Talk:Secular Islam Summit

Here's some conversation Jeff5102 and I were having. Let's continue it here now if we're to do so.

Re: Primary sources

edit

Even though secondary sources would be better, I think you did the right thing in expanding that section so we have an idea what actually went on! Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

thank you! I still got some other ideas for the article, but I'll write them down later on the discussion page.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sweet. Re: the edit to Haddad's comments - can you suggest another way of phrasing it? "Extreme in their anti-Islam views" seems like a reasonable paraphrase of "extreme in their views...basically it's everyone known for damning Islam." If we omit the latter part it is unclear and may convey the impression that she believes the speakers to be very Islamist or something. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Then the best thing to do is to expand the quote. I know you like small quotes, but in the way you put it, I think we have no other option. I still think that we should include some context on Hadad's emplyer. It would put the remark somewhat more in context. And for the speakers: the old site presents them here. Maybe it is useful.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm totally find expanding the quote! Do you want to do that or shall I? As for Haddad's employer, I'm not opposed in theory, but there are a couple of issues - 1, the potential of synth (since we need to get it from a source that isn't about the summit, and if we're going to do that, there's a lot of other information we could also pull in about her that doesn't aim to discredit her) and 2, the particular phrasing used gave the impression of Haddad as a representative of an advocacy organization that simply happened to be based at Georgetown, when she's a professor there (and also the author and/or editor of several books on the subject published through academic presses), ie. an expert commentator. Re the list of speakers - I think we used to include it but someone else removed it, and I don't remember what their reason was so I don't want to restore it myself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

We also have this link [1]: it explains the negative stance on CAIR by Investors Weekly. Maybe it's useful.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's relevant; it's a report of an extremely local dispute in which one party to the dispute happened to mention the summit. (Who is Jeff Katz that we care what he had to say?) This is not really coverage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Also! As I mentioned in my edit summary, you and the anonymous IP disagree on whether it is better to include the whole quote from Haddad or to paraphrase its contents. I'm fine with either, so why don't you have that discussion on the talk page? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Guys, feel free to continue discussing the order above, but don't continue sneaking in disruptive edits while pretending you're just changing the order of citations. We're not going to attempt to undermine the remarks of the only scholarly commentator we have through synthesis, and we're not going to imply that the summit speakers were radical Islamists. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The hypocrisy isn't convincing either. You are proposing the changes, so it's up to you to convince people. Or shall we, once again, revert to the pre-Roscelese version of the article? That's easier for the rest of us than your interminable POV pushing. — kwami (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Uh, no, the insertion of synthesis about Haddad and the removal of the content of her quote are both innovations. The least you could do for these policy violations is gain consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The recent edit war appears to be over the mentioning of the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding as being the organization in which Georgetown professor Yvonne Haddad is a core faculty member. The URL http://acmcu.georgetown.edu/faculty/ was added to the article as a reference.

I don't see the necessity for this webpage URL in regard to the article. The summit is not mentioned on the webpage, making it irrelevant to the topic.

The edit warring over the connection between Haddad and the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding is less obviously answered: should we tell the reader her affiliation? I have no opinion about that; it could go either way. One view would be that the wikilink to Haddad's bio is ample to establish who she is, while the other view would be that it is a convenience for the reader to state the affiliation directly. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I personally think the wikilink to her name and the reference to Georgetown is probably sufficient...besides Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understand is kind of a mouthful. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The issue is that the source doesn't identify her as belonging to this organization, but rather to Georgetown. It's verifiable that that's where she teaches, but only from sources that aren't about the summit, making its inclusion synthesis that's fairly obviously intended to undermine her commentary and paint her as a Saudi activist instead of a scholar. We could also include, just as verifiably but likewise only from unrelated sources, that she's written and edited a number of well-received books on Muslims, published with various reputable academic presses, and that she's known as a scholar of the subject. But we should do neither. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I really wish I didn't have to be the one to do this, since I don't care either way, but... Jeff5102, would you like to explain why you believe we should include the full text of Yvonne Haddad's quote, "Legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup. The speakers are extreme in their views. Basically it's everyone known for damning Islam"? Dynamic 1.... IP, would you like to explain why you believe it should be paraphrased instead? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I have no time at the moment for an extensive discussion whether "evil islamist-sponsored puppets hated the summit, but neutral observers loved it" or "neutral observers hated the summit, but evil anti-islam neocon bigots loved it" is preferable. I'll hope to find some time for it in the future. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Huh? I'm asking for you to justify an edit you proposed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No he didn't. And why quote Tampa Bay times? There are already five neo-cons quoted here, this one had nothing to do with the event. And when are you going to add that the conference was paid for by a Jewish educational organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.4.72.107 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

So what? Even if I proposed something, it still could take a lot of time to explain my point in such a way that both the islamist-sponsored puppets and the anti-islam neocon bigots on WP might like it. And I don't have that time right now.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Point by point: 1. Incorrect - try reading the talk page again. (Or for the first time - let's not pretend anything here.) 2. If we already quote five neocons, why is it better to shift the balance further in their direction by removing one of the only things in the section that isn't a neocon op-ed? 3. Obviously incorrect - the idea that a comment on the event has nothing to do with the event is nonsense. 4. We already state who sponsored the conference; if you're asking that we insinuate some grand Jewish conspiracy, the answer is no. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Geez, I was trying to write something that the two sides could accept as a compromise...removing the synth that's been the focus of so much discussion, and moving Haddad higher in the paragraph. Yes, I should have made a comment on the talk page, but my computer unexpectedly shut down on me to finish installing Windows updates, and after that I forgot about commenting until I turned it back on and saw this mess. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Like I said above, the order isn't my main issue (I'm not sure why we would attach Haddad's comment to the top of the CAIR para, but I do appreciate the attempt at compromise - my moving that para to the top was another such attempt). My issue is the misrepresentation of Haddad by the omission of the substance of her comment - the speakers aren't extreme Islamists, they're extreme in their anti-Islam positions, per the source. What are your thoughts, Adjwilley, on whether it is better to include the full quote or to paraphrase? As I've said a number of times, I am fine with either option. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, missed this while I was writing my request below. As you can see, I have given a good reason for putting Haddad's comment to the top of the CAIR para (CAIR refers to Haddad's comment). I almost always prefer paraphrasing people's comments, especially when they use inflammatory/rhetoric/exaggerated language like "everybody known for damning Islam". (See WP:Quotations#General guidelines). I'm willing to work out something of a compromise there too...I think that saying or implying that all of the speakers had "extreme anti-Islam" views would be going too far, but perhaps "...saying that many of the speakers were known for having anti-Islam views" would be acceptable. Thoughts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Adding to what I was saying, I think it would be a false statement to say that all of the speakers had extreme anti-Islam views. I also think it would be false to say that everybody known for damning Islam was speaking at the summit. I also note that WP:Quotations says, "Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false." While I'm not saying that Haddad's statement is 100% false, I do think it is exaggerated, and if reproduced in the wrong way, it could imply something that is false. I suggest that rather than trying to work around the tricky issue of reproducing her whole statement and then debunking the false parts, or reproducing it and implying something false, we selectively reproduce the parts that are true...that many (not all) of the speakers were known for having anti-Islam views. This could potentially placate Kwami, who I believe is worried about the BLP problems of saying that an entire group of named people is anti-Islam. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay, your reasoning for putting Haddad's comment at the top of the CAIR para makes sense (I'd still favor reversing the paragraph order though; the CAIR para is based on two reliable news sources, the other para is all op-eds, mostly in substandard sources). Re paraphrase, I think your suggestions are potentially going OR on her comment, but I'm definitely open to other paraphrasing options. I'm also not sure "debunking" applies; putting aside the fact that that's an essay, not policy, the example given is something clearly counterfactual (# of crimes in Phoenix), not something that is, at the very worst, an opinion. The "are we talking about all the speakers, or all minus a few" is really a red herring and always has been; I don't think anyone reads this and believes we're saying Irshad Manji is anti-Islam, they just don't like that we're saying Wafa Sultan is anti-Islam (instead of pro-freedom or anti-Islamic-tyranny or whatever; Sultan has stated she's anti-Islam, before anyone objects). What I think has satisfied everyone in the past in similar situations at other articles, however, has been removing the article; "speakers" instead of "the speakers." So we might say "Haddad said that summit speakers were extreme in their anti-Islam views, adding that..." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm just comparing the diffs. It looks like your version said,

"Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University commented on the lineup of summit speakers, describing them as being "extreme in their views. Basically, it's everyone known for damning Islam," and adding that "legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup.""

while Kwami's version said,

"Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University's Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding commented on the lineup of speakers, describing them as being extreme in their views and adding that "legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup."

while my version said,

"Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University commented on the lineup of summit speakers, describing them as being extreme in their views and adding that "legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup."

Are you suggesting something along the lines of,

"Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University commented on summit speakers, saying they were known for having anti-Islam views, adding that "legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup."

because I would prefer something along the lines of,

"Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University questioned whether the summit was actually nonpartisan, saying many summit speakers were extreme in their views and were known for being anti-Islam.

Also, I am against saying that the speakers were "extreme in their anti-Islam" views. In the Haddad quote, the extreme and anti-Islam bits were in separate sentences. ("The speakers are extreme in their views. Basically, it's everyone known for damning Islam" i.e. She's saying the speakers views are extreme in the sense that they are anti-Islam, not that they are extremely anti-Islam.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

~Adjwilley (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

My concern is making sure the substance of Haddad's comment is included, rather than some vague "extreme" without elaboration that doesn't tell us anything. While I think we read her comment differently re: what it is that's extreme, your suggestion is fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Cool, thanks; I think the last thing we have to agree on is the order of the paragraphs. I have a slight preference toward Kwami's version on that one, since in my experience it's kind of a Wikipedia norm to have a paragraph of positive reception followed by a paragraph of negative criticism. I don't see the order as being terribly important though, and I don't think it matters which comes first or last in terms of the quality of the sources. A weight argument could be made that the reader's view is tainted by what they read first, but the opposite could also be argued, saying that whatever they read last will linger. Whatever the effect is, I don't think it's big enough to matter at all, and I don't really care either way, which is why my position is "meh, let's go with the norm". ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

If we're attaching the Haddad comment to the CAIR paragraph, I see the positive/negative issue as fairly moot regardless of the source quality, now that I think about it; if we have two paragraphs of which one describes an event and one describes comments, the event would seem to take precedence. (Hence my suggestion earlier of CAIR paragraph - Haddad - op-eds.) We can continue discussing the issue of all the positive comments being from primary sources if you like, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, forgot to ask, what do you think of the "legitimate scholars" part of the quote though? So, ' Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University questioned whether the summit was actually nonpartisan, saying many summit speakers were extreme in their views and were known for being anti-Islam, and adding that "legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup." ' –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lemme get back to you on that later...got some stuff going on IRL. I think the "legitimate scholars are horrified" bit isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Who are these scholars? What are the criteria for being "legitimate"? Are there illegitimate scholars who are ok with it? What kind of scholars? Are they really "horrified"? I think she's exaggerating, and unfortunately it's the inflammatory exaggerated sensational language that so often gets reproduced by the press. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, that's fine. Let me know what you think about the order when you have a chance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I dunno, so you're saying there should be a paragraph with the positive review followed by a paragraph/sentence with Haddad's response, followed by the paragraph about CAIR? (I think we agree CAIR should follow Haddad wherever that goes.) Would it be possible to tack Haddad's comments onto one of the other two paragraphs? Putting her in the 1st would leave us with two paragraphs: one comments, one events, while tacking her on the CAIR paragraph would give us two paragraphs would give a positive/negative type thing. I think both have been done at one time or another, and the long-consensus version had Haddad's comment as part of what is currently the 'positive' paragraph. What would you think of going back to that format with the updated paraphrasing from above? The 'comments' paragraph would end up reading something like,

"The summit was described by Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal as "a landmark." Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University questioned whether the summit was actually nonpartisan, saying many summit speakers were extreme in their views and were known for being anti-Islam. Michael Ledeen of the politically conservative American magazine National Review, who attended the summit, described the participants as ex-Muslims and believers, adding, "I think it is no longer possible for people to say there are no reformist (or “moderate”) Muslims." Arnold Trebach, a professor emeritus of American University's Department of Justice, Law and Society, also mentioned the summit in the Washington Times as "a tiny spark of hope and reason," saying that all must try to protect the lives of the speakers. "

Perhaps you object to having Haddad's comment nested between positive comments like that? ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, I think the nesting is fine in theory; what I come back to is the fact that every piece of reception except Haddad's comment is an op-ed, whereas she was specifically asked for expert comment. What do you think? (I do think comments/events works though. There's still the awkward two op-eds in the CAIR paragraph, but those can't easily be separated from it because they're specifically about it.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

So you're saying Haddad should receive more weight than the op-eds? Would you mind taking a stab at framing a paragraph that would suit you? I could see perhaps shortening/paraphrasing Trebach and Ledeen's comments. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University questioned whether the summit was actually nonpartisan, saying many summit speakers were extreme in their views and were known for being anti-Islam. The summit was described by Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal as "a landmark." Michael Ledeen of the politically conservative American magazine National Review, who attended the summit, described the participants as ex-Muslims and believers, adding, "I think it is no longer possible for people to say there are no reformist (or “moderate”) Muslims." Arnold Trebach, a professor emeritus of American University's Department of Justice, Law and Society, also mentioned the summit in the Washington Times as "a tiny spark of hope and reason," saying that all must try to protect the lives of the speakers.

Plus whatever trimming of quotes is deemed necessary - I think it'd be a good idea to trim some more. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is getting somewhat bizarre. Haddad is getting the most words of all commenters, while A) she said these things BEFORE the summit actually happened; B) she only got three lines of attention in the article she is quoted in, C) as Adjwilley stated, it is unknown if the words of Haddad are exaggerated, and the words raise some serious questions; D) again, Haddad didn´t use the word 'anti-islam,' while the word 'non=partisan wasn't used by her, but by the reporter who interviewed her. Furthermore, I don't understand why the article shouldn't mention that Haddad works for a Saudi-sponsored center, while on the other hand it seems to be important that the National Review is "politically conservative". And why is Pullitzer Prize winner Bret Stephens only quoted in two words? I really believe he has more interesting things to say in his article. In short, this part should need a serious rewrite or we should delete it entirely.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Haddad is an expert being quoted in a reliable secondary source. Unless things at the summit went radically differently than anticipated (like, was the whole speakers list swapped out for a different one?) then I'm not sure the fact of her commenting before it relevant. Re "anti-Islam," I invite you again to provide your explanation for why you think we should quote instead of paraphrasing "basically, it's everyone known for damning Islam." I do not care and am content with either a quote or a reasonable paraphrase. Re the sponsorship of the center - as I've already explained, it's not in the source, and if we pull in stuff from unrelated sources, our first instinct isn't going to be to name a financial backer of the place where she works, but rather to talk about her own work, its focus, and the critical acclaim it has received. (We could remove the comment about the National Review - since all of the other quotes are from conservative op-eds, we could go with the topic sentence that I proposed earlier.) Can you propose what more you would like to add from Stephens? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

As I, Adjwilley and others already said: there are some concerns about the quote on how it must be seen. already For quoting: as you can see there is plenty of discussion on Haddad's quote. For me, there is no doubt that is is notable, but paraphrasing could make the remark even more inflammatory as it is already. As you might have noticed in the discussion: it would take a very, very, very long discussion before everyone will agree what a "reasonable paraphrase" would be. For sponsorship: Yvonne Haddad actually works at the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding. That is the name of the center. And she works there. And what does it matter if it is not in the source? The other sources do not claim that they are "conservative", but nevertheless you call them that way. On Stephens: there is plenty of stuff in that: the lack of media coverage, the praise of Al-Jazeera for covering the summit, the concern for the lives of the participants - maybe we can quote the last paragraph: "Here are two questions for the government: If Mr. Warraq, Dr. Sultan et al. are really irrelevant to the larger Muslim debate, why are the jihadists so eager to kill them? And if the jihadists want to kill them, don't they deserve support as well as security?" It looks like a nice conclusion from his article to me.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The quote you suggest is something we already have from Trebach's essay, so maybe if it is to be included, we can take that into account - "Stephens and Trebach both said..." Re Haddad's employment, please read my comments again, as you don't seem to have understood the issues at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

ADJ, you and other editors have made very reasonable suggestions in other discussion sections, balancing sources and following how WP articles like this are normally written. Below you say you made some concessions to Roscelese, and some to me. However, the ones to me were things that other people have called for too, while the ones to Roscelese are special concessions for her. I don't think we should make any concessions to Roscelese, because in a month or two she'll just be back for more (like this time: the article's been stable for 6 weeks, and no-one has implemented the rest of my POV, so duty demands that I start reverting it to what I want again), and then for more, until we're back to claiming Muslims are atheists. Rather, the article should be written according to the consensus of the reasonable editors here, and I'll exclude myself from that category. Decide how best to handle the sources based on RS, WEIGHT, and BLP, ignoring Roscelese and me unless we have an actual factual point to make, rather than accusations that if you don't agree with everything we want, you're biased and need to get out of the way so we can start up the edit war again. An article should be about its topic, not about placating militant editors.

We've been through this before. Several editors put it a good amount of time trying to make everyone happy, and everyone way (more or less), until Roscelese decided that she couldn't abide compromise anymore. This is her pattern, and there will be no end to compromising. Arguments should be judged on their value as arguments, not on what we can do to get someone to shut up. — kwami (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Haddad comments are pure ad hominem: "Legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup. The speakers are extreme in their views. Basically it's everyone known for damning Islam." They do not examine or comment on the proceedings and content of the conference but consist of pure personal attacks against the speakers. This is clearly a BLP violation. The author of the article that quotes Haddad makes other worthy comments but he deploys Haddad in a pure attack on the speakers and not as a critique of the conference’s proceedings. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's really very tedious seeing people continue to wave the BLP flag as a means to remove content that they have no actual policy to marshal against. Criticism exists on Wikipedia and has been deemed not inconsistent with BLP. Much criticism on Wikipedia is not nearly as well-sourced as this. It's also tedious seeing people continually use "ad hominem" without knowing what it means. Stating that someone holds anti-Islam views is not ad hominem. The nearest thing that might be ad hominem might be a hypothetical "Haddad said, 'Ibn Warraq argues that the Quran is not based in historical fact, but he is anti-Islam anyway, so we cannot trust that argument'." Do you understand? Ad hominem is when something about the arguer, rather than the content of their argument, is the subject of comment. In my hypothetical context, "he is anti-Islam" is ad hominem, because it's being used in an attempt to discredit a position that may still be legitimate. But the speakers have extreme anti-Islam views, in this context, is simply a critique of the conference. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I purposely repeated the statement to show that it is an attack on the person in lieu of consideration of their views. The speakers are being dismissed prior to expressing their views. The author objects to the lineup,, i.e. the speakers. Their considered extremists when they haven't even had the conference. They are everyone known for damning Islam when clearly Manji is a well respected earnest reformer. This is an attack on the person in lieu of consideration of the content of the conference. As our article for ad hominem says it "is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument." Jason from nyc (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Haddad isn't trying to take down any one thing they said at the conference. We all know the statements were made before the conference. It's that, per Haddad and her scholarly brethren, a conference of extremists is itself worthy of opprobrium. I mean, you'd probably say the same if a conference on "progressive Zionism" were 90% anti-Zionist Muslims, European neo-Nazis, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The point isn’t that labeling and bashing those worthy of opprobrium doesn’t have a place in this world. It’s that it doesn’t have a place in an encyclopedia. This is an article about a conference and as you point out Haddad isn’t commenting on the conference but attacking the reputation of the speakers and notice she's doing it with a broad brush. As you point out it was before the conference which makes it a pre-judgment, more commonly called a prejudice. It's unworthy of our article. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't really have anything to say that wasn't already said. Criticizing a conference for featuring almost exclusively extremists is a comment of substance. We're not going to remove it because a user personally dislikes it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

For the record, my objection is based on WP:BLP. It is an an hominem attack. It fails to insure proper tone and balance demanded by BLP policy. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you've already shared your opinion that it's an ad hominem attack, but you were incorrect. Nor is there anything unsuitable about the tone of the phrase "anti-Islam" (although since Jeff objects to a paraphrase that's something you'd take up with him) and as for balance, the idea that we can fix the balance by removing a well-sourced critical comment and keeping a bunch of fawning opinion pieces and self-promotional material is laughable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

When I mentioned to tone and balance, I was referring to the BLP guidelines. For balance we must insure that “material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone” avoiding “biased or malicious content.” In regard to tone, articles should be written “responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.” Clearly the quote attacks the speakers, is biased and prejudiced, is far from disinterested, as for dispassionate ... LOL. The phrase "anti-Islam" is not used in the quote: "Legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup. The speakers are extreme in their views. Basically it's everyone known for damning Islam." I object to the quote as part of the article for the sound reasons provided above. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay, you and Jeff both seem to think paraphrasing the quote is inappropriate. Perhaps we can just use Haddad's language then. With regard to balance and tone, neither of those prevent us from including a brief comment from a reliable source. The guidelines you cite are more geared towards preventing us from stating in WP's voice that any of the speakers are anti-Islam (although, as we know, some of them own that label proudly, so maybe it's not the best comparison). Again, you seem to be arguing that this article should be an exception from how we do things everywhere else on the encyclopedia with regard to criticism, NPOV, and reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can’t deal with the problems in other articles, here. Lord knows the rules are flouted and that will have to be fought on other articles.

I don’t think you read me correctly. I object to her quote as an attack. It’s a quote taken out of context. As I read the above, it’s clear to me that editors can’t agree on what exactly she means. Parvez (who incidentally makes good points) says in his article that the quote is from another “article by the St. Petersburg Times.” (Parvez extracts this quote to attack the speakers without it being pinned on him. It mars an otherwise decent opinion piece.) If we had the context we would be able to know just what she means by “extreme,” what is so “horrifying”, what “damning” means and if she makes distinctions between the diverse participants. Do we have that article? Can we see the context? Jason from nyc (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I understand that you think the quote is an attack, but you're misunderstanding our policy and/or simply don't care that that's not how we work. I'm not asking you to "deal with the problems in other articles," but to recognize that your personal interpretation of policy is out of line with the prevailing understanding of the community. As for context, I'm sure it would be interesting, but it isn't our place to do that kind of speculation - WP:OR asks us to go with what's in reliable sources without drawing our own conclusions, even if they are obvious from what we know about the speakers' views. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm applying the policy as it is written. Attacks, regardless if they are made by a journalist or scholar, violate the injunction to "take particular care when adding information about living persons." Jason from nyc (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia disagrees with you that that is a correct interpretation of the policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since the content dispute is continuing despite blocks being handed out recently, I've protected the page indefinitely. Please obtain consensus for the disputed areas. I encourage use of WP:3O or other informal dispute resolution processes. Any admin is free to lift the protection without consulting me if they feel that the consensus (or lack thereof) obtained on this page will be respected. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes I have read WP:WRONG. Still I'm going to make an argument that you should revert to this version (edited by me). Here are my reasons:

• This revision is meant to be a compromise. It makes some concessions to Roscelese, and some concessions to Kwamikagami. (I am ignoring the IP who I believe is here to troll Roscelese.)
• This revision is probably the closest to this old revision (edited by Jeff) which was able to stand nearly untouched for 8 months before this whole ordeal erupted again late in March of this year.
• This revision puts Haddad's comment before the comments by CAIR, something both Kwami's revision and Roscelese's revision fail to do. This is important because the CAIR people refer to Haddad's comment (see where it says "CAIR elaborated on their criticism of the summit, referring to Haddad's comments on the speakers' extremism...") This doesn't make sense without having Haddad's comment first.
• Concessions made to Roscelese: Dropping the "Prince Awaleed Center" synthesis that Roscelese has been trying to remove (see above), and trying to make Haddad's comment more prominent by putting it first in the paragraph (but not going so far as to give it its own paragraph).
• Concessions made to Kwami: Keeping the original paragraph order: praise paragraph followed by criticism paragraph, and dropping the "anti-Islam" from the "...described the speakers as being extreme in their anti-Islam views" clause.

Option 2 would be to revert the Reception section to its July 2012 state and restore the POV tag at the top of the article, since that was the last stable revision. Feel free to vote on this or treat it like an RfC. If nobody chooses to comment I'll open an edit request. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely not. I assure you I will continue to monitor the progress here. I didn't pay attention to whose version the article was on when I protected it, and it's largely irrelevant. As long as there is no outright vandalism or gross BLP violation on the page, there is no reason to revert it or change the protected version. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for continuing to monitor here. I didn't actually expect you to make any edits before anyone else had commented here or before some sort of consensus was formed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would even prefer this old version, but then with updated links. This was the last version which was, apart from some minor changes, all right for a few years. I know that Kwami did some editing before this version, but his contributions were already removed long before this version got ready.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Adjwilley: re: (see where it says "CAIR elaborated on their criticism of the summit, referring to Haddad's comments on the speakers' extremism...").

...except if you go to the source, it doesn't say that at all, it says a small Florida paper asked her to respond to the names. Which names? Doesn't say. The prof isn't responding to CAIR at all, she's responding to some unnamed reporter in some podunk town in Florida who picked up the phone and asked her for a quote. And the prof's claims are extraordinary claims indeed. If true, that these people have all converted away from Islam, which they themselves do not say on their own websites, it would warrant the death penalty, according to the theology of CAIR. 61.4.72.107 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Brief point by point: 1. She comments in the source that the speakers have extreme views. What exactly are you claiming is not in the source? 2. No one is arguing that she's responding to CAIR; rather, we state that CAIR mentioned her comments. Try reading harder next time. 3. St. Petersburg is not a small town nor the Tampa Bay Times a minor paper. As well, St. Petersburg is where the summit was held, so it's not exactly a little town paper finding the nearest man in the street for comment. 4. She doesn't state that they've converted away from Islam, but luckily, even if she had, we wouldn't have to take her word for it, since most of the speakers are very public about it. Ibn Warraq, for instance, has written an entire book called Why I Am Not a Muslim, so he's evidently less of a coward than you make him out to be. 5. Don't waste everyone's time with the "theology of CAIR" nonsense. If you're going to continue trying to edit this article, behave like a reasonable editor. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, the publication quoted was the Florida-Times Union -- hardly the NYT or BBC -- and CAIR did not mention her at all; they have no idea she exists.61.4.72.107 (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

CAIR refers to her by name, and quotes her comment from the Tampa Bay Times, in the op-ed published in the Times-Union after the summit. I'm not sure how much clearer this can be. If you're not going to bother to read the cited sources, there is nothing to be gained by continuing this conversation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

CAIR does not quote her at all. Did you really think no one would check? 61.4.72.107 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

[2] On the assumption that you are just unwilling to do the work of following the link from the article, rather than deliberately lying just to be annoying, here is the link. This is the end of this conversation until you decide to be productive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please replace the 2nd paragraph of the #Reception section with the following, and then swap the order of the paragraphs.

The summit was described by Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal as "a landmark."^[1] Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University questioned whether the summit was actually nonpartisan, saying many summit speakers were extreme in their views and were known for being anti-Islam.^[2] Michael Ledeen of the politically conservative American magazine National Review, who attended the summit, described the participants as ex-Muslims and believers,^[3] adding, "I think it is no longer possible for people to say there are no reformist (or “moderate”) Muslims."^[3] Arnold Trebach, a professor emeritus of American University's Department of Justice, Law and Society, also mentioned the summit in the Washington Times as "a tiny spark of hope and reason," saying that all must try to protect the lives of the speakers.^[4]

(You'll need to take off the italics.)

I feel this is probably about as close as we're going to come to a compromise without being able to actually edit the article itself, and I know that I for one am getting a little burned out on the talk page discussion. Jeff will note that it no longer has the not about the "conservative" commentators. It is adding the Haddad quote back in language that has mostly been agreed upon. Anyway, I plan on leaving this up for a day before activating this with the {{editprotected}} template to see if there are any strong objections. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Any thoughts re: my comments above about swapping Haddad with Stephens's op-ed? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the proposal is pretty good. Two points:

We don't need to give ref [3] twice: Once at the end of the summary is sufficient.

Haddad does not say they are "anti-MuslimIslam". I disagree that that is a good paraphrase. She says they are known for damning Islam, but that's not the same thing. I've known many people who condemn the things the US has done, but who aren't anti-American. Similarly, many Catholics condemn the behaviour of their church, but that doesn't make them anti-Catholic. — kwami (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

We don't say "anti-Muslim," but thanks for the soapbox. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here we go again. Haddad didn't question whether the summit was actually nonpartisan. The Tampa Bay Times concluded this from Haddad's words. That is a subtle difference.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I understand the concern. Is their interpretation wrong? Isn't it best to let them do the interpretation (as in secondary vs. primary)? ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Kwami, Roscelese, is there a compromise to be found on the "anti-Islam" bit? Perhaps something along the lines of "speaking out against Islam" or "opposing conservative Islam" or something like that... I'd like to avoid using the word "damning" because it's not clear what it means. I'd rather figure out what it means and then use that word instead. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Any qualifier to "Islam" is obviously completely unsuitable, since the whole point of the criticism is that they oppose Islam as a whole. "Speaking out" has connotations undesirable for an encyclopedia article, but feel free to suggest other things. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

If it's not clear what Haddad means, how can we paraphrase her? — kwami (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Roscelese, I agree that "speaking out against Islam" is not the right wording, as it implies that Islam did something bad and they're the whistle-blowers or whatever. I was hoping for some better ideas..."being critical of Islam", "criticizing Islam", "opposing Islam", "condemning Islam", "publicly criticizing Islam", etc. I kind of like "condemning". @Kwami, I think it is clear what Haddad means once you dig at it. I think she's saying that many of the participants were known for publicly condemning and criticizing Islam. (See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/damn 2,b) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think "condemning" or "criticizing" would be okay. — kwami (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Adjwilley , if you really want to paraphrase, the two (extreme) options for the Haddad fragment are:

1) As one of the few experts in the field, Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University did a research on the summit speakers and discovered that they had extreme anti-Islam views.

2) An unfriendly comment came from Yvonne Haddad of the Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding. Without further explanation, she labeled the proponents of democracy as anti-Islam extremists.

Both are true, but the POV is VERY clear. To be honest, I do not think we can make a text that will satisfy all participants in this discussion. So again, let me propose that we should go back to the text where Roscelese nor kwami (nor me) had a part in. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think "condemning" is a fine paraphrase of "damning" (however, I reiterate that I don't care whether we use the actual quote or a reasonable paraphrase, so I'll let you guys keep working that out). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Jeff, I actually think we're getting close to finding a paraphrase that will satisfy everyone involved. "Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University questioned whether the summit was actually nonpartisan, saying many summit speakers were known for condemning Islam." Thank you, by the way, for pointing out the extreme options. I agree that we want to avoid both of those. Do you have a diff for your preferred text? Would you be able to live with the new sentence proposed here? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looking that the history of the article I noticed that the Haddad statement has been contentious for a number of years. I believe the difficulty is the terse nature of the statement that leaves key words unclear. It far from clear what Haddad means by “horrified,” “extreme,” and “damning.” Attempts to assign meaning involves WP:POV and WP:SYN implicitly or explicitly bringing in other matters or personal suspicions. If the editors can’t agree on the meaning of this sentence than I can’t see how this statement can be used. (On the other hand, Parvez Ahmed explains his position and he could be a source of criticism if one sticks to what he says.) Jason from nyc (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Adjwilley's version is good: "Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University questioned whether the summit was actually nonpartisan, saying many summit speakers were known for condemning Islam." Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Actually" doesn't seem to fit there. Did anyone claim the summit was nonpartisan? I doubt anyone invited the Taliban. — kwami (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I will drop the "actually" in the edit request. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

First request Please replace the 2nd paragraph of the #Reception section with the following, and then swap the order of the paragraphs.

The summit was described by Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal as "a landmark."^[1] Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University questioned whether the summit was nonpartisan, saying many summit speakers were known for condemning Islam.^[2] Michael Ledeen of the politically conservative American magazine National Review, who attended the summit, described the participants as ex-Muslims and believers, adding, "I think it is no longer possible for people to say there are no reformist (or “moderate”) Muslims."^[3] Arnold Trebach, a professor emeritus of American University's Department of Justice, Law and Society, also mentioned the summit in the Washington Times as "a tiny spark of hope and reason," saying that all must try to protect the lives of the speakers.^[5]

We've basically beat it out above, and this seems to be a revision that everybody is pretty much ok with. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Did we want to include Roscelese's suggestion from the next section? — kwami (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Second request: At the end of the first paragraph of the #Participants section, please replace "an expert on Islamic law" with "director of Shariah at the Muslim Canadian Congress". There is consensus for this edit in the section below. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Partisan and Non-Partisan, in the mind of most readers, suggests taking sides in party politics but can be used more generally as taking sides. I don't see Haddad using this word or talking about partisanship at all. This strikes me as original research and synthesis. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well then, let's make it this way:It was questioned whether the summit was nonpartisan when Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University was quoted saying that many summit speakers were known for condemning Islam.^[2]. Better?Jeff5102 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

This source says quite explicitly that Haddad questioned the summit's non-partisan status. In my view trying to say that she didn't question it based on the snippet of her comment available to us is more WP:OR than simply stating what the source says. Likewise, with the SYNTH concern, it's only synth if it's the editor who does the synthesis. If there's a secondary source that does it than it's ok. Really, with this sentence, close paraphrasing should be more of a concern than OR or SYNTH. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we even need to go to that source - the original source is quite clear that Haddad, an expert on Islam, is questioning the summit's nonpartisan status. What's with the bizarre passive voice construction? It doesn't solve Jason's problem (who is just coming up with increasingly weird justifications to remove Haddad entirely) and it would make the article look silly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Adjwilley, your source doesn't say anything. It just repeats what the Tampa Bay Times said before. However, I think you are right on the guidelines issue. And Roscelese, thanks again for your promo-talk for Haddad, but I believe her profession was already known here. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Uhh, nice try, but I'm just quoting the source here. If it said "Muslims question the summit's nonpartisan status" or "green aliens question the summit's nonpartisan status," then there might be a little more parsing to do, but the sentence before Haddad's quote is obviously in reference to her. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Jeff, the only reason I was using that source was because I couldn't find a live link to the Tampa Bay Times at the time that I was posting. (I realize it just repeats it.) Either way, the statement from the source: "Yvonne Haddad, a Georgetown University professor and expert on Islam questioned the nonpartisan status of the conference" should be able to support our statement that "Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University questioned whether the summit was nonpartisan".

I think we're just waiting for a response from Jason now. (I think that even if he doesn't respond we're close enough to consensus to make the edit anyway.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

While consensus doesn’t require unanimity, I appreciate the interest in my thoughts. I don’t understand the use of “In Focus News” reference if that’s the source of the non-partisan phrase. If we are using sources not cited, is that not original research and synthesis? I can’t tell what the partisan sides are: Republican vs. Democrat? conservative vs. liberal? Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb? believer vs. infidel? Why bring in a word that's unclear and not used by Haddad in any form? She does question the “line-up” on the grounds that they are excessively critical of Islam in her view. That's all I see in her quote. Exactly how, why, and on what grounds isn’t clear from her cryptic sentence. I think we’re combining our knowledge with her words to create a synthesis which may or may not be what she intended. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, it was the Tampa Bay Times who did it, not any Wikipedia=editor. And since the TBT is a reliable source, it is no violation of the SYNTH-rule. Now the article it is all right. I think we still can improve it, but I have no time at the moment to spend my time on this tiresome topic. I hope I'll have some time in the near future, but that's for later. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I've made the requested edits. With due respect to Jason's concern about the use of the term "nonpartisan", I feel that the consensus on this page is in favor of the edit as it stands. Now, I wonder if we can unprotect the page. Thoughts? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Well, there's been no activity here for a while or even an answer to my query, so I'm going to lift the protection. I'm watching this article, so please play nice. I'm going to be more inclined to hand out blocks to the next editor(s) that start an edit war rather than re-protecting the page. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Sounds good; thanks for following up and keeping an eye on things here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article states: and Hasan Mahmud (an expert on Islamic law).

This implies that that Hasan Mahmud has formal academic training, and/or position at an academic institute or think tank on Islamic Law. Under closer investigation he has no formal training on this subject or expertise other than self claim and a few books. It is suggested that the wording should be and Hasan Mahmud ("an expert on Islamic law"). in quotes to show that it is a claim and not a stated fact, and makes it consistent with his personal description on his wikipedia page: [[3]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.135.13 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not personally familiar with his credentials, but you're right that the sources don't back up the scholarly credentials that the phrase implied. Thank you for catching that. The description in the source is "director of Shariah at the Muslim Canadian Congress" - I'd rather use that than quoting a self-promotional phrase. What do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, putting "expert" in scare quotes is not encyclopedic. The title Roscelese gives is much better. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Maybe when the other edit request "goes live" we can add this change too, then. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply