User talk:Jason from nyc/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Footnotes

Sometimes footnotes are the appropriate place to put modern names and the citation showing the connection, for ancient references. Also piping links work well, preserving the ancient name, but linking to the actual article about the place. --Bejnar (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Much thanks, Bejnar. I argued for a piping link but didn't get much support. The problem is mainly in the infobox where brevity makes sense. In the article, a longer exposition allows full clarity and context. We can't even agree if the birth-place in the info box should be a geographical location or a legal jurisdiction. Should it be the region or the whole 'empire'? I see no standards written down. I was directed to a debate over the problem of those born in the former Soviet Union and now referring to their birth-nation using current geography. But my problem is much easier. Ancient and medieval individuals aren't part of today's changing history. I thought the scholarly literature should be a guide. After all, Wikipedia should reflect the literature and not personal points of view. However, the infobox is a minor point since the text allows full explanation. I was just trying to make the infobox terse and exact. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

As well as biography, you will find many a POV artist editing in the geographical articles in the Wikipedia. Notable hot spots are/have been Poland, Iran, Afghanistan, Greater Caucasia and Greece. --Bejnar (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Jason from nyc. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.69.132 (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is not listed because IP is an IP and cannot list articles for deletion. As such, I have removed the tag from the article. I have also responded to IP's fallacious argument at the talk page. -Rrius (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

IP logged in and has sort of listed it. You can't go to the actual AfD page for the article, but it is listed here. -Rrius (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Brown (writer)

Jason, thank you for proposing Gates of Vienna for deletion. That article has a wikilink to Andrew Brown (writer). Should this be deleted too? It lacks substantial independent sources. The newspaper he works for having a profile of him does does not count as establishing notability in my views. I would value your advice.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete review for categories

A discussion is taking place as to whether the category Category:Islamophobia was deleted in concensus or whether it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The categories will be discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Category:Islamophobia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. --Pudeo' 13:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see

Please see Talk:2007–2012_global_financial_crisis#RM_on_hold Smallbones (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Kitten

Thank you so much. I havn't had someone tell me I've done something right in over a year. I greatly appreciate it.

Rainbowofpeace has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ... and thank you for your participation. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Drone Strikes in Pakistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Babar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

Please refrain from canvassing individuals for the AfD concerning the article you created. Volunteer Marek  13:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were supposed to inform others of pending AfD's. Reading Wikipedia:CANVASS tells me that it is appropriate to notify users who have been involved in the editing of the existing article or similar articles. I have notified two users that I only know from "edit history" and I have no idea how they may vote. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Except, AFAICT, it can be easily verified that neither of the users you notified has ever edited the article in question [1], rather it looks like they've edited OTHER articles with a POV similar to yours, hence your canvassing.

Additionally, EVEN IF they had edited the article, in order to avoid violating WP:CANVASS, you should have at the very least alerted editors who have edited the article but who might not agree with your POV, for example User:Roscelese. The fact that you did not suggests that your actions were not carried out in good faith. Volunteer Marek  16:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually the editors in question edited an article that you deleted without an AfD but which we are discussing in our AfD. I have no idea if they have a similar view or opposite view since I did not examine their edits. I only know that they have thought about this kind of article and that they are "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." And User:Roscelese already knows about our article (an examination of her talk page history shows I have informed her about AfD's in the past but I didn't have to here). I'll reframe from informing others to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss your recent revert of my edit.

I have started a new section on [[2]] to discuss your recent revert of my edit. Please explain the reason for your revert there. PerDaniel (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jason from nyc. You have new messages at Talk:Financial crisis of 2007–2008.
Message added 19:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Casa Grande bombing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iraqi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Give valid reason rather than ordering it to be deleted!

--Lubna Rizvi 19:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)

Email

Email's out. Best Gun Powder Ma (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Do not disrupt established Wikipedia referenced content

Your opinions are yours. Your edits conflict with the wiki policy. An opinion cannot be fringe when it is sourced and in a section discussing a controversy and why it is a controversy. Multiply sources cannot all be 'Racist" and you alone do not decide content that has been in the article far longer than you have been on wikipedia. Your PPOV is your own, it is not the policy of wikipedia. Moreover your political issue with islamophobia has clearly spilled over to arab slave trade. 5 sources were destroyed in your edit attack. If something is FRINGE, then prove it. Why is it fringe to dispute the numbers? Why is it racist, because something being racist is not wikipedia criteria, how many people think things are racist? I do not go deleting things because I personally think an author or website is racist. How does that work?--Inayity (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for using the talk page, and I have just looked at the about page. Which gives opportunity to under privileged writers of African heritage. Is that your definition of racism?

We reject all manifestations of oppression (From South Africa to Palestine), ignorance, globalization, monoculturalization, cultural imperialism, gender suppression, intolerance, religious (Islamophobia, antisemitism, etc), and ethnic hatred. And in this mission, we create new opportunities for people potential by removing inequity that has stymied the hope and contributions of marginalized people. --Inayity (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll discuss the issue of references and notability on the article's talk page, i.e. Talk:Arab_slave_trade. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

geller

Please see the talk page. nableezy - 18:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

2013 Woolwich attack

I'm wondering why you made this edit.VR _talk 20:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The recent update at the end of the paragraph (by another editor) has more complete information and statistics. That was an earlier report that served its purpose. Do we need two reports? If not, the more recent and more detailed is preferable. I had no objection to the early information (and I believe I was the 1st person to add attacks against Muslims [3] and I'm glad that it's been expanded) but must we keep breaking news when latter articles that have more evidence can do better? Jason from nyc (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. I didn't see the other editor's addition, and also didn't see any addition by you, so wondered what was going on. However, the two stats are talking about different things. The later stat for example doesn't mention attacks on mosques.VR _talk 23:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2008–13 Spanish financial crisis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Spain needs its young people to create new businesses|date=6/1/2013|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Gee, thanks!

"By the way, Anti-Judaism has the best referenced material on the same topic."

Of course, it's a group effort and all, but I'll take the compliment! After all, heck, I got a WP:3RR block -- perhaps two! -- for just trying to write that article during its early days.[4] -- Kendrick7^talk 04:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles on religion are difficult to edit and reach a consensus. I did notice you use a 1903 book by Lazare. I often read and use classic books but get push-back from the other editors. (I had my reference to Gibbon's "Decline and Fall ..." removed.) I made major contributions to Renaissance of the 12th century that is heavily based on Haskins' 1927 book with that very title. Some object (to the reference and the thesis.) It's the best book on the topic and in the late 80s a symposium (and book) celebrated Haskins' contribution. In any case, I look at the references. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

My general opinion is that today's editors are, perhaps un-fortuitously as it relates to content, authoring the primary third rewrite upon the secondary reports of the first draft of history. Future readers, perhaps long removed from our own recent history, must be allowed to sort it all out, which is why WP:PRESERVE is, and must remain policy. A policy by which, even if it must be just a mere external link, your Gibbons reverence, if on topic, may never be removed, FWIW. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your commitment to using tried and true sources in order to build a working encyclopedia of human knowledge Kendrick7talk 04:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arab conspiracy theories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Shaab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

UAF demonstration

How do you get to "On 7 September 2013, 150 UAF demonstrators were arrested in a protest against anti-Islamist demonstrators." from a source that says "About 3,000 police officers were deployed to keep a group of 500 members of the right-wing English Defence League, or EDL, apart from a larger group of anti-racist protesters, including Unite Against Fascism." and "A police spokesman said about 150 counter-protesters were arrested after a group broke away". Nothing there says they were UAF demonstrators. Your later edit changing it to UAF-led is not much better, as virtually all source save one only mention the UAF as one among other groups. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I read several sources even though I only quoted two. UAF was largely responsible for organizing. I'd like you to put back the section in question as this source says "a splinter group left Unite Against Fascism’s (UAF) main demonstration." You may, of course, add further description. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Then I'd be reverted by Emeraude (who reverted me accidentally but reverted himself). It's clear that the dailies aren't saying that, at least the ones I found. If you want to go to RSN and argue that we should use that despite Reuters, the Guardian, etc saying UAF was only one of the groups, feel free. And new sources may appear, but at the moment I can only find that one weekly saying UAF organised it. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The other sources are silent on the issue of organization. Thus, only one mentions "ownership" of the demonstration and they refer to it as UAF's. I'd like for you to sign on to the consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The consensus in the media is that the UAF is one of the groups involved (the other mentioned group being Hope not Hate. But that's not the main problem, I let myself get bogged down in the obvious fact that one of the sources used to say it was organised by the UAF was Reuters, which just says UAF was one of the groups. The main issue is why should it be mentioned at all? There is no evidence that the UAF was involved in the breakaway group, no mention that the EDL leader was arrested along with about 14 others who were charged with public order offences such as carrying a knife, or that the almost 300 others who were arrested were arrested for breaking the conditions of the march. And it isn't clear to me why you didn't edit the EDF article if you think this march is worth mentioning. Rushing to add news stories such as this to an article is often a bad idea as the first stories often don't cover the whole situation and can have errors. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed worthy of mention in the EDL list: List_of_English_Defence_League_demonstrations but I tend to do one edit at a time and wait for feedback. (By the way note that in the 2nd of March protest in the EDL list, there is mention of 350 UAF counter demonstrators with a BBC reference that doesn't even mention UAF at all -- although the other reference mentions the UAF the 350 are only referred to as counter demonstrators.) I've edited there before and half of the "Academic analysis" in the main EDL article is mine and it has survived over time with little change. (I haven't watched that article in over a year.) But that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. Back to UAF. Why mention it? The UAF was responsible for the event, setting the tone, gathering the particular people involved, and in general was the co-sponsor. This was their event. The arrests happened from activity that came out of their gathering. Sponsoring such gatherings/confrontations is one of their main activities. The results are notable. Yes, there are risks in early reports but we can always correct them. This was my first time editing the UAF article. Is was an experiment. It told me there are heavy guards protecting and rejecting anything that doesn't fit the party line (although I don't think your one of them.) I was hoping you'd agree with me that UAF was a sponsor and this happened from their gathering ... and that it is notable. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The UAF boasts "five thousand people have joined a Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and United East End (UEE) demonstration" [5] and "will offer support to anyone arrested." It's interesting that the United East End wasn't even mentioned in the Docklands & East London Advertiser, a community newspaper. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

All of which shows why rushing to add news events is often a bad idea. There's no rush and we should try to get it right. But it looks as though the East London Advertiser was right. You won't have seen [6] when you wrote the above. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great article at Arab conspiracy theories. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it comes at an important time as I was getting discouraged. Jason from nyc (talk)

Let me endorse this. Minor thing, I think you need to improve your citations. Do you have a cite template in the various menus above the editing field when you edit? Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your review as it takes a good team to insure neutrality. I welcome help on citations. I've always done it by hand and haven't explored the citation drop-down & templates. Has it always been there and I've missed it? Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Nina Rosenwald and NPOVN

Extended content

Hi, Jason. Just dropped by to say I enjoyed reading your comments about the Nina Rosenwald article at the NPOV noticeboard. Your intelligent suggestion about "taking the high road" in BLPs, I'm afraid, falls on ears that are stone deaf. It's certain that one who follows another who is blind (to his own POV) and deaf (to good suggestions) will end up in a ditch far from the high road. Courage! --72.66.30.115 (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC) This from an editor who interprets sources - in an instance where the source said "anti-Muslim", xhe interpret it as "islamization". This is similar to suggesting that a source said "Islamophobic" when it said "anti-Muslim". It's especially important to stick to what sources say in BLPs. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Unless of course the obvious intention of the sources is to slime the subject of the BLP, in which case we might not want to stick to what they say quite so closely. Your problem here, Douggie, is that you seem to want to accept Blumenthal & Musaji's opinions (anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, Islamophobic) as facts when they're nothing more than controversial opinions. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC) They are "controversial opinions" because you personally disagree with them? I'm sorry, but you don't get to promote your own personal opinion over the assessment of reliable sources. If you have other questions about how we operate here, the Teahouse is a resource for new members that can help explain our reliable sourcing policies to you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Agreed. At least the IP is now admitting that that his edits are original research and pov. And Blumenthal, etc are indeed opinions and we state them as such, not fact. Our beliefs shouldn't be part of editing but the IP doesn't seem to be willing to keep his out. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Me personally, Roscelese, and every one of the donee organizations now listed in the article would dispute that they are "anti-Muslim", "anti-Islam" or "Islamophobic". We will not be describing them in terms used by their fringe political opponents in Wikipedia's voice as that would violate NPOV. As I told Doug, there is no requirement that fringe or even controversial opinions be included in the lead at all (see the lead of featured article Barack Obama for proof of this). And, having seen how you operate here, Roscelese, I choose not to be a follower, thanks anyway. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not part of the above interaction and will hide it from further view. Allow me not to comment further for that will draw me into the fray and my time and attention is elsewhere. Thank you. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Time for the fish

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

This new discussion is for me the last straw in your drive against the racism connection at Islamophobia. What's wrong with the many previous discussions about the matter? Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss it on that Islamophobia talk page. I'd like to hear your response to the detailed review of the many recent books. Seriously! Jason from nyc (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Islamophobia

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Islamophobia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -TFD (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nathanial Branden

WP:OPENPARA is very clear that what we put in the lead sentence is the country of which the subject was a citizen. It is also very specific that we do not refer to "birth country" using -born. I know, I was involved in creating it. Branden was either a Canadian or American citizen. If Canadian, that's what we put in the lead sentence. Sounds like a Canadian expatriate living in the US. We still say "Canadian", only, unless he was naturalized American. Please observe our style and content guidelines on this. Continuing to insert this erroneous information is vandalism.

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Nathanial Branden. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines say "a citizen, national or permanent resident." He resided in the USA his whole adult life. If you don't want help on this trivial matter, fine. I have a life to live. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 969 Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-Muslim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Quilliam (think tank)

Hi Jason. Just to let you know I've opened a topic on the talk page regarding your revert of the first para of "Criticism" - I explain there why I don't think it should be there (and I earlier transferred some relevant information to earlier in the article). Could you have a look and let me know if I've got something wrong. If not, could you please revert again. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Islamophilia

I liked the paragraph on Islamophilia you added to Islamophobia - thought-provoking, particularly its outlining of Islamophilia's (or certain strains of it) tending "towards a monolithic visions of Muslims just as much as Islamophobia", which 'chimes' with some things Maajid Nawaz says about politically liberal views of Muslims in his book Radical. Two editors have removed your paragraph, though, and Dougweller has suggested that a separate article on Islamophilia should be made of this which Islamophobia could make it a "see also". I'm quite happy to help create such an article (assuming you have some more material) as I have some bibliographic material I could use for this, including tangentially related 'Orientalism' which may be found in the arts. Let me know your thoughts. Alfietucker (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There might be solid grounds for a separate article as there is a scholarly book with the word in the title. Let's see if the editors agree it should be part of the Islamophobia article, at the very least as a comparison. However, if you are inspired to create a whole article, you have my vote (and permission to take anything I wrote). Jason from nyc (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Template Islamophobia

Perhaps I understand why you removed this, but your first edit summary "dispute" seems irrelevant, and your second one ambiguous. Could you be more specific. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There was an RfC on organizations in discrimination Templates: “Should organisations be included in templates such as Islamophobia, Racism and anti-Semitism". Of course, I don’t need to tell you that since you’re the originator (requestor?) of the RfC. The RfC is here. You supported inclusion and I opposed it. Jethro closed it with a mid-way position saying that inclusion was possible if (a) “high-quality sources must be unambiguous and there can be no serious dispute in classifying the group's activity in regards to the template” and (b) “WP:BLPGROUP be strictly followed with regard to classifying small groups under such templates.” I think DHFC falls short of both. Now, someone like David Duke is unambiguously racist and universally condemned as such across the political spectrum as is the KKK that he represents. Of course, that’s the extreme and an obvious case. We’re still left with finding the dividing line on “high-quality,” “unambiguous” and “no serious dispute.” Also, since the DHFC is basically Horowitz plus a few hired hands, I worry about (b) also. What do you think, Doug? Jason from nyc (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the only reason to remove it is the size of the organisation. If you'd said that I wouldn't have objected. It's closely identified with him so we need better sources. But 'disputed' isn't enough because in politics, issues with religion or race, etc, everything is disputed. Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought both but size is one of the criteria and was one that I used as a basis for the argument (see above) but didn't mention on the edit line (given the space). On the other we need to have a discussion among editors as to where the line is drawn. Jason from nyc (talk)

Yvonne Haddad

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I'm not sure how you came to nominate the article on leading US academic Yvonne Haddad for deletion. Possibly you were not aware of the criteria in WP:PROF? -- 101.119.14.239 (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think this is more serious. This looks like a bad faith nomination and I no longer see you as able to edit Islam related articles with impartiality. Dougweller (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw little else but self-published sources WP:BLPSPS as I explained. I'm not familiar with citation criteria or how to come by it. I was unaware of the citation rate in WP:PROF, 101. I see a good reference from Goff that was recently added. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you weren't aware of our criteria for notability, but still went ahead and nominated. You've nominated a number of BLPs in the past, most of which were kept. I really think you need to be absolutely certain you've both read the guidelines and thoroughly searched before creating any more. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I did post a notability notice back in May as I did similar for Robert Alfano another academic. I thought I knew the criteria but missed this one aspect that applies to academics. I usually don't edit biographies of academics and didn't fully realize the difference in criteria. I would appreciate information on accessing the citation rates that others are talking about. Care to inform me? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've replied on the AfD page regarding the relevant policies issues. The raw citation numbers are on Google Scholar. For Haddad, the list begins:

[BOOK] Islamic values in the United States: A comparative study

YY Haddad, AT Lummis - 1987...

Cited by 266

[BOOK] The Islamic understanding of death and resurrection

JI Smith, YY Haddad - 2002...

Cited by 216

[BOOK] Muslims in the West: from sojourners to citizens

YY Haddad - 2002...

Cited by 144

The h-index you need to compute manually (or you can get software to do it). In Haddad's case, just those three books are probably enough for WP:PROF #1, though, because that's 626 independent scholarly publications talking about her work. -- 101.119.15.86 (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, 101. I see the citation numbers starting with the most cited (266). About how many would you say is safe for a well-cited academic? I was considering an article for J. H. Christensen who has citation numbers starting at 3196 as does R Turlay. Of course, I don't want to count the experiment they did as graduate students that led to a Noble Prize for their advisors. WP:PROF notes the concern with experimental collaborations and "collaboration distance" which might imply these two are not be notable. It looks like a difficult undertaking. I'll read more. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said, most WP:PROF decisions are made by calculating a h-index, with a threshold somewhere between 15 and 20, depending on what's "normal" in their field. A single publication with over 1,000 citations would certainly do it as well, based on past AfDs, if they were lead author, so J. H. Christensen should be OK. The "collaboration distance" phrase refers to things like Erdős number -- low Erdős numbers don't relate to notability. -- 101.119.14.254 (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Megyn Kelly

I references your edits to Fox News Channel controversies‎ on the Megyn Kelly talk page, here. Just thought you might be interested in that discussion :) LM2000 (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Unreliability of peer-reviewed research

Jason, thanks for posting this link at WP:RSN#Reliability of Education-related PhD thesis: School uniform "study". I hadn't seen that one! I'm a Ph.D. student right now, and have been surprised by the general level of naïveté among scientists about the reliability of statistical results. I've often heard statisticians point out commonplace errors in science (e.g. John Ioannidis), but apparently that information is not well-known. I think Wikipedia's policy of strongly preferring secondary to primary sources handles this pretty well. But it's nice to have such a thorough and readable article about this.

I'm glad to help out. By the way, that article was one of several in the Economist on the topic--one of which was a front page article. I worry when I see a single article as a reference. On one astrophysics article I saw several references to journal articles that I couldn't access. I worried the authors themselves (or their grad students) might be pushing their research. Perhaps if I had citations I could be assured. In any case, I did find the basic information in books (some which were in their nth edition) and put those citations in the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Schlussel

Thanks very much for helping out with this article. Regarding the last sentence (about support for a film, etc), I'm not sure it's WP:OR, but am glad to leave it out for conciseness. See WP:SELFPUB. Although I suppose that a claim of hacking might be considered an "exceptional claim" that there's a conspiracy to silence her.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It's understandably an emotional issue for many. Hopefully we got close to a consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

P.s.

I see from your user page you're a grandfather. I just want to say that I approve of grandfathers. Keep up the good work there!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought my work was done here. ... I just wanted everyone to know I was old without being specific. I could put a user box saying "I used punch cards for an IBM360" or "I can use a sliderule" but these would be too obscure. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I could tell you were old (in the main sense it matters here) by the fact that you act like a grownup. It's rare enough around these parts.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Nominal vs. evaluative

((... continued from Talk:Stop_Islamization_of_America#Break_at_nominal_vs._evaluative ...))

Do you mind if I move the conversation here? I just have a feeling it's gone as far as it's going to go with respect to edits on the SIOA page. I thought about your distinction for a long time, and finally decided that even without some kind of nihilistic epistemology, I don't see how to make it tenable. You say that we can call Ted Kaczynski a serial killer in the lead sentence because he was convicted, but that we shouldn't call the Weathermen a terrorist organization because they wouldn't call themselves that. Is that accurate?

One problem I see is that if criminal convictions necessarily deprive the subject of the right to define themselves, we have to worry (a) about jurisdictions; e.g. is Amanda Knox a murderer? Is Kaczynski a serial killer if he was convicted in the courts of the conquerors of the continent whose environmental integrity he killed to defend? Which convictions deprive a person of the right to self-define? We're surely not going to call George Washington a traitor in the lead sentence of his article, eh? Also, sometimes corporations are convicted of crimes. Does being convicted of a crime allow us to call, e.g., Standard Oil (or whatever they call themselves these days) a criminal organization and then say "well, it was convicted, so it doesn't have the right to define itself as an oil company." Furthermore, although we don't do it any more, it was possible once under U.S. law (well, Military occupational law, anyway) to declare organizations (e.g. the SS and the Nazi Party) as "criminal," so that anyone who was found in court to have been a member was guilty of a crime regardless of their actions. The organizations were convicted of criminality by the Nuremberg Tribunal. Why then do we not get to describe the Nazi Party as a criminal organization? Some countries still declare organizations criminal and mere membership a crime. How do we treat that? How do we treat Christian missionaries convicted in North Korea?

I appreciate the thought you've put into this, and I think your distinction will work for the mostly normal cases, but I still really don't see how to make it into a generally applicable principle. I really think it's not possible to draw a bright line between nominal and evaluative descriptions.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave several examples and only with Kaczynski do we have a case where he is currently described contrary to the principle that I'm advocating. Perhaps it would be best to say who he is before we explain his faults but quite frankly that is all that he is known for and there's no neutral word for murder. We can't say he was a leader like Hitler and Stalin and defer an explanation of his crimes as a leader to the 2nd paragraph. There's no need to focus on the exception to prove the rule. I picked the toughest cases, the most unsympathetic individuals and organizations, and in almost all a nominal description is provided before the critical evaluation is given: Baader-Meinhof Gang, Weather Underground, Unibomber, Socialist Workers Party (United States), Nation of Islam, Hitler, Stalin, and Dianetics. They are almost all defined (at first) in terms they would use as this is just how to put forth the idea as advocated or seen by the movement/individual before explaining the reality (derived from study, examination, analysis, and evidence gathering.) It's just logical.

Look at Hitler, another case that is hard to put the nominal before the evaluation: "Adolf Hitler ... was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party ... He was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany (as Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945. Hitler was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust." At the centre of? How about responsible for? This is an extreme case of being "nominal." We could have described him as a vicious genocidal maniac. Is there any doubt about that? If we can start with a nominal description for Hitler, (and its even less judgmental in the case of Stalin) we should strive to do this in other cases. I suppose (as another editor, Binksternet, wrote) that some people believe he did some good. Could it be commissioning the Volkswagen and building the Autobahn? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not say some people think Hitler did something good. A case could be made for Hitler, but I did not make it. Please do not misrepresent me. Also, don't reply to me or ping me as I will not rejoin this discussion. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that I'm focusing on Kaczynski because it's a weak point in your argument. I'm not. And I don't actually think Hitler's an edge case here. He was the leader of one of the major nations of the world for 12 years. Antisemitism and mass murder aren't even close to the main reasons he's important. The problem, which I don't think you've addressed yet, is that it's almost surely the point of view of the writer that determines whether a word is "nominal" or "evaluative." You say there's no neutral word for murder, and that's almost true, but who gets to decide the legitimacy of the conviction? We wouldn't say "killer" if they weren't convicted, but what if they were convicted of murder but we don't like the venue? For instance, we have any number of articles about military officers here because of WP:SOLDIER. Most have them have never done anything of note, but they get an article because of the notability guideline. Some of them have actually served in shooting wars. There are a bunch of WWII German ones. Are we to go to each one and, if they were in the SS, put that they were a murderer, since by virtue of membership they were essentially convicted by the Nuremberg Tribunal of conspiracy to commit murder. And what about all the American officers in Vietnam, convicted (usually in absentia) of crimes against humanity. Does that make that a "nominal" description because a duly constituted government tribunal found them guilty of war crimes? And the problem is, given any venue, even the US Federal Court system, there are people who have fairly serious reasons for not liking it. Leonard Peltier comes to mind. I haven't even looked, but I'd bet some money the first sentence doesn't call him a murderer. Anyway, this is rambling, sorry.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I implicitly provided a criteria for nominal vs. evaluative. It's basically terms the individual or organization would use (or wouldn't object to) to describe themselves in a straight forward fashion. It's what they stand for "on paper." We had the same kind of discussions in the Geller article where some wanted "Islamophobe" and "far right" in the lead sentence. Neither is a self-descriptor. It was easier to get a consensus in a BLP but I also argue that SIOA is essentially a BLP (see my link after your next section). What do you think there? Jason from nyc (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to think that I have read your Kaczynski comments. I would have written that differently by first mentioning his background (academic, hermit) and then adding that he mailed bombs and demanded his political tracts be published. It would be in the next sentence that I mention his conviction and sentence. I don't think BLPs should be written with "guilty" over the far head of the person, and that metaphorically is what his done by defining the person by their conviction. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. The huge difference between e.g. the NOI and SIOA is that the first is a genuine social movement. It has thousands of members, it has splinter groups and differences of opinion. It's a vast, organic organization. That makes it very hard to define with a single word or two for the same reason individual human beings can never be completely pinned down with mere words.

SIOA on the other hand is basically a corporate front for Geller and Spencer. It's not a real organization with a general theory of right-living that people live their lives in and infuse it with their human complexity. It's really just a shield for Geller and Spencer to hide behind, like a Guy Fawkes mask. It's simplistic (not ideologically but existentially) since there's no community there. Single words are appropriate for such cases.

Even the Manson Family was more complex, organic, and human than SIOA (not a value judgement); people lived real lives in the Manson Family; it was a community. That's not the case with SIOA. SIOA is like one of the zillion front organizations spun off by Eustace Mullins and his ilk to publish their random thoughts and lend them a facade of legitimacy. He and maybe one other guy were the sole membership in each case. That makes a huge difference; organic, communitarian organizations are complex and closer to human and their self-definitions are much weightier than phony front organizations that allow a very few people to alienate some small part of their ideologies from their real lives for defensive purposes.

The self-descriptions of such groups seem more like neurotic symptoms than anything to be taken seriously. That's why, in the end, I think it's best to stick with reliable sources to find our descriptions of everything, even if I personally would do it differently if I were the monarch of Wikipedia. I might like being monarch but I like not having a monarch even better. Thus RS and V seem at least tested, if not true, and I think it's safer to stick with them.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd agree with me here where I bring up this point: Talk:Stop_Islamization_of_America/Archive_1#Do_we_need_this_article.3F. What do you think? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. I see your point, but on the other hand, there's no way SIOA is not notable independently of Geller. I think it's best to accept the fact that the article will exist and focus on the fact that BLP policy applies on every page. How do you feel about the SIOA page in general by now? (setting aside the issue of descriptors)... it's possible that ordinary editing and vigilance can keep it fairly clean from coatracking negative stuff about Geller... possible only.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's much better since you've joined the editing team (and that's no disrespect for the senior editors that have longed worked on it). By the way, my point is that SIOA is basically Geller and we already cover SIOA in the Geller bio. But you're right that there will be no consensus for a "delete" or "merge" so I never proposed it. Also, if you read SIOA, I'm not asking for much more than reversing the order of the 1st two sentence. SIOA advocates X, Y, Z. Critics, seeing anti-Muslim bigotry, call it Islamophobic. Something like that. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's possible I could support something like this, although in this particular case it just doesn't seem colorable to use Geller's actual description. It's possible we could construct a sentence that used more "nominal" descriptors, but ones obtained from secondary sources, or at least drawn by us rather than Geller from the SIOA's self-descriptors. Perhaps we should bring this conversation back to the article talk page and try to come up with that sentence. Also, maybe for now we could separate the issue of the order of the sentences, which might help clarify the issues involved (although I see no reason not to discuss both at the same time, maybe just in separate sections). I'm not happy with the fact that our second sentence is a quote from Geller rather than our own synthesis of SIOA's self-description, so it's possible we could find something that people would support.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The ADL document might be helpful [7]; we now use the brief [8] in the SIOA article. I think the ADL does a better job than the SPLC. The ADL acknowledges the claims made by SIOA before they criticize. I just wish they had footnotes. I have to be away for a few days. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait till you get back if you don't mind. Let me know and we can start a section or two on the talk page. I think in general the ADL is more serious than the SPLC, which has come downhill a long way since their first couple of decades.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not trying to make any kind of point here, it just occurred to me last night and I was amused by it that "nominal" can itself be used as a POV-pushing hedge, e.g. "SIOA is nominally a human-rights advocacy group." So your position might be summed up (and again, I'm not doing this, just mentioning it because it amused me) as arguing that we should *use* nominal descriptors but we shouldn't *say explicitly* that they're nominal descriptors.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I have no problem with saying "Organization X claims (advocates, alleges, holds, etc) A, B, and C." The context usually makes that clear but making it explicit is fine. Again, one can follow it with "no one buys this" as we do with the scientific status of Dianetics. And it's not just people and institutions. Notice how this article states the thesis before we get to the last sentence of the first paragraph where it reads "... little of this work has been recognized by other scholars ...". What's the harm in hearing out the thesis before RS weigh in with a judgment? Jason from nyc (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Two Treatises of Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aristotelean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

ref

Hi Jason. These book you may interested for refernces.

• [9]
• [10]

36.81.44.199 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Liberty GB

An article that you have been involved in editing, Liberty GB, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ivanvector (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jason from nyc. You have new messages at Talk:Boko Haram.
Message added 07:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ochiwar (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikiislam

Hi, see this. I thought you might be interested. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS

I have added those extra few words for clarification in the "Ideology and belief" section; thanks for getting back to me on this. I have also added a couple of words to your entry about governance in Ar-Raqqah, but they are only small copy-eds, not real changes. Keep up the good work! --P123ct1 (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Talk page - Ideology and beliefs

There are two comments (from me and Mhhossein) which you will not have seen before making your comment just now. This is because there were two "Ideology and beliefs (3)" sections running earlier today. I had copied the first one to the end of the Talk page, then clean forgot to delete it! You understandably added your comment to the old version; our comments were added to the new version at the end. I have added in your comment before ours, as it didn't seem fair to you to put it after ours when you had not seen them. That's why the times are out. Many apologies! --P123ct1 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for merging these. I was wonder what happened. Let me give others a chance to weigh in. Again, I may be away for a few days. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Terrorism-NPOV-etc.

Hi. I invite you to contribute to Islamic terrorism, or tell your opinions in the talk page of the article on 'terrorists' as I have seen you elsewhere and appreciate your objective views. Thank you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the invite and vote of confidence. I wish I had the time. I'll keep it in mind. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. Nice meeting you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Description of Scholars

Hi Jason, I'f just like to check the addition of the text ", primarily Sufi," in this edit The reference ( http://muslimmatters.org/2014/10/01/muslim-scholars-letter-to-al-baghdadi-of-isis-or-isil-a-missed-opportunity/ ) mentions "coming from scholars that are of mostly sufi leaning." I'm not sure whetehr this is the muslim matters authors point of view, whether it reflects a view of Sufi sympathy or whether it reflects origins. Given the extents of populations such as that of Sunni Islam I find the muslim matters wording a bit of a stretch. Sources seen so far mention Sunni scholars. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's something I noticed a month ago and wrote about it on the ISIL talk pages (still there) where I said, "The only Saudi signer, Al-Sayyid Abdallah Fadaaq, is the leading Sufi cleric of the Hijaz. ... The Pakistani signer is Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, a Sufi scholar as I suspect Muhammad Suheyl Umar is as well [11]." I wondered about the other signers. Apparently this author, who is also the publisher and founder of Muslim Matters, states that that the signers are mostly Sufi. Sufi, is of course, Sunni but the mystical branch of the Sunni tradition. The author also questions the representation of other signers in that their politics are hostile to what he sees as an anti-imperialist movement. This also includes supporters of the Egyptian regime that removed the Muslim Brotherhood. While the author is critical of ISIL he doesn't believe the signers are respected by those, perhaps like himself, that are targets for ISIL recruitment. I didn't include any of this in the article since the article isn't about the document, its theology, or even its politics. The author seems to know the signers, what they stand for, and how they may be viewed in the Salafi jihadist community. (He's gone beyond a superficial report and has critically assessed the diverse backgrounds as to the possibility of reaching prospective recruits. This gives us some sense of the reception of this document in the Muslim community.) Jason from nyc (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers m8. I'm stunned. I did some checking myself and it seems to be at least roughly as you say. I also find it odd that the document doesn't even mention Sunni or Sufi when these are obviously relevant issues and, even though I'm still not fully convinced, I also feel pretty cynical about the way so called "reliable sources" could end up endorsing as "Sunni scholars". I despair. For want of clearer information I'd still prefer the direct use of citation wording as, "scholars that are of mostly sufi leaning". I'm just aware that the article on Sunni Islam describes it as "the largest branch of Islam" and am still open to the idea that the supposed RS might not be completely up the creek and that many Sunnis may have been involved. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That wording--"scholars that are [of] mostly Sufi leaning"--is fine. Yes, it seems that RS aren't doing their homework. They aren't digging and asking questions. I know journalists are limited as RS, but they are the "first draft of history" and one would hope they actually read the document, researched the signers, and perhaps called a few! (The lead of the article on Sufism seems to say it is and isn't just about everything. It must be one of the toughest aspects of Islam. I remember one book called it an umbrella term with variants of Sufism dependent on regional differences. The Indian variant often shares Saints and shrines with other religions.) Best of luck with your research ... it isn't easy. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bank on

Thank you for this which, in good ways, made me laugh which was very welcome. TY Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad someone got it ... and I too thought we could all use a good pun. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)