I should have figured it out. Good work! csloat 02:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes. take care. Bigglove 02:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Just an addition; the current numbers are slightly higher than they were in 2005 -- 25,000 circulation and 1200 subscribers. I may add some other stuff from the article when I delete the ADL stuff; are we agreed now it can be removed based on the above? csloat 02:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on the ADL. I tried to summarize their point very concisely. I would like to leave it in. Bigglove 02:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, can you explain your response to my question - why would a self-published website that changes without notice be considered a WP:RS? That is very unclear to me. You state that the page looks well-researched with lots of sources, but that does not meet the requirements of WP:RS -- anybody can make a page that "looks" well-researched, and there is no editorial control here. But beyond that, it seems critical to me that the page has changed -- so we have no guarantee that it will not change again in the future. In that sense it is little better than a myspace page. I'd really like to see your answer to this, because I plan to delete that material. csloat 02:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a report that was updated. There are summaries of some articles run in the paper which the ADL finds problematic. I think it is useful as criticism to present a balanced view of the paper to wikipedia readership. I wrote a very SHORT (no undue problem) summary which condensed the ADA's points. We should have some positive and some negative here for the reader. By the way, I moved your snip from the LA times article to go with the rest of the managing ed's quotes on the mission of the paper. This improves flow. I hope this is ok with you. Bigglove 02:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
We cannot use WP:OR (or, in this case, pure speculation) to characterize a web page as a "report that was updated." I don't have a problem with the length of your summary (though I made it a bit more accurate in my last edit). The problem is the lack of a WP:RS confirming this criticism. We are only speculating that it is a "report" or that it was "updated." We cannot link to a moving target, which is one of the problems with any non-RS webpage, and is a confirmed problem with this one, since we have seen it change in a very short time. As for you moving the LAT material, I don't mind it moving, but your move buried it. It is substantially distinct from the descriptive material you are erroneously referring to as "advertising copy." But you're right it doesn't belong with the ADL stuff, which is going to be removed anyway. csloat 03:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the paragraph where the managing ed was discussing the goals and mission of the paper. It is completely appropriate there. It does not belong as its own paragraph as a tag line to the article. The place I put it in initially was a MISTAKE on my part. I had intended to put it with the rest of the managing editor comments. Bigglove 12:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

armon's revert

Armon why are you starting yet another revert war after you asgreed to leave this page alone? The text you reverted was not "weaselly" -- it was more accurate. The ADL self-published blog page/moving target complains about only two articles out of hundreds or perhaps thousands. Your version is a blatant misrepresentation that makes it look as if the ADL is complaining about most of the articles in the paper rather than just these two articles. You've undoubtedly looked at the ADL site and the paper itself so you know this to be the case, so what you are doing is highly problematic. Please revert immediately, or at the very least make sure the readers know what the ADL is actually saying rather than what you wish they were saying. Thanks. csloat 04:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll re-read it. If it's just about two articles, that's a fair point. <<-armon->> 04:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Then you should revert in the meantime. It's not only a fair point, it is most consistent with the point you made in your edit summary: "You don't have to agree with the ADL, but NPOV means we state what they think, and leave it at that." Your edit has not stated what they think; it has distorted it dramatically. It's probably best to assume good faith rather than assuming that every edit I make was intended to "weasel" or "bully," especially when you claim to be unfamiliar with the text of the article you are reverting about. Thanks. csloat 04:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
OK this is what's the ADL has written regarding Infocus:
  • July 2007: A CAIR affiliated publication, In Focus, published an article by staff writer Lawrence Swaim that claims that Jews enjoy unprecedented and destructive influence in the corridors of power in the U.S.; due to what it calls, “the new Philo-Semitism.” According to the article, there is among Christian Americans “a deep and even fanatical affection for Jews [a] power-worship, masking a desire to use Jewish organizations to advance a political agenda.” It further stated: “The U.S. corporate upper class would love nothing more, for example, than to give Jews a seat at the table of empire, if only they will help Israel become the flagship of U.S. hegemony over the Middle East — and the neoconservative movement arose precisely to service this political tendency.” The article, written to explain why Norman Finkelstein did not get tenure at DePaul University, also describes Israel as the Jews’ “disastrous experiment with religious nationalism in Palestine.”
    The July In Focus issue also included a cartoon from the Council for the National Interest depicting the presidential candidates competing for whose going to be first at “The Israel Lobby sign up;” an article that defends Hamas (the article was also posted to the Blog of Hussam Ayloush, director of CAIR- Southern California); and an article that accuses the Pew Research Center for reporting a low number of Muslim Americans to serve an anti-Muslim agenda, possibly inspired by the American Jewish Committee. Also, an article about religious extremism claimed that while Muslims may be attracted to extremism as a result of poverty and injustice, in Western societies it “is born out of exclusivist view of the world,” for example, “Jewish Zionists in Israel and in West Bank illegal settlements who advocate removal or whipping out of Palestinians based solely on Biblical claims.”
  • April 2007: Hussam Ayloush told In Focus, a CAIR affiliated publication, that “there is a well-coordinated attempt by extremist pro-Israel circles to silence American Muslims.” The article, “Pro-Israel groups target American Muslims,” argued that criticism of CAIR by “right-wing pro-Israeli groups” is motivated by a desire to prevent all Muslims from acquiring “influence in the political and social arenas.” According to In Focus, “CAIR officials say such attacks seek to marginalize the American Muslim voice and disenfranchise this minority.”
  • October, 2006: A CAIR affiliated publication, InFocus, printed an article supporting Hezbollah for its war against Israel. The commentary ignores Hezbollah’s culpability in provoking the hostilities, claiming the war was part of an American-British conspiracy, a “phase of the larger plans of the colonialist superpowers.” It also praises the “epic heroism of the resistance fighters” and “the larger-than-life leader,” Hassan Nasrallah.
  • September, 2006: InFocus, reprinted an anti-Semitic opinion piece first published by Saudi English-language newspaper, Arab News. The commentary claims that Israel acts with impunity “because we are the Jews – we are the victims of the Holocaust” and because “Israel is in a position of dominating the U.S. government.” It further claims that “we [Israel] need to create constant conflict,” and that the ultimate goal of these conflicts is the creation of a regional empire, or “Eretz Israel consisting of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and even Cyprus.” It also says that the Zionist movement “declared war on Germany,” insinuating that the Holocaust was somehow the result of a Jewish provocation.
The cite fully supports BL's wording. <<-armon->> 04:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, my bad... moving target again. Apparently the older version of the page complained about only two and not four articles. That must have been a recent change (again substantiating my point that this is a moving target and thus not a WP:RS). I'll be deleting it for that reason completely, but if you do choose to revert war here, please include the information that the ADL is only complaining about four articles. csloat 04:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Or, and here's a better idea, you can leave BL's text as is because the cite supports it, and the wording is matter of fact. From what I can see, all the arguments about this have been settled by the sources. To continue to fight about it would simple be WP:POINTy. <<-armon->> 04:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
First, I have to say that I protest the obnoxious section title, as I do the obnoxious section title at the top of this talk page. And when did armon "agree to leave this page alone"? Wikipedia is an open and collaborative project and armon is just as welcome to edit this article as you are, Commmodore. Please consider refactoring your title headings and statements. As for the material, because of Commodores discussion of undue weight, I wrote a very short summary sentence in a highly neutral tone. I felt this was more descriptive than what was there previously in the article (ADL complained about "antisemitism"). I believe it should stay in the article. As I've said above, we could quote directly from InFocus to include this stuff if you'd rather go that route. The ADL snip above, by the way, specifically mentions 7 articles, not 4. Bigglove 13:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I never said he didn't have a right to edit this page; it was he who said he was backing off of it because he didn't care anymore. I was just curious as to why he has changed his mind, and why he has done so in such a contentious and revert-warring manner. It does not matter; the ADL material is a moving target and it will be removed. Armon has shown that it is even more of a moving target than before -- what started with whines about two articles has turned into whines about seven. Again, it makes me wonder who is reading this talk page, but that is neither here nor there - we simply cannot link to a moving target as a WP:RS; it is no better than a blog or a myspace page. Sorry! csloat 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, you have said in our recent RFC that you should not and will not psychoanalyze other editors, so could you try to keep your wonderings about armon's motivations to yourself? I see you have not refactored your tenditious section name. Please consider doing this. Bigglove 19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have not psychoanalyzed armon. I've gone ahead and refactored for your pleasure. csloat 20:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
this is what i'm taking about: "I was just curious as to why he has changed his mind, and why he has done so in such a contentious and revert-warring manner". really irrelevant. thank you for refactoring. Bigglove 20:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Certainly not "psychoanalyzing." And it is relevant given the behavior at hand. csloat 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Better to concentrate on the material rather than the editors, OK? Bigglove 22:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of ADL reference on Verifiability page

In case nobody has mentioned this yet, you may be interested to know this subject is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:SELFPUB as moving target. The issue about whether ADL's front page is a reliable source is quite a different position than the merits of each party's position, the paper, etc. If there is a dispute between ADL and the paper, ADL's criticism, the dispute itself, and the paper's actions that are disputed may or may not each be notable enough to mention in an article about the paper. But strictly on the question of whether ADL makes a good source for that, the opinion so far seems to be that a changing and now-deleted sentence on an organization's front page is not a good souce. Wikidemo 19:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for letting us know. The person who started the discussion there had not done so so we were unable to contribute. Just to clarify, the information that was being cited from the ADL page is still present on the ADL page. Something we were no longer needing to cite (we have another cite for this now) is not on the ADL page currently; presumably they have updated the page. The ADL page contains a long discussion and timeline regarding CAIR in a report with bullet points. 4 of these bullet points mention 7 articles that the paper has run that the ADL characterizes as problematic. There is no dispute between ADL and the paper. What we have done in the article in one short sentence is to summarize the issues that the ADL has taken exception to in a neutral way, very briefly so as not to cause an undue weight problem. Do you think this is problematic? Bigglove 20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually the paragraph you keep inserting is precisely about a dispute between the ADL and the paper. We need a third party to note that dispute, not just the moving target ADL cite. csloat 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
When did I "keep inserting" anything? I wrote a sentence and put it in the article. You removed it, others have put it back. Why exactly are you charactizing this as a "dispute" between anything and anything? The paper has published stuff. The ADL is commenting on what they have published. That is commentary. That is not a dispute. Bigglove 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Given that the opinion on the page sloat brought the issue of the ADL to is that the ADL does not constitute a self-published source, then how do folks feel about starting a "criticism" or "controversy" section and putting the one sentence from the ADL there? I don't want to get into a revert battle, but I don't see any cogent argument NOT to use ADL if it is not a self published source. Bigglove 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
(1)It is a self published source; (2) it is a moving target; no guarantee what it says today will be different tomorrow; (3) it violates WP:SOAP; (4) It may be changing in response to this very discussion. In sum, extremely problematic. csloat 23:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion and opinions differ on this. I am proposing that we add a critisim section and my sentence to this section. What do others think? Bigglove 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Every single editor who commented on the talk page of WP:V on this matter (except you) has agreed with me that the ADL material is inappropriate here because it is a moving target. You have still not answered these four arguments. It should be removed forthwith. csloat 00:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not notable is the problem. My local Union of Dogcatchers 683 might think this magazine should line puppy cages and put that opinion on their website too. So what? What's needed is for a WP:RS to actually report on that before we could even consider inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPbox for any organization big or small. -- 146.115.58.152 22:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Armon's additional revert

(1)What is the problem with the Townsend cite? (2) We have explained and agreed upon moving the "tabloid" comment to a different spot with an explanation that it is one commentator's opinion; why do you insist on reverting in opposition to consensus? (3) Please state your opinion in talk rather than starting yet another revert war armon; this is getting tedious. Thanks. csloat 23:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the only mention of InFocus in an article on a different topic:
"For a lot of Americans, Islam is the unknown, and often it is the unknown that is feared," said Saaqib Rangoonwalla, an editorial board member of InFocus, Southern California's largest Muslim newspaper. "And when you're scared of something, the first thing you want to do is stomp it out - like a spider. But Muslims here are not the other. They are Americans, like we are all Americans."
I noticed that someone commented inline asking if this is really about Infocus. Good point, the cite doesn't appear to be. <<-armon->> 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually have a question about the characterization of the paper as a tabloid-type paper and the characterization of the paper as the "largest muslim newspaper". We have one RS describing the paper as a "Tabloid". We have another RS describing it as the "largest M newspaper". Both sources are mainstream news outlets. The first mention is in an article about InFocus itself. The second mention is in an article about something else, mentions a staffer for the paper, and mentions that that staffer works for the "largest Muslim newspaper". Why is the second characterization ok and the first characterization not ok? I don't get it. First CSLOAT said that he didn't want "taboid style" in the intro and removed it. I had chosen the phrase "tabloid-style" rather than "tabloid" because I felt it was more neutral, but I felt that the term was descriptive and helpful, esp when we can wikilink it. Still, I understood Sloats objection to the term in the lead. Fine, reasonable, no problem. I moved it. Then hedecided to take it out completely as "one person's opinion. Really, that is not fine. This may or may not be "one person's opinion" but it is in a RS. The other characterization, "largest muslim newspaper", is in a RS as well. Q: Why is one ok and the other not? We need to have a consistent approach towards sources. Bigglove 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sloat's obviously attempting to make a point. Even though the whole "Tabloid" argument has been settled by the LA Times. <<-armon->> 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Tabloid is one of a couple different newspaper formats, not to be confused with supermarket tabloid. "With the exception of the supermarket tabloids, which have little mainstream credibility, the word "tabloid" in the U.S. can refer more to format than to content. The tabloid format is used by a number of respected and indeed prize-winning American papers." Calling it a "tabloid" is not derogatory and it doesn't need a reference. Pairadox 23:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
And yes, the partial revert by Armon was not cool. Pairadox 23:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
How so? If we have a WP:RS stating it's a tabloid, or tabloid-style, then the matter's settled. Do we have a RS disputing this? No. It's therefore wrong to attempt to undermine that fact as "mere opinion". That is an example of biased writing. <<-armon->> 00:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not attempting to "make a point" other than that we must pay heed to WP:V and WP:ATT. I will thank you not to make personal attacks against my motives in the future. The "tabloid" thing is not "settled"; we can report (and my version did report) that one commentator called it a "tabvloid." To me it looks like a broadsheet so I think we need to be careful about reporting it as fact, and we certainly cannot put that in the introduction of the article. Biglove is wrong that I "decided to take it out completely"; I added a sentence indicating that the LAT author has called it a tabloid. The "largest Muslim newspaper" characterization is carried in multiple sources and is pretty obviously undisputed -- neither Armon nor Biglove nor anyone else has suggested a larger muslim paper in california. I agree with biglove about a consistent approach toward sources but that is not the problem here. The biggest problem at the moment is Armon's removal of the NPOV tag, which should not be removed until the dispute is finished. I have reported Armon to WP:AN/I for that action as is appropriate; Armon, if you have an explanation for your violation of Wikipedia policies, you should post it there. csloat 23:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
CSloat, I am not wrong. Please note that you did remove this material, TWICE, please see the diffs above which I have supplied above to support what I said. You might have more recently added it back, there have been a lot of quick fire edits to the page, but you took it out when I first added it and you took it out again when I moved it to respond to your concerns! I am not at all disputing the size of the paper in terms of other muslim papers; what I am saying here is that you Sloat need to take a more consistent approach in what you will allow in the article and not allow. I used the example I did to help you understand why this is problematic. Please note that, "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[4] this is from the page on tendentious editing. Bigglove 23:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Biglove, you are wrong -- it is true that I removed it at first but then I added a more appropriately cited sentence that I thought you were ok with (you acknowledge that below). Let's leave it at that because I have no problem with that. If you want to worry about the removal of sourced and pertinent statements, let's talk about the CNS quote that both you and Armon seem afraid to allow in the article even though it is purely descriptive and well sourced. csloat 00:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I filtered through the edit history after I last touched the article and found where you later reinserted "tabloid-style" phrase elsewhere in the article couched with the phrase "One commentator called the paper "tabloid-style". So you did put it back, I stand corrected. This does not reverse the fact that you took it out TWICE. I prefer the poistion I put it in because the purely descriptive material should be earlier in the article. Also, for the sake of irony, contrast the way you couched something else from the article earlier "The Los Angeles Times noted.... SAME author SAME article. Bigglove 00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I "couched" it that way because it is an opinion, not a purely descriptive fact, and it is one that appears incorrect. It appears to be a broadsheet, not a tabloid. But really, this is a minor issue and I'm not going to keep fighting it if we can agree to keep it out of the intro. The ADL and CNS citations are more important here. csloat 00:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
By that logic, every statement in the article needs to be "couched" as someone's opinion. The objection is frivolous, leads to extremely poor writing, and only applies to facts which you not RSs have a problem with. Just stop fighting. <<-armon->> 00:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. You clearly missed the logic, but I will stop fighting this point anyway as long as we can agree to take it out of the intro. Can we agree on that? And, in the meantime, please restore the NPOV tag you removed in explicit violation of Wikipedia policies. Thanks! csloat 00:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"Do what I say and I'll stop fighting" -despite the perfectly reasonable objections of other editors that you're treating some "facts" differently. Please ask yourself if this is an appropriate way to behave. You haven't actually addressed or explained the inconsistency. <<-armon->> 00:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, please do not mischaracterize my comments like this anymore. It is very unsettling. I am backing off the point as long as we can move it out of the intro (as bigglove also agreed was appropriate). My objection stands but I am choosing not to fight it. I am not sure what inconsistency you are talking about but my position has been very consistent all along -- if we quote someone we should attribute the quote to whoever said it, per WP:ATT. I don't see that as problematic and I am unclear as to why you do. csloat 01:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have shown clearly that your approach to editing is inconsistent and therefore I have to say that I agree with the above comment from Armon. And yes, I did remove some press release based material from the CNS cite earlier when I ADDED material which I felt covered the same ground from the better LA TIMES article. To say that I removed something because I was "afraid to allow it in the article" is more of the same kind of ascribing of motives that you promised in the recent user conduct RFC to refrain from in future. Please keep your promise and stop the psychoanalysis. Concentrate on the article, not the editors. Bigglove 00:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The CNS material was purely informative and descriptive, and it was well sourced. Please restore it to the article. It does not "cover the same ground." I apologize for saying you seemed "afraid," but I just don't understand why you feel the need to censor this valid material. I was not psychoanalyzing you and I resent your continued implication that every time I mention that your actions seem problematic that I am "psychoanalyzing" -- it is a completely bogus charge. Please show good faith by restoring the CNS material to the article; thanks. csloat 00:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, I have said that I was editing to remove what I felt was redundancy when new sources becuase available. It is highly inappropriate for you to call my actions censorship after I have explained my process! ("Psychoanalyzing" is your term from the RFC; what you did then and what you are doing now is ascribing motives to me, assuming bad faith. You did promised to stop doing that in a sincere and heartfelt way, so please have the decency to follow through and stop it.) You might give me a diff for the exact edit you want me to remedy, since I made it last night I believe and there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then. I can't promise that I will fix it right now because I am a bit fed up at this point, but be assured I will come back and fix soon. I will continue to respond to each and every one of your legitimate concerns and continue to try to find middle ground with you on the content of the article, but will continue to have very little tolerance for your tendentious behavior. Bigglove 01:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not assuming bad faith and I am not characterizing your motives; I am characterizing your actions. There is a big difference. And one of your actions was deleting the CNS material. I will thank you to stop bringing up the RfC -- I apologized unconditionally there for my inappropriate statements, and yet you still delayed closing the RfC for several days while you bickered about the precise wording of my (unconditional!) apology. After a while of that you finally agreed to close the RfC; I really do think it is time to drop it. It certainly has nothing to do with your current behavior, which is in fact extremely tendentious, at least surrounding these two items (the CNS quote and the ADL material). You have stated here that you will address these items soon, so I will expect you to restore the CNS quote you deleted and respond to the four arguments about the ADL material very soon. I'm copying the CNS stuff below since you claim not to remember what we are talking about:
The paper "covers a large variety of local, national, and international events, features, profiles, and has the following sections: arts, book review, restaurant review, Islam, money, legal, kids, travel, interfaith, commentary, and opinion."[3]
And here is the diff where you deleted it. Thanks.csloat 01:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, it is back. It is really not a big deal to put something like that back. I deleted it in good faith because I felt it was redundant. You disagreed. Why not just say so and skip the unnecessary drama and accusations??? I would like to point out that we now have two paragraphs describing mission and content where one would do for content and readability. Why not condense the two? Bigglove 01:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I did say so; I didn't make any accusations or start any drama. You only put it back after a long argument where you accused me of assuming bad faith every step of the way, and then only after I had to quote it again and show you a diff since you claimed not to know what I was talking about. So let me ask you -- why not drop the drama and accusations? csloat 02:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop talking about each other and focus on the article. Pairadox 02:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that talking about each other is not useful. We need to drop the drama and edit the article. There are issues here, but the talk page of an article is simply not the place to productively address them. Bigglove 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

It's not appropriate to deface an article with a NPOV tag because you object to one neutrally worded properly cited, and attributed sentence. This is why I'm removing it again. If sloat wants to continue to fight about it, the next step should be an rfc on it. <<-armon->> 23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not "defacing" the article; it is warning readers that there is a legitimate POV dispute. And it is not just about one tag; as explained in the edit summary there are three main disputes here -- the unlicensed removal of a neutrally worded and properly cited and attributed sentence (from CNS), the use of "tabloid" as a description rather than an opinion, and the improper quoting of a non-notable smear from a moving target self-published web page. Again, until this is settled, please do not remove the tag -- to remove it is extremely disruptive and deceptive. csloat 23:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree the tag should stay if Sloat wants it to be there. I am not optimistic about resolving the issues Sloat mentions without more willingness on Sloat's part to find middle ground with other editors. Bigglove 00:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
OK I'll put it back. I think we'll still need an rfc though. <<-armon->> 01:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Armon! Bigglove 01:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been bending over backwards here. I've backed off the tabloid argument and I've compromised a great deal on the others -- I actually am defending the position on ADL that you were taking a few days ago; it is problematic that you have reached a 180 degree shift on that. In any case, if you agree about the tag, please restore it. Thanks. And, btw, I agree with Armon about an RfC. csloat 01:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it problematic that I changed my mind based on listening to reasoning from other editors and reviewing policy and sources? I agree on the RFC. Bigglove 01:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is problematic because there hasn't been any reasoning to indicate such a change reported here, and in fact we have learned more to suggest that ADL is an inappropriate source (esp. the moving target issue). I am not accusing you of anything -- if you want to change your mind you are certainly welcome to -- but I find it strange that you adopt the weaker position after more arguments have come out that make it clear it is weaker. It doesn't matter; you are of course welcome to believe whatever you like. The issue here is whether this ADL blog page is a RS and it is clearly not. csloat 01:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Anything on the web is a "moving target". That's irrelevant. <<-armon->> 01:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Also it's not a blog. It's a report on the org's official website. <<-armon->> 01:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And I DID describe my thought processs, twice, and there were several who felt that the ADL was a RS according to WP:V. Bigglove 01:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No; anything on the web is not a "moving target." The NYT or other publications with editorial oversight do not delete sentences willy nilly because there was a dispute on Wikipedia. Sorry Armon but that's a false argument. And it is no better than a blog for wikipedia purposes since we cannot link to it as a RS. Again, this is all explained above and backed up by the opinions of several editors at WP:V. This is just not an RS. csloat 02:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, the "moving target" point is not valid. By including the date of the webpage and the date accessed, it is acknowledged that the current form may not match the one the reference is drawn on. That is the nature of the web and the nature of online sources, and the citation templates take this into account. Of course, any time an editor sees that the source has changed they should make appropriate changes to the article.

As for non-notable, ADL is widely quoted and widely written about. Their viewpoint on issues is notable, and specific mention of this viewpoint being notable should not be required.

The relevant point, and perhaps the one that excludes them, is whether or not they are an Extremist source. Pairadox 04:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - they may be notable, but not everything they say is notable, and certainly not something they say on a web page that they change in response to conversations on Wikipedia talk. csloat 05:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the second time you've made that accusation. Do you have any evidence to support that? Pairadox 06:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Certainly it is speculation on my part, but it is based in the fact that the webmaster of the ADL page deleted the very sentence we were discussing on the talk page during our discussion. And then, also during that discussion, they added two more paragraphs specifically criticizing this newspaper (this is after I was insisting on clarifying that the ADL was only complaining about two editorials in the paper). One of the paragraphs is a hodgepodge of accusations based on out of context quotes from the paper. It looks pretty fishy, frankly. But, as I've been saying, it could be just a bizarre series of coincidences, and it doesn't matter -- what matters is that we do know that the ADL page is a moving target, changing without notice and without indication of being changed, and therefore it is unacceptable as a WP:RS. I urge you to examine the comments on the talk page of WP:V where there was near unanimity on the matter. csloat 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
In other words, no, just speculation. The claim of the page "changing without notice and without indication of being changed" is also incorrect. The old version of the page is clearly dated December 29, 2006, and the current version is dated August 10, 2007. <<-armon->> 23:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No; it is speculation based on pretty clear and substantive evidence. You are right that the date has changed on the newer version, but there is no indication of what has changed in the newer version. So we don't know without doing a diff of the two versions what has been changed (and we don't know how many versions existed in between Dec 06 and now, since those are not saved on archive.org). We shouldn't have to do this every few weeks (or months) to determine whether the Wikipedia article is accurate. csloat 00:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Correlation is not causation. Your "evidence" is a pretty basic logical fallacy, so it's not worth discussing your speculations further. There are two options to deal the the possibility of change. One, we can keep it general as Biglove did, or, two, if you insist on being specific about the precise number of articles the ADL commented on, it might be worth checking the cite every 6 months or so. However, there are any number of things which may change over time with this, or any other topic. WP:NOT#PAPER, so it's not a problem, it will be updated. <<-armon->> 09:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the "pretty clear and substantive evidence" that you are taking about? Bigglovetalk 00:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I explained above; see the paragraph that starts with "Yes." csloat 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I read that, but I have to agree with Armon that your argument is a fallacy. Bigglovetalk 11:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Armon is incorrect. There is no causation claimed, so the so-called fallacy at work here is completely nonexistent. If you re-read my comments you will see that I never made the claim that I am being accused of making. Again, the fact that this is a moving target invalidates it as a WP:RS. csloat 22:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you are talking about at this point. The bottom line, however, is that the whole issue of whether ADL might have changed their Web page in response to this Wikipedia article is irrelevant to the subject at hand; inclusion of the cite on the page. Bigglovetalk 00:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is quite relevant; as I explained several times now, it adds even more weight to the argument that a moving target cannot be a WP:RS. By the way, please leave disputed material out of the article until its status is settled in talk; your edit warring is unproductive. Thanks! csloat 05:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It is about as productive as your edit warring; no more; no less. And please instead of repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over, please quote me some exact policy to support your moving target objection. And please refrain from referring me to a policy that doesn't mention it, and think that in some way you have addressed my concern. Bigglovetalk 17:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
(1) There is no need to be so abusive. (2) The correct policy is WP:V, and a moving target self published web page such as the one we are talking about fails the test of WP:V. csloat 18:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, I am not being abusive, but if you think I am please file a user conduct RFC; this will require you to list specific policies with supporting diffs rather than just slinging unfounded complaints about behavior without backing it up with anything specific. Also, please be good enough to quote the exact passage from that policy that you feel applies to your "moving target" compaint. I have asked several times without getting you to fulfill this reasonable request. You are really stonewalling here, refusing to budge one iota from your position, and refusing to discuss. There is no reason for this. I am becoming very frustrated. Bigglovetalk 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The comment "please instead of repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over" is abusive. The comment "please refrain from referring me to a policy that doesn't mention it, and think that in some way you have addressed my concern" unnecessarily and inappropriately casts aspersions on my intentions. More recently, the comment "You are really stonewalling here, refusing to budge one iota from your position, and refusing to discuss" is extremely abusive; you are making unaccaptable claims about my intentions and my actions here that are patently false and destructive to this discussion. I ask you again to please talk.
The relevant section of WP:V here is the section on sources which states in part:
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.... All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view....Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight.... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
I've highlighted the specifics. As for the "moving target" aspect of all of this, clearly it renders more problematic the desire for fact-checking and accuracy and the editorial oversight. But I think the reason this point reached such consensus on the talk page of WP:V is that there is no way to know whether a moving target web page will say tomorrow what we think it says today. And again, this is compounded when they specifically change a web page to delete a sentence being discussed on Wikipedia talk pages, or to address concerns expressed on Wikipedia talk pages. I feel I've made this point pretty clearly, in more depth each time, and I feel that you are actually the one "stonewalling" this discussion. You continuing to ask me to cite the phrase "moving target" from the WP:V page is a bit ridiculous; I have acknowledged from the beginning they do not make that specific point on the page, and that that point is an obvious interpretation of what is on that page, the same way that in the United States, the right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but nevertheless is based on an obvious interpretation of the text. csloat 04:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Previously, on September 7, I tried to break all of the issues down so we could discuss one by one in a focused and rational way:
  • moving target this argument argues that if the Web site is subject to change, it should not be cited. others have argued that the this argument is negated by the fact that we are citing with a "date accessed." Q. where is the official policy on this. Can anyone quote it and link?
  • ADL changing Web site directly in response to Wikipedia edits some feel this is a valid concern and should influence our decsion; others feel it cannot be more than conjecture and should not influence our decsion.
  • notability. some do not feel the ADL is notable to comment on the area they are commenting on. others have argued that the ADL is notable to comment on the subjects they are commenting on: antiIsrael advocacy, defense of Islamist militant movements, and accusations of antimuslim agendas by Jewish groups. Q. If the adl is not notable to speak on these subjects, could we name an organization that would be notable?
  • self publication. some have characterized adl site as a blog, not ok per wp:v others have said it does not constitute a self publication, fine by wp:v.
  • extremist source. is adl an extremist source? If so, should not include.
  • undue weight violation. this was a previous complaint directed at an old version of the article. the section has been shortened very considerably, to one brief summary sentence not containing quotes from any particular article, to address this complaint.

Bigglovetalk 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)"

You (Sloat) have held strongly to the "moving target" issue, and have said that the above policy supports your case. As you are holding strongly it it, and keep citing policy to support your postion, it is hardly "ridiculous" for me to have asked you to quote the aspect of the policy you find suppportive of your point. I also do not find that "moving target" is an "obvious interpretation" of anything you quote above. (The policy itself bears discussion, and other aspects were broken down in other bullet points of the discussion I started above). Your comment on the moving target issue seems to focus on the fact that the page was updated between Dec and August. I am not sure that updating an offical web page of an organization, noting the date of the update, is problematic. Why do you find it problematic? Bigglovetalk 13:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't. What I find problematic is treating such a moving target (which is not indicated anywhere as an "official web page of the organization," btw) as a WP:RS for use in critiquing a newspaper. I am pretty sure I've explained this clearly; I find it hard to believe you still don't understand. csloat 16:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The stuff that is being cited is ON the official web page of that organiztion. Why do you think that it is not an official web page of the organization. Bigglovetalk 21:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is on their web site. It is one page among many. It does not even appear linked off of their main page. There is no indication on the page at all that it represents the official view of the organization, or if the organization would even take an official view on such a minor issue as whether a particular editorial in a particular paper unfairly characterized a particular Israeli policy. You have a burden of proof to show that it actually represents their official policy. Once you have met that, you need to demonstrate notability. I can't imagine every comment made on all 13,000 or so pages on the ADL website would be considered notable, even if they do represent some kind of official statement from the organization -- that is why people are asking for a third party RS that acknowledges the notability of this particular critique. csloat 21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
For the first part of what you are saying, I invite you to explain how something on the ADL Web site is not officially coming from the ADL organization. I'm not following that. Bigglovetalk 00:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see above - we cannot presume that every word on their 13,000 pages is an official policy statement. Again, the burden of proof is on you here. And, once you meet that burden, you need to demonstrate notability. csloat 00:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
if it is on their web site it is on their web site. this aspect of your arguement just doesn't hold water and won't hold water no matter how many times you repeat it. Again, I'm off for a few days. Have a nice week. Bigglovetalk 00:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How wonderfully circular -- yes, if it is on their web site it is on their website. I never said it was not on their website. I said that you have the burden to prove that it is both (1) an official statement of policy, and (2) notable enough for inclusion on this page. So far you haven't done that. Have a good holiday. csloat 00:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is not a policy at all, it is some statements of concern made concerning this newspaper along with evidence to back it up from the newspaper's own pages. And, as it is on the official ADL Web site it is an official statement of the ADL. There is really no way to refuste this particular thing. We can discuss other aspects, sure, but I think you really need to be conceed this particular one. Bigglovetalk 00:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is your burden to show that it is "official" rather than the opinion of some webmaster or someone else who posts that particular blog. csloat 02:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ADL cite and criticism section

I put back the sentence I wrote summarizing the ADL cite. We have the NPOV tag to balance it out. I am not edit warring here. I feel both should stay subject to further discussion.

Arguments for and against inclusion.

    1. . "moving target" this argument argues that if the Web site is subject to change, it should not be cited. others have argued that the this argument is negated by the fact that we are citing with a "date accessed." Q. where is the official policy on this. Can anyone quote it and link?
    2. ADL changing Web site directly in response to Wikipedia edits some feel this is a valid concern and should influence our decsion; others feel it cannot be more than conjecture and should not influence our decsion.
    3. . notability. some do not feel the ADL is notable to comment on the area they are commenting on. others have argued that the ADL is notable to comment on the subjects they are commenting on: antiIsrael advocacy, defense of Islamist militant movements, and accusations of antimuslim agendas by Jewish groups. Q. If the adl is not notable to speak on these subjects, could we name an organization that would be notable?
    4. . self publication. some have characterized adl site as a blog, not ok per wp:v others have said it does not constitute a self publication, fine by wp:v.
    5. . extremist source. is adl an extremist source? If so, should not include.
    6. . undue weight violation. this was a previous complaint directed at an old version of the article. the section has been shortened very considerably, to one brief summary sentence not containing quotes from any particular article, to address this complaint.

could we discuss the points above (without discussing each other)? Bigglovetalk 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that an editor has decided to revert rather than discuss here. This note constitutes another plea for a reasoned discussion rather than an edit war. I have tagged the criticism section separately to highlight that there is disagreement about this section. Hopefully, that will help. Bigglovetalk 00:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I chose to revert as well as discussing here; obviously, the material should not remain in the article if it is disputed this strongly. Please leave it out until we reach consensus. Thanks. csloat 00:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the controversial material; it should stay out of the article until the discussion is settled. Thank you for summarizing the main points; let me respond to your questions:

  1. moving target - we don't have official WP policy on this because there is none; however, if you look at the discussion on this specific issue at WP:V, there is a clear consensus that this material fails the test of verifiability. So, barring an explicit wikipedia policy on the matter, I think the arguments heavily weigh against including this material.
  2. ADL changing page in response to Wikipedia - the evidence that they have done so is pretty strong but nonetheless circumstantial. I don't argue that this is the sole reason for inclusion, but the possibility (and in this case very strong likelihood) that they have done so makes the argument about it being a moving target much stronger.
  3. notability - the question here is whether this particular criticism by the ADL is notable, not whether the ADL is notable as an organization. A third party source describing the ADL's criticism would do nicely to substantiate notability here. As the anon ip pointed out, even an indication that InFocus has responded to the ADL would work here. Otherwise all we have is the ADL using Wikipedia as a soapbox.
  4. self-publication - there is no indication of any editorial oversight whatsoever here, which makes it clear this is a self-published source.
  5. extremism - I do think the ADL is an extreme source on topics like this but I'm not sure it qualifies as "extremist." No doubt their view is extremely one dimensional however.
  6. undue weight - I agree with Bigglove that if the other problems are overcome, there is not an undue weight problem with including this one sentence. My problem with undue weight came when over half the article was devoted to this "criticism."

Finally, let me add that we are not required to have a "criticism" section for "balance." There is no need to "balance" an article that is purely descriptive. And "criticism" sections tend to be discouraged in most articles. Notable criticisms should of course be included but that is not a balance issue. This article does not have a section for "praise," so I'm not sure how a "criticism" section is helpful for balance at all. Wikipedia policies on notability and verifiability are more important than the superficial perception of "balance" created by quoting random ad hominems (or even legitimate but non-notable critiques) against the subject of an article. csloat 00:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. since there is no policy on the moving target issue, perhaps we should leave it out of the equation; in addition the discussion at wp:v was not based on a comprehensive presentation of the issues and editors here were not informed that the discussion was ongoing until it was half over.
  2. since the evidence of any adl web site change in response to this article is circumstantial at best, and the meaning of any such action in terms of whether or not to source unclear in any case, we should eliminate it from the discussion as well
  3. notability should stay on the table; arguments exist in both directions
  4. self publication should stay on the table; arguments exist in both directions
  5. extremist source may be eliminatable from the equation
  6. sloat and bigglove agree we can remove undue weight Bigglovetalk 00:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. no; the policy is WP:V, and the discussion there pretty clearly reached a consensus about it. Saying there is no policy is wrong; there is a policy, just not one specifically discussing that particular instance. And in fact, the discussion there was pretty comprehensive, and people here were informed pretty much after the first comment was posted. If you have something to add to that discussion, it needn't be "over" by any means.
  2. No; we don't simply "eliminate from the discussion" arguments that you find difficult to respond to; as I said above, the very possibility that this might have happened makes the moving target problem even more significant. I am not saying this is a provable fact or that by itself it constitutes a reason for rejecting the citation.
  3. all of the arguments should stay on the table; as for notability, I don't see any substantive arguments that suggest the cite should be kept -- arguments that the ADL is a notable organization are simply not relevant to the issue at hand, which is whether this particular dispute is notable.
  4. you again say "arguments exist in both directions" but that does not appear to be the case; there is an assertion that this is not self-published but there is no evidence for that; there is no evidence of editorial oversight whatsoever.
  5. others may have different opinions about it but I think the source is extreme but not necessarily extremist.
  6. agreed, as long as we are talking about the one sentence here. Thanks for your input! csloat 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think one sentence needs a "criticism" subheading so I've removed it. <<-armon->> 10:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, someone on the wp:v suggested it and I thought it would make sloat feel better to have that section cordoned off and tagged as criticism so I tried that. Bigglovetalk 11:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Armon, it is a big problem that you keep reverting this. You and bigglove are the only people who want the material in there, and every single commentator on WP:V agrees that it does not belong there. At the very least you should leave it off until the discussion is over. Restoring it without even bothering to participate in the discussion like you are doing here is arrogant and destructive of Wikipedia goals. Please stop this ridiculous revert war -- remove the disputed material, and participate in the discussion honestly. What you are doing is simply bullying your way and it is highly unproductive. csloat 19:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


To clarify, I am wondering where there is a mention of the "moving target" issue you are raising on the policy page of WP:V? Please be specific and supply a wikilink. Thanks. Bigglovetalk 11:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, the wikilink to the policy you are looking for is right here. I don't believe there is a specific mention of "moving target" there; as explained above, that does not matter. csloat 19:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If the policy doesn't mention your "moving target" argument then you can't cite the policy to defend your moving target argument. Bigglovetalk 00:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As no one responded to my argument above, I will repeat. This criticism is not notable -- that is the problem. My local Union of Dogcatchers 683 might think this magazine should line puppy cages and put that opinion on their website too. So what? What's needed is for a WP:RS to actually report on that before we could even consider inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPbox for any organization big or small. -- 146.115.58.152 22:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent point that should be added to the above -- so we now have six reasons not to include the material, and so far all six have been unopposed unanswered in any meaningful or substantive way. The people restoring the material are clearly in the wrong and need to stop trying to bully their way on this page. csloat 19:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
"So far all six have been unopposed..." That is such a gross misrepresentation of what has been written by multiple editors that you really should be ashamed of yourself for such it amounts to a blatant lie. Pairadox 20:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
(1) Please refrain from bullying personal attacks like that. (2) Please indicate what substantive opposition there has been to any of the arguments here. I don't mean that nobody has said anything about the arguments; I mean that nobody has responded substantively to them in any meaningful way. They have not been answered is my point. I will refactor my comment to make that clear; I expect you to strike out your uncivil comment. csloat 20:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't "refactor" your comments in such a way that it substantially changes their meaning and renders responses inaccurate. Use strikethru instead. It is your opinion that they have not been answered in a substantial way; I consider my responses to have substance, thank you very much. Pairadox 20:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also responsed to Sloat's points, and I consider my responsnes to have substance. Bigglovetalk 00:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please tell me which response to which argument has substance? My apologies, but I don't see it. Also, it would be great if you would strike out or refactor your own personal attack, BTW. And please refrain from refactoring other people's comments; that is extremely rude. It is quite hypocritical for you to complain about what a user does with his or her own comments while at the same time you edit that user's comments yourself. csloat 22:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Try doing a search of this page - my comments are sparse enough to easily find. Pairadox 23:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I only see your comment that the "moving target" claim is not valid but that ADL may be extremist. I responded to the claim of invalidity, and you chose not to return to that discussion. The claim is quite obviously valid, and so far there has not been a substantive response to it (and your response, in fact, added yet another reason to the above list). I am willing to entertain and engage any such response, and even to be convinced otherwise. But as it is I don't see any substantive response to the points above. I apologize that you found my way of putting that insulting; I did not mean to be insulting. Your claim that I was "blatantly lying" is extremely insulting and you have not apologized for it or struck it; hopefully you will see the benefit of doing so. csloat 23:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) You responded with suspicions that the website changes their content in reponse to this article, allegations that were refuted by others; no further comment by me was needed (I don't post just to see my name in a sig line). Others on the Verifiability talk page addressed the mutability of the web and some rejected your reasoning as well, so additional claims of a "clear consensus" in that discussion don't reflect reality. The issue of self-pub was addressed and rejected. You yourself rejected the "extremist" label (ADL is an extreme source on topics like this but I'm not sure it qualifies as "extremist.") Really, the only one left is notability, and I concede that there are problems there but not enough to reject the passage at this point. I'd rather see it tagged and allow others time to find secondary sources. Pairadox 18:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong. The allegations were not refuted, and I explained their significance above. The circumstantial evidence is quite compelling and the point is that whether or not it actually was the case, it bolsters the moving target case (a separate point that has not been refuted). The editors on WP:V talk came to a clear consensus; if you think differently, please support that with some evidence - I think you are wrong. So I see six points left, not one. (And you were the one who raised the extremist claim, not me). Enjoy your day. csloat 05:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You must locate secondary sources first. Per WP:ATT: The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. -- 146.115.58.152 21:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Your argument, anon, about secondary sources, I think, was based on the issue of whether there was a controversy between the InFocus paper and the ADL. You said that if there were we'd need secondary sources to include mention of this. The fact is that there is no controversy here. The ADL has found some stuff in the paper they feel deflames Jews, deflames Israel, and supports foreign militant Islamist orgs working to destroy Israel---Hamas and Hezbollah. The ADL is probably the most notable source in the US to comment on the first, and highly notable to comment on the latter. The source alone is fine. We don't need a secondary source to say "the ADL says...". What the ADL themselves says is on a report on their Web site and should suffice. Bigglovetalk 00:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Anons argument seems to be a simple notability one -- the ADL whine is not notable unless you can find some third party commenting on it. If there is no controversy here, then it isn't notable. It's really pretty simple. csloat 05:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Initially I thought there could be no serious problem with noting the ADL's position on a U.S. publication, but I think the current sentence misrepresents what the ADL article says. There are two bullets regarding InFocus in the ADL article. Each of them notes that InFocus printed or reprinted an editorial (one a "commentary" "supporting" Hezbollah, the other an "opinion piece"). If we are going to characterize InFocus's editorial stances, we should not rely only on one viewpoint in establishing that characterization. The problem here is indeed undue weight, not because of the length of the ADL sentence, but because of the absence of any other viewpoints in characterizing the paper's editorials. —ptk✰fgs 03:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The ADL's opinion is clearly attributed to them. If you can suggest a more precise wording, that would be good. As for undue weight, the paragraph preceding the sentence is InFocus' self-assessment of their editorial stance. If there is any other commentary on the paper, no problem, we'll include it, but so far, that's pretty much it. <<-armon->> 06:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Another excellent point. I think this does bring the UNDUE issue back, and we now have seven arguments that must be refuted before the ADL material can be restored here. csloat 05:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, people, you need to find a secondary source. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. How many times do I have to repeat myself here? -- 146.115.58.152 08:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a secondary source. Please stop demanding tertiary sources for commentary you don't agree with. <<-armon->> 08:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a primary source on the opinion of the ADL. Please don't obfuscate the issue. It has nothing to do with whether anyone agrees or disagrees with the so-called "commentary." csloat 15:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a source about the subject. The primary source in the article is the material from InFocus' website. You can assert what you want till you're blue but it won't make it true. Anyone who would like the types of sources explained should see here. <<-armon->> 16:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, asserting something does not make it true, as your argument demonstrates. ADL's comments on its changing web page are not notable comments about the subject. Without a secondary source indicating the notability of this dispute and of ADL's opinion on this particular topic, it does not belong here. An article in Commentary, for example, claiming that the ADL has officially pronounced this newspaper antisemitic or whatever would be the sort of thing that would make this notable. Otherwise you are just using obscure quotes from a web page to soapbox. csloat 17:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It's useless to continue with this so long as you falsely assert that the ADL cite is a primary source. This is why I provided the http://www.ithaca.edu/library/course/primary.html link. There appears to be only 2 secondary sources for this article, the ADL and the LA Times cite. These are the only ones actually about Infocus. Two is not much for even the most liberal interpretation of WP:N and yet you insist on deleting 50% of the secondary sources. <<-armon->> 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The ADL is basically a complainant in a dispute, and we have no indication this dispute is notable. There is no need for red herrings in this discussion. csloat 18:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Anon, To answer your question (which by the way, was a bit rudely phrased) you don't need to repeat yourself here at all. What would be more helpful is to read my reply (which I've now written twice) and reply to what I said there. Bigglovetalk 17:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That has been answered. The ADL whine is not a notable critique. csloat 18:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Although armon's last edit comment is right, this seems to be a widespread problem on any number of articles. Any one care to join the discussion at Talk:Jewish Defense League? My attempts to clean up that article were reverted pdq. -- 146.115.58.152 18:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I jumped in; I agree with you and Armon both about that one. csloat 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, is there any reason you are answering for anon? Bigglovetalk 20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Anon, could you answer my policy-related question? And what part of Aromn's point do you find correct? Bigglovetalk 20:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not answering for anybody. I'm offering my opinion on the topic. csloat 04:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Biglove, to respond to your edit ([5] ) where you state your opinion that the ADL's opinion about InFocus is notable. My response is that, if their opinion here is actually notable, then some reliable source should have made note of it. Find at least one reliable source that agrees with your opinion by citing the ADL on this topic. If you can't, then this is just soapboxing, and repeating your opinion over and over and revert warring over and over isn't going to change that. Put your research where your mouth is, if that's not too much to ask. -- 146.115.58.152 05:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The ADL page itself is a RS on this topic. Bigglovetalk 12:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't. That much has been established clearly. csloat 16:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I understand that you feel this way, but this is what we trying to discuss. It has not been established clearly. Bigglovetalk 00:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the problem here is that the burden of proof is on those who would call this particular web page a RS, and you have not met that burden. So if "it has not been established clearly," then you have some work to do. We have at least six points going in the other direction here so at minimum these need to be responded to persuasively. csloat 00:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Political Cartoonist for CAIR-California's monthly tabloid, In Focus"
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference ABOUTUS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Muslim Newspaper," City News Service (4 February 2005)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_California_InFocus/Archive_1&oldid=342642807"