Talk:Gatestone Institute

RfC: Description as conservative and anti-Muslim in the first line of the lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Reclosing: No consensus owing to the RfC being tainted by sockpuppetry; no prejudice against starting another RfC immediately. The two most vocal "oppose" voices, User:UberVegan, and User:JBlackCoffee52, have been blocked as sockpuppets of the same account. Since the first close, the lead has been changed to "known for publishing anti-Muslim articles", with the main objection coming from the blocked user, so that may be good enough; but if that doesn't satisfy people, another discussion may be held, even immediately. Perhaps people have changed their mind, don't feel strongly enough to participate any more, or may participate that haven't before. Fair warning, though, that given the sockpuppetry, participants may look skeptically at views given by new editors with strong opinions. --GRuban (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No consensus for description "as anti-Muslim". This was the focus of the discussion, most didn't even mention the "conservative" part, that didn't seem to have any objection. The support and oppose voices were almost evenly split, so I can't call it consensus either way. Supporters cited numerous sources saying that the group was known for publishing anti-Muslim articles, while opposers questioned whether those actually called the group anti-Muslim as such, and cited WP:LABEL.

However, at the risk of overstepping my bounds as closer, may I make a modest suggestion from reading the discussion? Several supporters and opposers cited many of the same news articles which wrote that the Gatestone Institute was known for publishing false or misleading anti-Muslim articles. The supporters said this was the same thing as Gatestone being anti-Muslim, while opposers said that it was different. So ... what if we describe Gatestone in the lead as "a conservative think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim articles"? Would this be a consensus position that would satisfy most voices on both sides? Since supporters would get text that they consider the same as what they wanted, and opposers would get text they don't object to? No one suggested this in the RfC, so it is not formally part of the close, but it does seem to jump out as an obvious solution. --GRuban (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the first line of the lede describe the Gatestone Institute as a "conservative, anti-Muslim think tank"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. The organization has been widely described by RS as "conservative" and "anti-Muslim", therefore the first line of the lede ought t describe the organization as a "conservative, anti-Muslim think tank". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Re: the discussion above, in which I did not participate, either "right-wing think tank" or "conservative think tank" would be entirely acceptable. Per WP:VOICE, I believe the "anti-Muslim" description should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, there should be a separate line, perhaps the second in the lead, which reads something like: "The think tank has been widely characterized by various sources as anti-Muslim/as having an anti-Muslim bias in its reporting". Endymion.12 (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. These sorts of labels are extremely helpful to casual readers and should be included when the sources warrant it. In this case it seems they do. If there are reliable sources that indicate that Gatestone is not anti-Muslim, then can someone please identify them? R2 (bleep) 19:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• For consistency, oppose The article for Pol Pot manages to wait until the third paragraph before describing his genocide. In the case of Jeremiah Wright, his controversial nature is delicately mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. Alton H. Maddox Jr. is not described as a hoaxer in his opening paragraph. The article for the Nazi Party manages to wait until the second paragraph to describe its racist and antisemitic nature. Even the article Jim Jones, known mainly for cyanide-laced kool-aid, manages to wait until late in a long first sentence. Additionally, the proposer gave an interesting explanation here [1]. Should the article have a different organization because of the "right-wing" nature of its subject? The question answers itself.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• (1) WP:OTHER. (2) You're misinterpreting what I said (and I'm frankly at a loss at your interpretation): What I said was that Wikipedia articles for individuals and organizations who have had a massive impact on the world and history have long and complex ledes that try to cover all the pertinent info about these organizations/individuals. A fringe group like the Gatestone Institute is not notable for much of anything other than being (a) conservative and (b) anti-Muslim. If you believe this is something unique to conservatives, you might be interested in the RfC I have on the Jimmy Dore page as to whether we should call his show a "a far-left show known for promoting conspiracy theories".[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

You wrote "right-wing" in your reasoning. I didn't. If it wasn't relevant, why include it in your explanation?Adoring nanny (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You seem very confused. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

In addition to that insulting response to a straightforward question, I'd note that your Jimmy Dore example is also misleading. I haven't seen any attempt by you to add it to the first line of the lead of that article.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This really demonstrates the principle behind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. For every arguably comparable example, there's an arguably comparable counterexample. The fact that some articles omit or deemphasize some stuff doesn't mean that other articles should omit or deemphasize some stuff. So-called "consistency" shouldn't be a barrier to writing better articles. R2 (bleep) 21:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. They are mostly known as an anti-Muslim propaganda source, not as a think tank. Dimadick (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

* Oppose. Will weigh in later. Please do not prematurely close Rfc. --UberVegan🌾 19:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:UNDUE and WP:LABEL and, if it is discussed to write “many sources state (or something similar)”, opposed based on WP:WEASEL.

Since Wikipedia policy extends to talk, I might suggest that Snooganssnoogans’ comments that reliable sources have “widely” described Gatestone Institute as “anti-Muslim” may be WP:WEASEL. Some editors have subsequently picked up on their assertions, and continued to promulgated this in their support of the RfC.  

Per R2’s question above, if “there are reliable sources that indicate that Gatestone is not anti-Muslim, then can someone please identify them?”, I will. Here are three of the strongest reliable sources "indicating" that Gatestone Institute is not anti-Muslim, and should therefore not be described as such in the lead:

1. Per WP:RS/P, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), considered among the leading civil rights organizations in the United States, in its 2018 list of “anti-Muslim” hate groups in the U.S., does not list Gatestone Institute.
3. In this SPLC article, it specifically states that in its opinion, Gatestone is not “anti-Muslim”. They write: “Anti-Muslim hate groups are designated with an asterisk (*)” and in the first sentence, Gatestone Institute does NOT have an asterisk.
4. An SPLC Facebook page about Gatestone Institute does NOT refer to GI as "anti-Muslim".

SPLC does state that GI is “known for spreading anti-Muslim conspiracies,” (which does not support the RfC lead edit), rather it links to an NBC article that is “widely” the basis for other sources using the term. However, in the NBC article, the term “anti-Muslim” is only used in the headline, not in the body of the article. And still, the SPLC does not embrace the term.

Here is Alan Dershowitz in a Fox News opinion piece about NBC’s hit-piece:

“The headline of the hit piece by Przybyla on the NBC News website is: “John Bolton presided over anti-Muslim think tank.” In fact, nothing could be further from the truth...Even a cursory look at Gatestone’s website shows that its writers and scholars include numerous Muslims. These include the prominent journalists Amir Taheri and Khaled Abu Toameh; President of the American Islamic Forum M. Zuhdi Jasser; Salim Mansur; and Raheel Raza, among others...Many of Gatestone’s articles are, in fact, pro-Muslim – advocating human rights and civil liberties for all Muslims, including Palestinians and Iranians.”

Opposed to the few reliable sources that Snooganssnoogans has provided, following are 17 reliable sources that DON’T use the term “anti-Muslim” in describing Gatestone and therefore don't support the RfC. Is it Wikipedia's policy that a few reliable sources (with NPOV bias and opinions) should become the descriptor in the lead sentence over a majority that do not use that term? What is more WP:NPOV?

Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The New Yorker, The Hill, The New York Times, New York Magazine, Vox, Washington Post, Southern Poverty Law Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, Chicago Tribune, Vox, Politico, The Independent,The Nation

Writing in Wikipedia's WP:VOICE that Gatestone Institute is anti-Muslim seems controversial at best, completely WP:NPOV at worst. At this point, the discussion should really be about what is written in the article's body, not as a descriptor in the page's lead. UberVegan🌾 23:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Every time that the Gatestone Institute is mentioned on SPLC website, they do in fact describe it as "anti-Muslim". It's quite a stretch to claim that being "known for spreading anti-Muslim conspiracies" is contradictory to the group being anti-Muslim. It also boggles the mind how this NBC News piece[3] which is literally an in-depth report on all the ways that this organization is known for peddling anti-Muslim conspiracy theories and falsehoods does not support the "anti-Muslim" description. Also, I started to check the sources that PROVE GI is not anti-Muslim and gave up after 5 of the first 7 sources explicitly referred to GI as anti-Muslim:

1. The LA Times source is 5 yrs old and briefly mentions GI, nothing about anti-Muslim
2. The Guardian does indeed reference how GI has been widely accused of being anti-Muslim
3. The New Yorker says GI "has published virulently anti-Muslim articles of questionable accuracy"
4. The Independent story (which happens to be fringe trash) covers GI claiming Sweden is the rape capital of the world due to Muslim immigration
5. The Hill story is literally about GI being an org that shares "false or misleading news items about Muslims"
6. The NYT story is literally about Trump administration officials' ties to anti-Muslim groups, of which GI is one
7. The NY Mag story is literally about GI being part of the "the Islamophobia industry"

In short, this was a brazen attempt to deceive editors in this RfC. Most of the sources that this user brought to bear do not dispute the "anti-Muslim" description, but in fact strongly support it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The only "brazen attempt to deceive editors" seems to be coming from you. You use the term "describe [Gatestone Institute] as "anti-Muslim." That is different than reliable sources supporting that it is an "anti-Muslim think tank." You seem to be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to support your edit. Because of a lack of time, I will choose only a few items where your recap of my edit was disingenuous at best:

You wrote above: "Every time that the Gatestone Institute is mentioned on SPLC website, they do in fact describe it as "anti-Muslim". First, the SPLC article here specifically does not call it an "anti-Muslim" hate group and only links to the NBC article. WP:SYNTH (An article where it only states it in the headline and Dershowitz refutes the entire article.) Second, where in the Facebook page other than your WP:SYNTH does the SPLC refer to GI as "anti-Muslim"? Lastly, please explain why SPLC doesn't list Gatestone in its 2018 list of anti-Muslim hate groups? --UberVegan🌾 02:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

SPLC literally says GI is an "organization known for spreading anti-Muslim conspiracies" in that link of yours. That Facebook post is a quote from an Intercept story which states that GI depicts Muslim refugees as "rapists and hosts of 'highly infectious diseases'", and the Intercept story itself is literally about GI being an anti-Muslim group. Pretty much every source you've brought up as evidence that GI is not covered as an anti-Muslim group shows the contrary. And I have no idea why GI is not on SPLC's list of "anti-Muslim hate groups" - what I do know by searching SPLC's website is that every mention of GI is in relation to it being anti-Muslim. The goalposts have shifted so drastically that the current reason not to describe GI as anti-Muslim is because one organization does not explicitly describe them as a "hate group", but does explicitly call it anti-Muslim. Note that this RfC is not about whether to describe GI as a "conservative, anti-Muslim hate group". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Another “brazen attempt to deceive editors in this RfC”. The emphasis of the SPLC list that I provided is not on “hate groups”, as you have led others to believe, but on “anti-Muslim”, which you casually left out of your overview. Basically, you have found a handful of RSs that actually use the term “anti-Muslim” to describe GI, then you WP:SYNTH many RSs supporting the idea. The goalposts are the same, but it is nearly impossible to prove a negative, especially when most of the sources are on the other side of the political spectrum. That is why the SPLC's 2018 list is important. It was the first group listed in the article, yet they specifically did not call it "anti-Muslim".UberVegan🌾 18:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Unlike many other desciptions, "anti-Muslim" is a value-laden WP:LABEL and not clearly defined. Are they racists or are they just critical of Islam or what? This needs to be explained it detail and not just stuffed in the first sentence. --Pudeo (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support although I wouldn't mind "right-wing" instead of conservative. IMHO it's pedantry to think that what "anti-Muslim" means isn't clear when it's a term used by so many reliable sources and not just about this organisaion. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - this description is predominant in the reliable sources, as shown in detail above. Neutrality^talk 01:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support per wide usage in reliable sources. I don't feel that turning up a few sources that simply don't use the term is sufficient to make the label disputed (especially when many of those sources just use other comparable terms, only mention the topic in passing, or otherwise broadly enforce the idea that this is a big part of what makes the topic notable; while higher-quality in-depth sources tend to bring it up.) The descriptor of anti-Muslim or words to that effect has been used extensively in high-profile reliable sources, and, given the significance of the description, it's reasonable to expect sources of similar weight would actively dispute it if it was controversial. --Aquillion (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:NPOV: “All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.” Contrary to Snooganssnoogans' claims that the description of Gatestone as "anti-Muslim" appears in "countless" RS, actually the number is both countable and small, in no way a consensus. The designation of Gatestone itself as "anti-Muslim" appears in only two RS which use the descriptor within the body of the article (The Guardian and Buzzfeed) and is not supported by any empirical evidence in the articles. It is simply the opinion of the journalists and editors and not enough of a consensus for the descriptor to be written in Wikipedia's voice and included in the first sentence. Further, of the 10 sources cited in Note A and the 11th from the New Yorker, they do not all use the term "anti-Muslim" to describe Gatestone itself. There is a diversity of views represented in the RS and that should be reflected in the article, especially in its lead. Here is a summary of what the sources cited for the "anti-Muslim" descriptor do say, which reveals there is a range of opinions in RS about how to describe Gatestone:

* The NBC article only describes Gatestone as "anti-Muslim" in the headline, which is normally not written by the journalist themselves but an editor. In the article itself it does not describe the organization as “anti-Muslim" but only some of its content: "has promoted misleading and false anti-Muslim news." This approach of critiquing Gatestone's content while not labeling the organization as a whole is a theme in many of the stories cited to try to justify this "anti-Muslim" descriptor.

• The Max Blumenthal article at The Nation also does not describe Gatestone as "anti-Muslim." The mere use of a clickbait-style headline like "The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate" is not sufficient to then label Gatestone itself as "anti-Muslim." Further, if this article is to be included on the page it should conform with the guidelines about content from The Nation as noted in the perennial sources guide: "Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed." Thus, any information coming from this article should be attributed as coming from The Nation.
• In the Foreign Policy article the term "anti-Muslim" never appears and when Gatestone is mentioned it is not described as anti-anything. The term used in the article to describe various individuals and organizations is "anti-Islam" which of course is not synonymous with "anti-Muslim."
• In the Independent article it does not state that Gatestone is "anti-Muslim." Instead it states it is "what some critics have called an anti-Muslim think tank." This fact should be relevant and considered in how the Gatestone wiki article is written.
• The Vox article - which relies on the NBC article - does not describe Gatestone as "anti-Muslim", it says it is "a far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim agitprop" - again describing some of Gatestone's content as "anti-Muslim" is not the same thing as designating the entire organization itself as "anti-Muslim." The New York Times publishes some conservative columnists. Snooganssnoogans, would you then argue that it would therefore be accurate to describe the Times itself as "conservative"?
• The Albawaba article also does not use the term "anti-Muslim" or offer any descriptors about the organization. Again, they are analyzing and describing their critical opinions of Gatestone's content.
• The New York Times article also does not use "anti-Muslim" to describe Gatestone, but rather simply describes its content as "articles on its website promoting the notion that pliant European countries, especially Britain, are submitting to “Islamization” by hostile Muslim migrants."
• The New York Magazine article also does not use "anti-Muslim" to directly describe Gatestone, instead it again critiques specific articles Gatestone has published: "a far-right think tank that claims Muslims have established hundreds of  'microstates governed by Islamic Sharia law' (a.k.a. 'no-go zones') throughout France; that Muslim refugees have brought 'a rape epidemic' and 'exotic diseases' with them to Germany; and that the United Kingdom is on the cusp of becoming an 'Islamist colony.'" This last mention is particularly notable in demonstrating the inaccuracy of the "anti-Muslim" descriptor of the organization. Islamism is a political ideology opposed by both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. If Gatestone were indeed "anti-Muslim" then a "Muslim colony" would have appeared instead. Those who are genuinely "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Islam" tend not to distinguish between Islamism the ideology and Islam the religion.
• The New Yorker article cited states Gatestone "has published virulently anti-Muslim articles of questionable accuracy." Again, this is not a descriptor of the organization, but of some articles it has published.

Given this range of views in the RS, a more accurate and neutral summary would be "Gatestone has been accused of being 'anti-Muslim' or part of an 'anti-Islam' movement, and the factual claims of its articles challenged. Gatestone and its supporters dispute these allegations."

Also important: the "anti-Muslim" designation of the group is further problematic given the fact that Gatestone's current chairman Amir Taheri is a Muslim himself, as noted on his Wiki page and attested to in RS already featured on Gatestone’s Wiki Page (This article at the Washington Examiner.) Thus his sentence in the lead should be revised to "Its current chairman is Amir Taheri, a Shia Muslim journalist and author who was born in Iran." It will be interesting to see how the lead reconciles that Gatestone Institute is "anti-Muslim" when its chairman is a Muslim. JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:LABEL, WP:WEASEL, which have all been detailed in greater length by other editors above. R333ct0r (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:LABEL. Galestar (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Long-winded equivocating aside, the purpose of the lede is to provide a factual summary of reliable, independent sources. Having a Muslim in a leadership position is not an automatic get-out-of-bigotry free card unless reliable sources say it is, which seems unlikely. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, with great regret. Snooganssnoogans should be commended for doing the right thing and seeking to call a spade a spade in the lede of the article. The purpose of the lede is to get to the point. However, the sources just aren't strong enough for "anti-Islam". On the evidence I see, most reliable newspapers of record stop slightly short of calling the organisation "anti-Muslim" on their non-editorial pages. No doubt this is an overabundance of caution, but even if so, we are compelled to take the same approach rather than synthesise the way to our own obvious conclusions. Having said all of that, "conservative" is clearly an inapt description, especially on its own. "Right wing" is better and there are sufficient sources for it. I also completely agree with the comments of Grayfell above that having a Muslim as the group's chair is completely irrelevant. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with arguments laid by Pudeo, JBlackCoffee52 and R333ct0r. Furthermore -criticism of Islamism and global jihadist movements are not the same as being "anti-Muslim". Gatestone seems to have thousands of articles while their wikipedia page only focuses on cherry-picking from a handful of controversies. Muslim reformers, academics, activists, women and minority rights advocates have contributed more than one thousand articles -ie.: Najat AlSaied, Tawfik Hamid, Zuhdi Jasser, Majid Rafizadeh, Salim Mansur, Khaled abu Toameh, Uzay Bulut, Raymond Ibrahim, Raheel Raza, Ahmed Charai, and many others.--ColumbiaXY (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• This account was created 10 days ago and pretty much only participates in RfCs. And the argument is again that we should ignore RS descriptions of this organization because there are a few Muslims involved in the organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Your argument is that you don't have an argument and you straw-man positions you don't agree with. There's more than a few Muslims involved with the organization and those I've listed are scholars -including from Harvard- activists and human rights advocates. You're trying to push your WP:POV smear giving WP:UNDUE to "evidence" that is barely anecdotal: the institute has thousands of articles on its website and the people I've listed have contributed more than 1000 among themselves but you insist on smearing them based on a few POV-sources you've cherry-picked. You should remember this is Wikipedia not Smearpedia and many other sources are not treated the same way: -nobody calls the Guardian a terrorist apologetic tabloid just because they've published an editorial from Osama bin Laden in 2004 and have given voice to numerous other highly controversial individuals over the years -nobody calls The New York Times a fake news organization just because they've published stories supporting the WMD conspiracy theory which was used a Casus-belli for the Iraq war -and so on. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support Tbh, I was going to say "Oppose" because in general starting an article with "X is anti-Muslim" is not encyclopedic. However, after some reflection I think that "anti-Muslim" is the best description one could make to GI. Its focus is entirely related with Muslims and this article from the beginning to the end discusses its anti-Muslim stance. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per what reliable sources say and I have seen some Gatestone Institute articles and saw the obvious anti-Muslim bias in their article especially regarding the Israel-Arab conflict and the immigration crisis.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• As you know, your general thoughts about what you thought was or was not "obvious anti-Muslim bias" in outside articles should not be a factor in determining whether to Support or Oppose. JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

​As I said above, per what reliable sources say. For example;

The NewYorker:

"...institute, which paid Bolton a hundred and fifty-five thousand dollars in 2017, has published virulently anti-Muslim articles of questionable accuracy."

NBC news:

"...John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s new national security adviser, chaired a nonprofit that has promoted misleading and false anti-Muslim news, some of which was amplified by a Russian troll factory, an NBC News review found."

The Guardian:

"...One Infowars piece, published by the Gatestone Institute, an anti-Muslim thinktank, articulates the US-UK alliance over Robinson."

Yahoo news:

"Anti-Muslim hate groups listed in the report [by CAIR] include: The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), Gatestone Institute, Center for Security Policy, Middle East Forum, David Horowitz Freedom Center, Clarion Project, and the Investigative Project on Terrorism, among many others."

For my thoughts about it, is because I am a Muslim and I have edited Islam-related articles and I find this institute reports frequently until I reported the source to the reliable sources noticeboard, there we decided that it is not suitable for Wikipedia. That day I removed a lot of content that was sourced to this Anti-Muslim institute.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• I already addressed your points in my Oppose above. I can repeat them for the specific sources you cite:

1. The New Yorker article cited states Gatestone "has published virulently anti-Muslim articles of questionable accuracy." Again, this is not a descriptor of the organization, but of some articles it has published.

2. The NBC article only describes Gatestone as "anti-Muslim" in the headline, which is normally not written by the journalist themselves but an editor. In the article itself it does not describe the organization as “anti-Muslim" but only some of its content: "has promoted misleading and false anti-Muslim news." This approach of critiquing Gatestone's content while not labeling the organization as a whole is a theme in many of the stories cited to try to justify this "anti-Muslim" descriptor.

3. The designation of Gatestone itself as "anti-Muslim" appears in only two RS which use the descriptor within the body of the article (The Guardian and Buzzfeed) and is not supported by any empirical evidence in the articles. It is simply the opinion of the journalists and editors and not enough of a consensus for the descriptor to be written in Wikipedia's voice and included in the first sentence. Further, of the 10 sources cited in Note A and the 11th from the New Yorker, they do not all use the term "anti-Muslim" to describe Gatestone itself. There is a diversity of views represented in the RS and that should be reflected in the article, especially in its lead.

4. The Yahoo News reference is new to this discussion, however it is not a reliable source. The article is simply quoting the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR is not a reliable source.

I understand that you may disagree with some of the content that Gatestone publishes. I disagree with some of the things they publish too. But RS simply do not support the claim that the organization itself is "anti-Muslim." Most of the RS criticize individual articles and specific content as "anti-Muslim." Just because some articles published may be "anti-Muslim" it does not mean it is accurate to describe the whole organization as such. The NY Times publishes conservative columnists, is it therefore accurate to describe the Times as "conservative"? Of course not. Also, the fact that a Muslim currently leads the organization, Muslims contribute to it, and that it has been defended by Muslim activists like Zuhdi Jasser should be taken into account. It does not make sense that Muslims would contribute to an organization which is objectively "anti-Muslim." The "anti-Muslim" designation is not an objective fact, it is a subjective opinion. The diversity of RS make that clear. JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

​LOL, are you suggesting that the institute is not anti-Muslim even if it promotes anti-Muslim false reports (notice the word false)? And what? Muslims work in it should be taken to consideration? This is the most foolish thing I have ever heard someone saying it this month.

More sources (and I can bring more) that says Gatestone institute is anti-Muslim and "don't just describe their false reports" XDDDD.

Buzzfeed:

"...That likely would have been the end of it, but the tale of the “Muslim biker gang” got a second life when it was translated into English by the Gatestone Institute, an influential anti-Muslim think tank based in New York City."

America magazine:

"...Prior to joining the Trump administration, he was chairman of Gatestone Institute, another anti-Muslim think tank."

Middle East Eye:

Bolton himself has served as chairman of an anti-Muslim think-tank called the Gatestone Institute,' whose fellows have baselessly warned of Muslim immigrants taking over the West violently.

Huffpost:

"Since 2013, Bolton has served as chairman of the Gatestone Institute, an anti-Muslim think tank."

Haas institute:

"The release of the database comes two weeks after John Bolton, who formerly served as a chairman of the anti-Muslim Gatestone Institute, began his new job as Trump’s national security adviser."

Byline times:

"...the Mercer Family Foundation donated $250,000 to the New York-based Gatestone Institute, an anti-Muslim think tank that warns of a looming Muslim takeover of Europe leading to a “Great White Death”."

By the way I consider your argument fallacious and that I brought these sources is by no way means that I dismissed what I said earlier. The sources in my previous comment describe what Gatestone Institute publish regularly, an anti-Muslim false reports. That means it is an anti-Muslim think tank. In fact the institute was described as "far-right" the Gatestone Institute, a far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim agitprop.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

First, America Magazine, Middle East Eye, Huffington Post, Hass Institute, and Byline Times are not considered Wikipedia Reliable Sources and second, just reposting reliable sources that have already been posted does not strengthen your case. Lastly, can you please point to me the policy that states that your opinion carries weight because you're a "Muslim" and that you "have edited Islam-related articles"? JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

​ These are not reliable sources? Says who? Also where did I claim that my opinion carries any weight? You are the one who is holding subjective arguments like (it publishes false anti-Muslim but it is not anti-Muslim) and you said a very false argument you said:"Also, the fact that a Muslim currently leads the organization, Muslims contribute to it, and that it has been defended by Muslim activists like Zuhdi Jasser should be taken into account. It does not make sense that Muslims would contribute to an organization which is objectively "anti-Muslim"."

For example to you it doesn't make sense that Saudi Arabia, a Muslim nation which also unfortunately rules the Mecca and Medina holy sites, supports China inhuman treatment of Uighur Muslims? Right?

The sources I presented are reliable sources and my arguments are solid arguments while yours are definitely subjective fallacious arguments that are not helpful but only lead to unproductive discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia. JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

​There is nothing there suggest that the middle East Eye is not reliable or the others. Anyway, there are overwhelming sources that says the "think tank" is famously known for publishing anti-Muslim false news. Here is Foreign Policy source as I said there are many sources:

"...Gatestone Institute, a far-right anti-Muslim think tank; the blog of noted Islamophobe Pamela Geller; the now-defunct fake news outlet QPolitical; and Jihad Watch, one of the main hubs of American Islamophobia"

The Guardian:

"...One Infowars piece, published by the Gatestone Institute, an anti-Muslim thinktank, articulates the US-UK alliance over Robinson."

-SharabSalam (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Per WP:VOICE, "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." There are countless RS that have been cited in support of "anti-Muslim" in describing this organization. Not a single RS has been brought up that disputes that the organization is anti-Muslim. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• This entirely misses the point. WP:VOICE uses the following standard as an example: "For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."". I could present literally thousands of reliable sources which explicitly make the claim that genocide is an example of unambiguous moral evil, but these would still be opinions. The "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions" referenced in VOICE refer to points of fact, rather than judgments. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Evil" is an entirely subjective opinion, and no, you could not present "literally thousands of reliable sources which explicitly make the claim that genocide is an example of unambiguous moral evil" (what RS are you actually reading???). Describing someone as "anti-Muslim" is not an opinion (anymore than describing something as "conservative", "libertarian", "anti-immigration" and "anti-abortion"), and a multitude of RS have already been presented that describe the organization this way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• The characterization of this think tank as "anti-Muslim" is also a subjective, value-laden opinion. This ought to be especially evident given that it is clearly a description which those it is being applied to would reject. It also has clearly pejorative connotations, which makes it doubly important that it is presented according to the relevant policy (WP:VOICE). This applies to any number of adjectives which should only be used with attribution, especially where controversial. I'm not getting drawn into the dispute, so expect this to be my final reply. That you won't even accept there is a consensus that genocide is a "moral evil" makes me much less inclined to engage here. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Your argument that "anti-Muslim" is covered by WP:VOICE is belied by the fact that it's been agreed-upon again and again that RS descriptions, which some may consider pejorative and which some article subjects may dispute, are acceptable if they are widely used by RS. There are plenty of articles where individuals and organizations are described as anti-semitic, anti-muslim, anti-immigration, conspiracy theorist, racist and whatever, because RS widely describe them as such. RS do not widely describe things as "good" and "evil" (again, I'm at a loss at which RS you are actually reading), because those are subjective opinions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• UberVegan, your highlighting of the SPLC as an organization that indicates that Gatestone is not anti-Muslim is somewhat questionable, given that one of the SPLC pages you pointed to describes Gatestone as "an organization known for spreading anti-Muslim conspiracies." R2 (bleep) 00:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

R2, thank you for mentioning that. I actually meant to highlight that that link goes to the same NBC article that Dershowitz writes about. That said, even with that link, as you'll see, the SPLC does not call them an anti-Muslim organization when they specifically use an asterisk to designate those organizations. Further, as I've been led to understand, the actual term must be used in the reliable sources, otherwise it becomes WP:OR. UberVegan🌾 02:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Arguments that this is reliably sourced, therefore it has to be in the first line of the lead, are missing the point. Plenty of things are reliably sourced but not in the first line of the lead of the corresponding articles. Like Adolph Hitler. Reliably sourced that he was anti-Jewish? Yes. First line of the lead? No, it waits until the end of the first paragraph. Multiple other examples with my vote above.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• There are overwhelming sources that says Gatestone Institute is anti-Muslim and famously known for publishing anti-Muslim false news. The fact that Gatestone institute is anti-Muslim is almost the only notable thing Gatestone institute is known for therefore it should be in the lede not just in the lead. Also those who argue that Gatestone institute being anti-Muslim should be attributed then please bring reliable sources disputing that. Per WP:BLUESKY we don't have to attribute. It is a fact.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• IMPORTANT NOTE: UberVega and JBlackCoffee52 comments were striked (because they are sockpuppets) after the RFC was closed the first time.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Updated at 23:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"known for publishing anti-Muslim articles" in the lead sentence

With respect to the mountain of citations listed, of which several do not support the sentence, placing the phrase "known for publishing anti-Muslim articles" in the lead is very problematic and WP:NPOV along with WP:NEWSORG, and WP:PROPORTION.

Most of the sources revolve around Bolton's appointment and are simply copies of the NBC and the Intercept articles. The Intercept's wording, such as "A steady drum beat of vitriol is visible on the Gatestone website on almost any given day" certainly raises the question of WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED.

The lead paragraphs are to give an accurate overview. However, placing such overtly biased, inflammatory, and questionable statements based on two biased articles in the lead sentence is extreme WP:UNDUE.

I think that not only should this not be in the lead sentence, but not in the lead at all. At most, it should be in the article's body and not in Wikipedia's voice, per WP:BIASED.

Most importantly, there was recently an RfC that did not receive consensus to place similar content into the lead. Therefore, it seems that controversial edits such as this should first start on the talk page. UberVegan🌾 21:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The closer of the RfC suggested that language. The oppose votes in the RfC either brazenly misrepresented how RS described the organization or they argued that RS which say the organization "publishes false articles about Muslims" =/= "anti-Muslim." Now, when the Wikipedia article actually says the organization "publishes false articles about Muslims", it's suddenly "only" two RS that say this (which is a complete falsehood). In the RfC, you yourself listed a bunch of RS which you [falsely] claimed did not describe the organization as anti-Muslim. I read those RS for you and literally quoted how they described the organization as one that "publishes falsehoods about Muslims". Your response was that "publishing falsehoods about Muslims" =/= "anti-Muslim". Now, you're back on the talk page to argue that RS don't say the organization "publishes falsehoods about Muslims". This is one reason why editing on controversial topics in American politics is so incredibly dysfunctional: a constant shifting of goalposts and a lack of principled editing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Your overviews of my statements have generally been inaccurate, rewrite history, or simply taken out of context my original meaning. Case in point, I NEVER wrote above "that RS don't say the organization "publishes falsehoods about Muslims". To make it clear, I did write a few different ideas: 1) "Most of the sources revolve around Bolton's appointment..."; 2) that most of the RSs "are simply copies of the NBC and the Intercept articles"; 3) the Intercept piece is questionable based on its obvious extreme bias; and 4) that based on all of what I wrote, it does not belong in the lead sentence or even the lead, but in the body, and not in Wikipedia's voice. UberVegan🌾 00:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

UberVegan,

"the Intercept piece is questionable based on its obvious extreme bias"

Thats your opinion? Are you going to waste our time reading your opinions

"that most of the RSs "are simply copies of the NBC and the Intercept articles"

Thats not true but it is true that most sources revolve around Bolton's appointment but again most sources say that it is known for publishing anti-Muslim propaganda.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Just looking over the independent sources, most of them describe the Gatestone Institute as publishing fake-news, pushing anti-Islamic narratives, or both. The fact that many of them say similar things to the NBC News post bolsters it (ie. it supports the idea that that coverage is important and WP:DUE for high prominence in the article); I'm consistently baffled by the argument that "this source is just based on that source!" - when one source picks up something another source says, that adds weight. And the fact is that Bolton is one of the most noteworthy aspects of the organization, so the fact that most sources discuss it in relation to him doesn't mean anything. But just surveying the independent sources currently in the article that discuss the Gatestone Institute at any length:

• Trump's National Security And State Department Picks Alarm American Muslims, He serves as chairman of the Gatestone Institute, a conservative think tank whose website regularly highlights negative stories about Muslim immigrants.
• Germany’s anti-fake news lab yields mixed results
• "France's 'No Go Muslim-Only' Zones Aren't What You Think They Are"
• The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate
• John Bolton on the Warpath, The institute, which paid Bolton a hundred and fifty-five thousand dollars in 2017, has published virulently anti-Muslim articles of questionable accuracy.
• Debunking the Myth of Muslim-Only Zones in Major European Cities
• The European Union ordered reporters to not reporting whether a terrorist is Muslim (False), Snopes again
• Trump's new national security adviser chairs a group that has spread false claims about Muslim refugees in Europe
• Rebekah Mercer Joins Board of Anti-Muslim Think Tank
• The Guardian, Rosenwald also finances the US-based rightwing Gatestone Institute which publishes Douglas Murray’s writing alongside Geert Wilders, the founder and leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom who has declared he “hates Islam”.
• How Geert Wilders Became America’s Favorite Islamophobe
• US charities fund fringe Islamophobia network
• This is literally the only independent, non-opinion source in the entire article that discusses the Gatestone institute from an angle other than lies, islamophobia, or both.

That's just about it; that's how the Gatestone institute is covered in the mainstream media, at least based on the sources we have. The vastly overwhelming majority of the sources focus on John Bolton, on the idea that the institute publishes false or misleading things, and on the idea that its publications are anti-Islamic. If you think this coverage isn't representative, find other sources and we can discuss it, but the article's current sources absolutely support the idea that it's broadly best known for publishing false or misleading anti-Islamic articles. If you want the article to present it differently, you need to find other sources to weigh against these (and even then I think it would be hard to argue for omission from the lead when the coverage of this aspect is so overwhelming - I think it's entirely fair to say that this is what it is primarily notable for.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

^This is the cost that sockpuppets impose on other editors. They debate in bad faith, constantly shift goalposts and try to gaslight us. Me, Aquillion and other users have had to waste so much time trying to show that 1 1=2. The RfC above should probably be re-run.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

UberVegan has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet.[5] I'd also start checking whether more users on this page are socks - there are definitely a few whose editing patterns just seem strange. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And this was just reversed by ARbCOm, as a mistake. Users (and Checkusers) should really exercise more caution. 2600:1700:4380:1100:6093:222C:D628:623E (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah. It's probably worth going over their edit history and undoing anything suspicious or controversial per WP:BLOCKEVASION, then. Also, given that The Kingfisher has a history of using socks to manipulate discussion, it might be worth looking at some of the contributors to the recent RFC - several of the opposes have very few edits, and it was very close to a support consensus. Or we could just hold another RFC; it's been about two months and the previous one seems to have been tainted by sockpuppetry. --Aquillion (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have strong suspicions about this user.[6] The way I uncovered UberVegan was when I checked his edits and wondered how on Earth he and JBlackCoffee52 happened to find the admin noticeboard thread about me when neither of them has any record on admin noticeboards and neither had reason to check my recent edits.[7] It would not surprise me if there are more accounts in that admin noticeboard thread linked to that prolific sockmaster account - it would be smart to cross-reference RfCs that other socks participated in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Snooganssnoogans and Aquillion: JBlackCoffee52 has just made an edit in which he attributed that they known for publishing fake muslim news to VOX and put the texts scare quotes. Totally disruptive editor if all of these sources are not convincing him then this editor is disruptive whether he is a sock or not.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought one of the rules of Wikipedia was the importance of assuming Good Faith. I am acting in Good Faith, and am not trying to be "disruptive." Why are you violating this basic Wikipedia policy to attack me? I have offered a reasonable compromise. Can we try and find a compromise that we both can agree on? JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

JBlackCoffee52, We have literally gave tons of sources about how this Institute has published fake anti-Muslim propaganda yet you are trying to ignore all of that and game the system with the NPOV policy. Note that NPOV doesnt mean whitewashing. Using scare quotes and attributing is whitewashing.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not trying to ignore all of that or "game the system" or "whitewash" the organization. What I am trying to do is go by what the RS actually say. And they do not say what you insist they do. You see what I am doing as whitewashing. What I see you doing is *exaggerating.* You don't like Gatestone, I get that. I do not agree with everything they publish either. But you and others are vastly overstating what the organization does and what the RS actually say about it. You are taking the few things that you disagree with and trying to cast it as though that was the only thing the organization does or all that they are about. I ask again: can we be friends, act in good faith, and try and come to a compromise so that the article is neither whitewashed nor overstated? JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

JBlackCoffee52, I am not "exaggerating" and you are ignoring what the source says probably because you just dont like what reliable sources are saying. The paragraph says " regularly publishes false reports to stoke anti-Muslim fears" and the VOX source says the following

Gatestone Institute, a far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim agitprop.

and also the source says

Gatestone had published pieces claiming, among other things, that Muslim immigration heralded a “Great White Death” in Europe, and had already turned the UK into a “Islamist colony,”

. The business insider source says

The organization has spread false information about Muslim refugees in Europe and stoked anti-Muslim fears in the West

.

And you claim that you want to go with what the RSs actually say but yet you are attempting to whitewash and game the system by attributing to VOX and putting the text in quotation marks as if there is any reliable source that dispute that.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's go through this a word at a time and hopefully you can understand better where I am coming from and why I think you and others are exaggerating. The first two words in the Wiki article are "regularly publishes". Please show me in the Vox article where it says that Gatestone *REGULARLY* publishes this "anti-Muslim" content. I think you do have the RS to assert that Gatestone has published content that could be labeled "anti-Muslim". But it is an exaggeration and not supported in the RS to prove that it publishes such material REGULARLY. JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

JBlackCoffee52, the fact that you are still making scare quotes around anti-Muslim shows your bias. Regularly means on habitual basis, frequently etc the fact that they are known for publishing anti-Muslim propaganda= Regularly publishing anti-Muslim propaganda. Hence, we shouldnt type the same words as the source, verbatim is poor editing.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry but "known for" and "regularly" are totally different concepts. It is very inappropriate to interchange them. Someone who is known for being a murderer is not the same as someone who regularly murders. Surely you see the difference and how one is much worse than the other. And my including "anti-Muslim" in quotes is not a sign of bias on the subject. I have already admitted that I agree that some of their content could be labeled as such. "Anti-Muslim" content does in fact exist and my putting the term in quotes does not suggest otherwise. Where we disagree is that I have yet to see any RS which supports your claim that Gatestone *regularly* publishes such material. We also apparently disagree over the policy of assuming good faith. I am doing so with you, would you please extend me the same courtesy and respect? JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

JBlackCoffee52, in this context "known for publishing fake reports"="regularly" because regularly here means on habitual basis and they they are habitual liars based on the sources which say that they are known for false anti-Muslim reports.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the "habitual basis" of the anti-Muslim content according to the RS? JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• "group has published numerous stories and headlines on its website with similar themes" [8] NBC News
• "The website routinely portrays Muslim migrants and refugees as an existential threat to Europe and the United States" [9] The Intercept
• frequently published news commentary and analysis highly critical of the presence of Muslim migrants in Europe." [10] Businessinsider
• "a think tank that regularly features articles on its website promoting the notion that pliant European countries, especially Britain, are submitting to “Islamization” by hostile Muslim migrants." [11] in the New York Times.
• "The New York-based non-profit group, Gatestone Institute, regularly publishes articles promoting unsubstantiated claims concerning an "army" of "jihadists" taking over Europe, the "Great White Death" of "native" Europeans, and mass rape perpetrated by immigrants and refugees. " [12] AOL
• "He serves as chairman of the Gatestone Institute, a conservative think tank whose website regularly highlights negative stories about Muslim immigrants." [13] NPR

Do we really need to go any further? Heiro 23:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

JBlackCoffee52, and these sources...--SharabSalam (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that the "Geert Wilders" article in Foreign Policy, cited as proof that the Gatestone Institute is anti-Islamic, is an invalid source for this discussion. The article mentions "Gatestone Institute" only once, without any characterization at all, not as anti- or pro- anything at all. It should also be noted that all of the sources for the "anti-muslim" characterization (other than the bogus Foreign Policy citation) would be described by mainstream conservatives as "left-leaning" media sources. I would challenge anybody to find a conservative acquaintance (if you have any) who would agree that this Wikipedia article is written from a neutral point of view.

It is written from a liberal point of view.

Israelgale (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Israelgale, worthless note; Foreign Policy "Gatestone Institute, a far-right anti-Muslim think tank" --SharabSalam (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Can some do a sockpuppet check on this user? It seems incredibly unlikely that this user would suddenly emerge out of the woodwork to make the exact same arguments as the blocked socks one day after they are blocked? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Obscure Hebrew/Israeli related historical figures? Check. A more than a decade old account that rarely edits, and has near edited this article before, shows up out of the blue to push the POV of 2 recently blocked socks with a description nearly identical to the one I just wrote? Check. @Bbb23:, is a new CU really required, or is the volume of the quacking coming from this editors contribs list deafening enough for a duck block? Heiro 20:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You may or may not agree with me, but I am certainly not a sockpuppet. On rare occasions I make Wikipedia edits. I am a trained historian with a BA from Brandeis University and an MA in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from Harvard University. I am a frequent Facebook poster on American and Israeli politics (https://www.facebook.com/israel.gale). Israelgale (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Non-partisan" - but that still allows them to take stands on political issues

I forget where there was a discussion on this term before. I have a problem with it because it's often misunderstood. Gatestone is extremely partisan. We actually have an article about this, I suggest people read Nonpartisanism in the United States. I'd rather not use the word at all because I'm not sure how we make it clear to readers that nonpartisan does not mean that they can't take stands, it mainly means they can't, openly at least, support a political party, etc. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

In any case the only non-opinion piece in the article currently used for describing them that way is a WP:PRIMARY cite to the Gatestone institute itself. Since it's obviously a self-serving claim, we should probably omit it until / unless we have a secondary source. Even the Observer piece (probably the secondary source most charitable to the institute) carefully qualifies it as "self-described", which reads to me as an expression of doubt from the source, so at best we can say that they describe themselves that way rather than describing it as objective fact. --Aquillion (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I noticed this when reading the article now and removed it as self-serving and needing an independent source, —PaleoNeonate – 01:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

JBlackCoffee52 is confirmed as a sock

The RfC should definitely be re-run or votes recounted. The two most elaborate oppose votes (which were nonetheless gaslighting bad faith nonsense) in the RfC were by these accounts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

ColumbiaXY is probably another sockpuppet. Based on the votes on RfC. [14].--SharabSalam (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You should gather evidence and present (e.g. use the editor interaction analyzer on CXY and other confirmed/suspected socks). I literally don't have the time to do it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Conservative vs far right in lead

How should the lead read? --Malerooster (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Multiple RS say it's far-right. Conservative is a less precise term. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources say it's a far-right organisation. e.g [15].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The term far right is too extreme. --Devokewater (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "Trump's new national security adviser chairs a group that has spread false claims about Muslim refugees in Europe". Business Insider. Retrieved April 7, 2018.' source

The source itself has a referral to a Snopes article, supposedly disproving the notion that there are any No Go Zones. The Snopes article itself is heavily subjugated to the subjectivity of the writer

"I had an opportunity today to travel at length to several banlieues (suburbs) around Paris, including Sarcelles, Val d’Oise, and Seine Saint Denis. This comes on the heels of having visited over the years the predominantly immigrant (and Muslim) areas of Brussels, Copenhagen, Malmö, Berlin, and Athens.A couple of observations:"

The following observations in the articles are just that, observations. Since when does the observation of ONE man somehow disprove a notion? Moreover, the same article does actually admit that the French government has called certain neighborhoods 'No Go Zones'/ZUS. Although, perhaps the name no go zones is too extreme, again that is a subjective matter. What is a no go zone to one, might be a nuisance to another. However, that does not take away the fact that predominantly muslim neighborhoods have received the ZUS label due to measurable constructs like crime and poverty. Whereas the observation of one men saying naively 'I THINK IT ISN'T THAT BAD' is just plain ignorant to use as a valid source.

This article is in the least a subjective article that is dubious in nature and where no concrete judgement can be derived from. I suggest removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44E:F192:1:3847:FD12:8916:4BC5 (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for example, consider a region where an ambulance won't go without a police escort. One person might say that's not a "no-go zone"; it's only a "go only if you have police with you" zone. But another person might quite reasonably consider it a "no-go zone." For example, they might die of a heart attack while the ambulance is waiting for the police. The two people would have different opinions about whether or not the region is a "no-go zone" and in their own terms, both would be correct. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

You know we only care about what sources say, not an analysis of a phrase. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

We? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)