Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	List of charities accused of ties to terrorism
Status	Closed
Request date	14:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Bonewah, GRuban
Mediator(s)	PhilKnight (talk)
Comment	Closed as stale.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|List of charities accused of ties to terrorism]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|List of charities accused of ties to terrorism]]

Request details[edit]

Where is the dispute?[edit]

What does it take to be included on this list?

What's the dispute?[edit]

At issue here is this entry. Several questions arise surrounding this edit. Is Juan Cole (associate professor of middle eastern studies) a reliable source on terrorism? Is it necessary to have a reliable source for 'accusations', or just the accusations themselves? The cited source mentions terrorism in only 2 places. The title (Lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s “Charity” a Front for Terrorism) and a single line in the article (But the investigation into his activities by the FBI also shed light on the ways in which right-wing American Jews have often been involved in funding what are essentially terrorist activities by armed land thieves in Palestinian territory.) Is this actually an accusation? Is it necessary to have other sources that corroborate Cole's accusations? What qualifies something as having ties to terrorism? Does one have to be directly related to terrorism or just a proximate cause? Does wp:BLP, wp:libel, or wp:fringe apply here?

What would you like to change about this?[edit]

As mentioned above, I would like the Juan Cole / Capital Athletic Foundation entry removed in its entirety.

How do you think we can help?[edit]

Im not sure. Perhaps offer alternate strategies for this article that would break the deadlock. At a minimum, having an uninvolved party might smooth things over a bit.

Mediator notes[edit]

Hello, my name is Vicenarian (talk · contribs) and I have volunteered to be your mediator. I hope we can work together to find a solution to this dispute. To get started, I would ask that all interested parties sign below to indicate their acceptance of mediation and of me as mediator. Thank you, and I look forward to a productive and civil discussion with all. Regards, Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. --GRuban (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Bonewah (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes[edit]

If you pick up this case, please notify the article's talkpage. Thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's this going? Xavexgoem (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your responses. Any other interested party is, of course, welcome to constructively participate in this process.

To begin mediation, I've read over the previous statements you have made on the article talk page and elsewhere. What I'd like to do is have you both make new statements about your positions here, having had some time to think and read over the previous arguments. (Feel free to reference previous arguments with diffs, etc.) I've come up with a few questions I'd like you to keep in mind while making your statement - there are a number, and you don't need to answer them directly. I would just like to start everyone thinking within the same frame of reference. Ideally, we'll find points of agreement that we can build on towards coming up with a compromise solution.

1. What is your position on the source in question? Do you think the source is reliable?
2. Do you think the source supports an accusation of terrorism ties with respect to the organization in question?
3. Are there any other sources you have found that tie the organization in question to terrorism, or sources that dispute/disclaim its ties?
4. What is your definition of "accused ties to terrorism" as it relates to inclusion in this list?
5. What level of verifiability with respect to the accusation do you think is required for an organization to be included in this list? Is there a certain number of sources required? What type of sources are required for inclusion (i.e., government, private think tank, public individual, private individual, etc.)?
6. Is it possible that organizations with different - perhaps even disputed - levels of certainly with respect to the accusation of ties to terrorism could be included on this list in a neutral fashion, acceptable to all? Is it possible to include the disputed organization in the list in such a manner as to note, in a neutral fashion, that its ties are under dispute, without undue weight, in a manner acceptable to all?
7. Can you think of another compromise solution you believe would be acceptable to all, and towards the betterment of the article?

Thank you in advance for what I anticipate will be a great discussion.

Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your statement, GRuban. We will wait to hear from Bonewah. Regards, Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRuban (talk · contribs)[edit]

1. It's not really a single source accusing the Capital Athletic Foundation of ties to terrorism, it's at least four:
   1. Lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s “Charity” a Front for Terrorism, Juan Cole, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2006
   2. US Tax-Exempt Charitable Contributions to Israel: Donations, Illegal Settlements and Terror Attacks against the US, Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep), October 5, 2005.
   3. Billions for Illegal Settlements 60 $ Palestinian National Liberation Movement (Fateh Foreign Relations Committee) May 17, 2008
   4. How Christian and Jewish Zionists and terrorists undermined the US, by Anisa Abd el Fattah, Media Monitors Network, January 8, 2006

   While the discussion seems to have been mostly of the article by Juan Cole, source #3 there is an official website of the government of the Palestinian Territories. Note the .gov.ps in the URL.

   The 4 make slightly different but closely related accusations. 1 accuses the CAF of being a front for terrorism (right there in the title). 2 and 3 accuse the CAF of financing illegal settlements, which they claim are an indirect cause of terrorism. 4 accuses the CAF of "funding the real terrorists". None of sources 2, 3, or 4 mention Juan Cole.

   Are they reliable? Well, they're certainly reliable as to the fact they made the accusation. Wikipedia:Reliability is defined "in relation to the subject at hand" (italics from Wikipedia:Reliability), and in relation to the subject of terrorism, there really aren't very many sources that are "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative" that go around accusing charities of ties to terrorism. Most of the sources making the accusations in the article are the United States Government, which we have article after article showing isn't so regarded in relation to this subject. (For example, our article on Guantanamo Bay detention camp#Criticism says In June 2006, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter stated that the arrests of most of the roughly 500 prisoners held there were based on "the flimsiest sort of hearsay"; our article Combatant Status Review Tribunal#Murat Kurnaz, an example quotes an expert on military justice saying "It suggests the procedure is a sham"; and so forth.) Perhaps if the United Nations made the accusation. But it doesn't.

2. It seems clear that tying the CAF and related US charities to terrorism is the main point of all 4 sources. Their logic may seem pretty twisted, but we're not here to evaluate the logic of their accusations, merely state that they have been made.
3. Just these so far.
4. Strong accusation of a strong connection. The sources rarely define their terms with more precision than that, and we can't make that definition for them. In these 4 cases, the accusations "front", "cause", and "funding" each seem to be an accusation of a strong connection, and in each of the 4 cases making the accusation seems to be the main point of the article.
5. The accusation certainly needs to be verifiable, there shouldn't be any reasonable doubt that the accusation has been made by the source. In these cases I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that the accusation has been made. (With all due respect to my honorable opponent, I don't think that doubting that "Charity a Front for Terrorism" in the title of an article is an accusation that the charity is a front for terrorism, is reasonable.) But the truth of the accusation in most cases can't be verified; I don't know of a single charity in the list that has admitted to ties to terrorism, and only one on the list that has been convicted of such by a court. The accusation needs to be notable in relation to the field, which in this case it seems to be: we have one notable activist and author (a professional historian, but there are plenty of those; what he is notable for is his activities in regard to modern Middle East politics, which this is), one think tank, one government, and another Middle East political activist and author.
6. I certainly hope so. We need to scrupulously reference each accusation, and who makes it. If there are notable verifiable objections, we need to summarize and reference those as well, similarly. Just noting that some ties are in dispute doesn't help, since all the charities on the list dispute all the accusations.
7. Not yet.

Statement by bonewah (talk · contribs)[edit]

Let me start out by clarifying a point, I am willing to concede that the Capitol Athletic fund did provide material support for Beitar Illit settlers. What i have issues with here is the claim that those settlers are terrorists. Having said that, lets take a look at the sources given.

Of the four sources listed, only 1 and 4 explicitly call those settlers terrorists, so lets deal with them first. Both of these articles are, without doubt, opinion pieces. My esteemed opponent has never claimed that this was not the case, and does not do so here. Per reliable sources, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." and even more importantly "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact" (bolding in original). My esteemed opponent says that they verifiably made the accusations, fine, I concede that because it doesnt matter. That Juan Cole (and others) are of the opinion that these settlers are terrorists is still just the opinion of Juan Cole and not a verifiable fact in the Wiki sense. WP:TERRORIST is also instructive here, advising us that the label terrorist is non neutral and should be used only when backed up by a reliable source that says that (again, reliable in the sense that it is not just the opinion of some guy, reliable in that fact checking and scholarship has occurred).

If we can agree that these settlers have not been shown (in the Wikipedia sense) to be terrorists then we can make some headway, because there is a second line of reasoning being offered by my esteemed opponent, that these settlers are the indirect cause of terrorism.

Followup Discussion[edit]

Thank you, Bonewah. GRuban, what's your response to the question of labeling Beitar Illit as terrorists? Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 04:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That it's not for us to do, one way or the other. We don't place labels, merely report that others have. We don't determine The Truth from among debated points, we merely report what others write, as long as it is notable and verifiable. The sources accusing the CAF are clearly both, and it is the CAF about whom this particular accusation is about, not Beitar Illit, and not the definition of terrorism. The sources involved clearly seem to think the CAF has ties to terrorism, and that is what our article is about.

Note that this question from my esteemed opponent seems to hold the key difference between my view and his. He is willing "to concede that the Capitol Athletic Fund did provide material support for Beitar Illit settlers". I never asked him to. Our article isn't about whether they actually did, merely that verifiable notable sources have accused them of it. Hence the title of the article, not Charities that have supported terrorism, but List of charities accused of ties to terrorism. For another example of the difference, note the listed accusation against Interpal, made by the Sunday Telegraph, US Treasury, and Board of Deputies of British Jews; it's been withdrawn by all parties, and is almost certainly not true. We list it, because it's a notable accusation, and that's what this article is about. --GRuban (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But here is the thing, Gruban, the article does not have to be titled that, we can decide to change it. I think one avenue towards resolving our differences lies in changing the title to something more precise, such as List of charities accused of funding terrorist organizations, but this wont actually resolve our conflict if you believe that the sources you provided are labeling the Beitar Illit settlers as terrorists themselves.

I want you to consider something, does the September 11th Fund have ties to terrorism? They exist because of terrorism. The provide money to terrorism victims. Is that considered 'ties to' terrorism? You see what im getting at here? 'ties to' is a very vague term that can be loosely interpreted and i think we should avoid using it for the reasons we see here, that it could logically be applied to the causes of (or victims of) terrorism, not just terrorists themselves. Bonewah (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the common point is that the charities listed here are accused of supporting terrorism, which I don't think anyone has accused the September 11th Fund of. Changing the title of an article with the specific aim of excluding one entry seems a bit biased; and just "funding" probably wouldn't work, since you'll note a few of the accusations are of charity employees belonging to terrorist groups, or other non-"funding" links. --GRuban (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the locus of the dispute is whether or not the article presents the information in a neutral way, whether it is clear or not that the article is simply reporting that the accusations of terrorist ties/activities (both on the part of the charities and the organizations they are accused of supporting) exist, and that inclusion on the list is not a suggestion on the part of Wikipedia or its editors of agreement or disagreement with the accusations. Do you think it is possible to organize the article in such a way that it is clear that Wikipedia is simply reporting, per our principle of NPOV, and not passing judgment? Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 18:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually sure that's the locus of the dispute. If Bonewah will agree that this is the crux of the issue, however, I'm all for it. --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gruban is right, that is not the locus of the dispute. Here is what I was writing before you guys posted, i think you will see that the problem lies in the article title being to vague.

Ok fine, i think we are making progress now. What about List of charities accused of supporting terrorist organizations? You are right that I want the name change to exclude one entry, because that entry exists only because the article's title is so poorly worded that the article can include information of a highly dubious nature, which is exactly what I am trying to illustrate. You are right that no one thinks the September 11th Fund has 'supported' terrorism, but they clearly have 'ties to' terrorism, given a loose enough definition of 'ties to'. And there is a larger point to all of this, too. Our job here goes beyond merely reporting what others write, our job is to write a good encyclopedia, and part of that job is to decide what articles exist and which do not. Bonewah (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much progress, I am afraid, since I think the IRmep and PNLM articles do consider the CAF to have been indirectly supporting terrorism. And of course the Cole and Abd al Fattah articles considered CAF to have directly supported it. --GRuban (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the above title is acceptable to you, we will be down to just the Cole and Fattah articles, as 'terrorist organization' precludes indirect causes. Now that i think of it the locus of the dispute is only partially with the article title. We still have to deal with the (non-)notability of Cole and company's accusations, but at least we will have narrowed it down. Bonewah (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear; and how about those charities who are listed due to having individual members as accused terrorists, rather than organizations? --GRuban (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do those sorts of charities belong in the article at all? Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 20:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on how important the individual or individuals were to the charity. If that person was, say, the leader of the charity or if most or all of the charity's members were accused terrorists, then I would say include that charity. If they just happened to be members of the charity and also accused terrorists, then, no, that charity should not be included. If Osama bin Laden were a member of Amnesty International I would not say that AI supported terrorism. Bonewah (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than making hypothetical statements, let's go to our sources. For example, US government seems to treat charity connections to terrorist individuals and organizations similarly. See http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/September/20060929172737berehellek0.8130609.html The phrase used there is "supporters of terrorism" rather than "of terrorist organizations"; the actual guidelines seem complex. --GRuban (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They say both: “We considered that, but given the body of evidence out there, where over years [nongovernmental organizations] were used … wittingly or unwittingly by terrorist organizations, we have to participate in this space.” I guess we could find Executive Order 13224 and see what it says exactly, I dont know if that would solve the 'terrorism vs terrorist organizations' argument. As to the 'how important to the charity' argument', I guess we could base our guidelines off of theirs, although they do not make clear what a 'key employee' is. Fundamentally, they seem to have the same logic of more than just a member. Bonewah (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The full press release here uses the phrase 'terrorist organization' or 'terrorist groups' but never 'terrorism' generically. Bonewah (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And "terrorists". The full guidelines linked to from that release are, as above, complex, and I haven't gotten through them enough to see whether they only mention groups or also individuals; they certainly mention funding, but I don't now if they restrict themselves to that, etc. --GRuban (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, once. But in any event, they always mean actual terrorist, not terrorism indirectly. This is meant to address the List of charities accused of supporting terrorist organizations vs List of charities accused of supporting terrorism argument. Bonewah (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this idea for a while, and think the name change proposal is splitting hairs: terrorists, terrorism, or terrorist organizations. I don't oppose it, but neither do I support it, because I don't think it's getting to the point. The IRmep article says "terror attacks", the Fateh article says "terrorist retaliation". Sure, their point is that the charity causes terrorism indirectly rather than directly, but they still see it as an important cause; and I think that means an important cause of terrorists, and terrorism, and terrorist organizations. --GRuban (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its the 'cause of' portion that I have a problem with, not so much terrorist vs terrorist organizations. I can find you plenty of people who will claim that Israel itself is the cause of terrorism (or the US, or Islam, or Palestine, etc), and, therefor, any charity which aids Israel (or again, US, Islam, etc) could be said to be supporting terrorism, if we accept indirect causes as acceptable in this article. Just like 'ties to' is too broad to be useful, cause of is also too broad, becuase opinions of the causes of terrorism are going to vary wildly and be hotly contested. Causes of terrorism are well outside the scope of a list article, and, really any Wikipedia article if you ask me. Bonewah (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but we can't make logical connections like that, that's original research by synthesis. Just as we can't state that the logic behind their accusations doesn't make sense, we similarly can't state that following their logic, they should be making these accusations. We have to have them make the actual accusations; and once they do, we should report them. If religion or politics were logical, the world would be a much simpler place. Note that for a while Hamas was the dominant party in the government of Palestine, so anyone aiding the govt of Palestine was aiding Hamas; Hezbullah is still an important part of the govt of Lebanon; both groups are considered terrorist organizations by the US. Your "any charity which aids ... could be said to" isn't as far fetched as you may think, and the article name change to "organizations" wouldn't help it at all. --GRuban (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure I understand what you mean when you say " but we can't make logical connections like that" can you clairify that point? As for the other point, we could add a 'terrorist organization' field to the list so that the reader can judge for themselves if the group is really terrorist or not. It is worth noting, that yes, you could list a charity that supports Hamas led Palestine in this list under my name proposal, but you could also list that same charity under the currently named list. Further, under the current name (and associated thinking) you could also list that same charity even if Palestine were not under hamas control, just so long as you find someone who thinks that Palestine itself is a cause of terrorism. Bonewah (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the same, that we can't rely on logic, we need to use the verifiable statements of the sources. I like your proposal specifying the alleged terrorists, but I think we've got that in the "Alleged Ties" column. How would your proposed column be different from what we have now? --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im speaking hypothetically, Im not saying we should find source A which says "Islam is a terrorist religion" and source B which says "the red cross aids Islamic people" and combine them. What I am saying is that if a source says something like "the Red Cross aids Islamic people, who are the cause of terrorism" then that accusation would be eligable for inclusion in this list as currently written, despite being absurd and offensive. In my view we should not allow that, and, the afore mentioned hypothetical would not be allowed under my naming scheme. Again, causes of terrorism are subjective opinion, organizations listing other organizations as terrorist is verifiable fact, i.e. The US lists Al-Queda as a terrorist group or Interpol lists the Red Brigade as terrorist. Bonewah (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it this way, Wikipedia could easily have an article such as terrorist organizations, so long as that article were careful to list who says they are terrorist. Wikipedia could not really have an article such as causes of terrorism because there is no real reliable source on the matter, just a lot of differing opinions. Bonewah (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we avoid the hypotheticals and get back to your concrete proposal, where you explain how it's different from what we have? Because it does sound promising. Or are you withdrawing it? --21:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we change the title of the article to List of charities accused of supporting terrorist organizations. Add a field in the list to detail what terrorist group is being supported with a note of who considers them to be terrorist. Remove any entry where we cannot identify an actual terrorist organization. Agree (for purposes of this article) that the terrorism being supported is actual terrorism as opposed to things which cause terrorism. Agree that sources 2 and 3 cannot be used here as they refrain from labeling the Beitar Illit settlers as actual terrorists. And finally move on to discussing the appropriateness of sources 1 and 4. Let me know what parts you agree with and disagree with. Bonewah (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This point, "Add a field in the list to detail what terrorist group is being supported with a note of who considers them to be terrorist." sounds promising but seems to be the current "Alleged Ties" column. Please explain the difference. --GRuban (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty similar, except if we changed 'ties to' to 'supporting' we would need to want to change the field as well. Consider Al-Haramain Foundation. For ties we currently have 'Suspicion fell on Guantanamo detainee Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i, in part, because he was a volunteer for Al Haramain' which doesnt really tell us a lot. Clicking through the Al-Haramain Foundation link we find that it was alleged by the US govt to be supporting al-Qaeda, useful information. This portion doesnt deal with my real concern here, the fringeworthy nature of Juan Cole's "accusations" but it does seem like a logical offshoot of my insistence that the terrorism being supported as it relates to this article be actual (alleged) terrorists, not causes of terrorism. If we are talking about actual terrorists, we can actually name them.

I want to take a moment to point out that the Palestinian government (the people who are actually wronged by the Beitar Illit settlers!) decline to call them terrorists, at least in the article you provided. If they show restraint in this matter, why should we rely on Juan Cole's interpretation of things? You were right that a great number of the 'accusations' here are bullshit, the first thing that popped out to me in the Al-Haramain Foundation article is the fact that they werent even prosecuted, the judge just dropped the charges. Now I ask you, in a sea of frivolous charges, what is the value of adding one more bullshit charge, especially when the Palestinians themselves excersise some much needed discression? Bonewah (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion as to Juan Cole[edit]

All right, let's discuss Juan Cole as a source. Maybe that will resolve the other issues too. All I know about him is what I read in our article on him. I see I have not have ever had the honor of editing it,[1] but I see that you have, a fair bit.[2] That article, even after your edits, told me the following things about Juan Cole:

1. "As a commentator on Middle Eastern affairs, he has appeared in print and on television, and testified before the United States Senate. He has published several peer-reviewed books on the modern Middle East"
2. "From 1999 until 2004, Juan Cole was the editor of The International Journal of Middle East Studies. He has served in professional offices for the American Institute of Iranian Studies.[4] He was elected president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America in November 2004.[5] In 2006, he received the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism administered by Hunter College."
3. "Cole has been cited in the press as a Middle East expert several times"
4. "From 2002 onwards, Cole has been an active commentator in the UK and US media on topics related to the Middle East. His focus has primarily been Iraq, Iran, The Palestinian Authority, and Israel. He has published op-eds on the Mideast at the Washington Post, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Guardian, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review, The Nation, the Daily Star, Tikkun magazine as well as at Salon.com, where he is a frequent contributor.[18] He has appeared on the PBS Lehrer News Hour, Nightline, ABC Evening News, the Today Show, Anderson Cooper 360°, Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Al Jazeera and CNN Headline News.[19]"

That's all from our article, after your edits. You may not have agreed with all points, but it seems you couldn't dispute them enough to remove them (since you did remove plenty you could dispute). All these points lead me to believe that he is an expert on the subject of the modern Middle East, and regarded as "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand," as Wikipedia:Reliable sources would have it, by "the press" (point 3), including a large number of other reliable sources (listed in 4, there), and by academia (points 1 and 2). He isn't an expert on terror in general, but clearly Israeli/Palestine relations can't be separated from the specific terror he's commenting on. He is not universally regarded as trustworthy or credible, as the article has a large criticism section, but, frankly, I don't know any person or organization who speaks on the modern Middle East who is not bitterly criticized for their statements on it by one or both sides; this includes the United Nations, the BBC, Amnesty International, Nobel prize winners... --GRuban (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But your only reading part of reliable sources. Your forgetting the part that says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." and "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Is that really the case here? Has this article been fact-checked by others or is it just an opinion piece? Bonewah (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how much the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs publishers actually reviewed or edited it, but it doesn't matter. It's the opinion of an expert on the subject, and we put those in articles. It would even qualify if he had published it himself, under "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" but it doesn't have to, since it is not self published; WRMEA at least reviewed it to the extent of accepting it for publication. --GRuban (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So this guy is such an expert that his opinion supersedes that of the Palestenian government, who refrain from calling these settlers terrorists. And again, I direct your attention to the 'essentially' qualifier that Cole himself put in front of terrorist, as in 'not really but might as well be'. Are we to believe that the weight of Juan Cole's credentials turns this singular line in an editorial into established fact? Bonewah (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. We are to believe that Juan Cole is an expert who accused the CAF of funding terrorists. Nowhere does our article state or imply that these accusations are correct. Just that they were made, and are important. This isn't an article about facts, it's about accusations. Similarly, we are not to believe that the other accusations are correct, just that they were made, and have a notable effect on the world. The encyclopedia has loads of articles on things that may not be or even clearly aren't fact, from conspiracy theories, to superstitions, religions, novels, fringe science, disproved theories, hoaxes, frauds... This is an article on a highly controversial subject. What we do in articles on highly controversial subjects is tell all sides, and who backs each. --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why, Gruban, why is Juan Cole's accusation important? Governments kill or imprison people people who are terrorists, so clearly their accusations are important. The parents of Daniel Boim were able to convince a court that their accusations had merit, and got judgments levied, so clearly their accusations are important. What makes Juan Cole's accusation so important? That he has appeared on TV? That he has published books? Does this 'expert' opinion have any following in the academic community? Has it been vetted at all among other middle east experts? Seriously, this is the only accusation in the list that isnt either from a government or vetted through a court, I think its takes more than 'Juan Cole has been on the Today Show'. Bonewah (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because he is a notable expert on the subject, which meets our standards. You seem to want to say that this particular article should be based only on government sources, but that's not our standard anywhere, even on equally or more controversial topics. Quite often the best sources for a topic have nothing to do with any government. --GRuban (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Im curious what our mediator has to say about that? Bonewah (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's Comments[edit]

Hello, apologies for my absence, I had to take a short break for IRL issues. While I do not want to take a side on this issue, I am of the belief that the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia is to present notable, verifiable information, in as neutral a fashion as humanly possible, and allow the reader to make judgments about the information on his or her own. This is one of the primary reasons we cite our sources, to allow diligent readers to go back and decide how seriously to take any particular source. That's why our standard is "verifiability, not truth."

This article is particularly tricky, because the word "terrorism" is so loaded and we all come to this sort of topic with our own very personal, and often deeply felt, points of view. Our challenge as editors is to try to shed these viewpoints and step back, to look at the issue from as far a distance as possible.

From a distance, this article is about accusations of ties to terrorism. Per Wikipedia policy, the accusation of an organization, in order to be listed here, must be from a credible, notable source. There are plenty of wild accusations out there, but we must present only those from sources that we can reasonably assume to be credible. Again, we're not passing judgment about the accusation, and really even about the source (beyond our basic tests of reliability); we are simply presenting information. If Juan Cole is considered a reliable, notable source, I see no problem with listing his accusation among those on this page. I believe the reader can tell that we are not ourselves accusing or confirming accusations. However, I see no reason that it couldn't be outright stated, perhaps in the introductory text, that these are merely accusations from other sources. Also, it might be worthwhile to consider grouping accusations by the type of organization making them (government versus non-government).

In summary, though, it's important that we verify our sources are credible, though we don't have to (in fact, we should not) verify that their accusations are true. It's important we present the information in a fashion that tells the reader that we are not passing any sort of judgment.

I hope these thoughts are helpful to you as you continue your discussion.

Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 14:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Discussion[edit]

I should point out that, based on my quick check, there are no 'accusations of' articles that dont redirect to a differently worded article. 'Allegations of' articles are mostly the same, with all the 'allegations of state terrorism' articles pointing to 'state and terrorism (for example Allegations of state terrorism by russia redirects to Terrorism in Russia) Im guessing that the reason for that is what we are seeing here, the propensity to say "X person made this allegation, therefore it should be included even if it fails verifiability.

As for Juan Cole, I really dont believe the source provided here is actual scholarship, merely opinion, and, as such, unusable. Having said that, how about this: lets put it to the reliable sources notice board and see what a (hopefully) wider, neutral audience has to say? Vicenarian could write up a proposed entry that we could agree on, each of us add our say so, and see what happens. How does that sound? Bonewah (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to do so. Maybe we should also consider whether this article should exist at all, or whether it should be merged into an article or articles with a wider discussion of the issues surrounding terrorism. If it's difficult to maintain verifiability and neutrality with this article as is, that might be a good way around the problem. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 14:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense do you mean "even if it fails verifiability"? We can certainly verify that the accusation was made, and we can no more verify whether the accused is actually terrorist when the accusation was made by a government. So what do you mean?

Second, we seem to have plenty of articles about accusations of terrorism, including by non-governmental scholars. Let's start with State terrorism, where we have governments accusing each other of state terror, but scholars and the UN disputing whether the concept exists at all; note the prominent comments by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, similarly controversial non-governmental experts (Chomsky's formal expertise is as a linguist); no one seems to be calling their statements unverifiable. That one article links to plenty of others: Democide, an entire article based on the works of one non-governmental scholar, R. J. Rummel; Policide, another article about a term used by non-governmental authors; Genocide has large sections about definitions by various non governmental scholars; Genocide definitions is entirely devoted to this, with definitions by governments and non-governmental scholars listed side by side; Terrorism in Russia#Other notable terrorism acts is an entire section of non-governmental scholars and journalist making allegations of terrorism; United States and state terrorism#General allegations against the US, another entire article section of non-governmental scholars making allegations of terrorism ... I didn't stop because I ran out of articles, just out of patience, surely we can see it just goes on on on.

Ah, here we go, an entire article Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka (Looks like you missed at least this one; not "all the 'allegations of state terrorism' articles [point] to 'state and terrorism'".) This one specifically starts: "Various non-governmental organizations and individuals have accused the Sri Lankan government of committing state terrorism" - an entire article like that, not just one line in a list. The topic of Terrorism is full of accusations and allegations on each side, and we clearly don't restrict allegations by prominent scholars just because they aren't backed by a government.

Taking it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is unlikely to reach a conclusion. (I've been watching the Reliable Sources Noticeboard :-) ; when it isn't about something obvious, it doesn't reach conclusions.) It will, however, force us to repeat the arguments we have now written on the article talk page and on this mediation page, while getting more people involved in the argument. Note that we had plenty of people involved in the argument on the article talk page, and it didn't help. We're in mediation here, it took us four months and a lot of effort to get here (page made April, lots of posting on people's talk pages to get them to agree, then waiting for a mediator, then waiting for another mediator when the first vanished), and we've only been talking this out for two weeks. Let's give mediation an honest try. Otherwise it's just starting over from nothing, with no real prospect another forum will give better results. --GRuban (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt say that non-government accusations are forbidden in articles, only that the title itself almost never contains the words 'allegation or accuastion' and the reason for that is what you express at the outset of your rebut "We can certainly verify that the accusation was made". This is an obvious abuse of the title of the article. In a properly titled article you cannot insert a accusation just because it is an accusation, you have to demonstrate that the accusation is, in itself notable, independent of whether it comes from a government or a scholar. In other words, you cannot use the title of an article to include something that otherwise would not be included in an article, you have to demonstrate that the claim merits inclusion above and beyond simply being an accusation. If this claim represents actual scholarship, fine, lets include it, but you have to demonstrate that it is actually scholarship, not simply the opinion of one guy. That is why i suggested sending it to the RS noticeboard, if the consensus is that a reprint from Juan Cole's blog is a reliable source, then, fine, how can I argue? But as it stands, the only proof that this is a reliable source has been simply to reprint Cole's CV, which does not cut it with me. Bonewah (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can always view the results as non-binding. As for the endless debate, I would agree to a pre-approved statement by Vicenarian, and would further stipulate that each one of us hold ourselves to a single statement in support of our views. Bonewah (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka, I said mostly, wp:OTHERSTUFF anyway. Ill put it on my to do list. Bonewah (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't understand your standards. A few paragraphs ago you seemed to be saying that the issue was that the accusation wasn't verifiable. Now you seem to be saying that the problem was that it isn't notable. Is that right? Are you no longer using the word "verifiable", or do you consider "verifiable" and "notable" to be the same things? Personally I think these accusations need to be both verifiable and notable, but then I think this accusation is both, I'd like to understand which part is your problem with it first, so I can try to explain why it meets the necessary standards. --GRuban (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be both, like any other claim in wikipedia. And you cant use the article's title to skirt that requirement. Bonewah (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it needs to be both. Great. We're in agreement at least that much; the devil is in the details. Let's take it one at a time. Just verifiable first, we'll do notable later. Do you now agree it is verifiable? In other words:

1. Do you agree that we can verify the claim was made?
2. Do you also agree that we shouldn't have to verify the claim was true?
3. Is there some other part of verifiable ... just verifiable for now, we'll do notable later ... that you don't agree this claim meets? --GRuban (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the claim was made, but that is totally irrelevant. Verifiable means satisfies the Wikipedia policy of verifiability, as in comes from a reliable source and is not a fringe theory, the actual rules of Wikipedia. Verifing the claim was made is a distraction. Bonewah (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just to confirm that I understand, then, you agree to both points 1 and 2 there, that the claim was made and that we don't have to verify it was actually true? The reasons you're calling it unverifiable are (4) that you believe Juan Cole is not a Wikipedia:Reliable source, and (5) is, instead, a Wikipedia:Fringe source? I'll proceed to argue those points, but first I'd like to know that the first two points were agreed to, and don't have to be argued about any more, and that I properly understand the objections I'll be trying to address. --GRuban (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will happily confirm those two points, Juan Cole did make the claims and it is not for us determine the truth of those claims. I have never argued those points so I see no reason to start now. To clairify, Cole is either not an RS or is Fringe or both, but he doesnt have to be both to be excluded. Also, im still not convinced that Juan Cole is actually calling the settlers terrorists, the whole point of his essay is to say that even though they do things that are terroristic they will not be classified as terrorists, but, whatever, if you can prove that Cole is a RS and not Fringe I wont persue that objection. Bonewah (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Discussion (Section Break)[edit]

Please continue discussing below for ease of readability. Thanks. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to stipulate something as well, that saying Juan Cole verifiably made the claims is not the same as saying that the claims are verifiable in the wikipedia sense. Bonewah (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean there. Surely I can't agree to the claim not being "verifiable in the wikipedia sense", since that's the whole point I'm trying to show, that they are verifiable and notable enough for our standards. What do you mean? --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that you wont keep saying "Juan Cole verifiably made the accusation" That you agree the statement "Juan Cole verifiably made the accusation" is irrelevant to this discussion. Bonewah (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way I may assist here? We seem to be stuck on the status of Juan Cole as a source. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 14:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I owe an explanation of why I think he qualifies, but it's taking me longer than I thought to get my argument together. Apologies, it's not forgotten, I just need to carve a continuous chunk of time to write it.--GRuban (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, I just wanted to check in. Regards, Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 17:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, no hurry, no apologies needed. Bonewah (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Cole's as a notable, reliable, and non-fringe source for his accusation[edit]

OK, here goes. Hopefully you'll see why I needed some time for this work. :-) A numbered list since those seem to be working, and a new section since the moderator seems to like those :-). Reasons why I think Juan Cole qualifies as a Wikipedia:Reliable source and not a Wikipedia:Fringe source for List of charities accused of ties to terrorism.

1. As mentioned before, Cole fits under the "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." clause of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources. Both those are directly backed by our article: "He has been cited in the press as a Middle East expert", and,"He has published several peer-reviewed books on the modern Middle East". So his claim would qualify under this clause even if it were a self published source, as Bonewah implies by calling "a reprint from Juan Cole's blog".
2. But it isn't a self published source. It was published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, which is a publication that has been around since 1982, founded by a US ambassador and a head of the Voice of America Arabic service, and has a long list of very notable contributors. This publication is specifically devoted to relations between the United States and the Middle East, and this accusation is about an American charity in the Middle East, so well within its specialty field. I've mentioned those points before; they didn't seem to have had a big effect, but they are still valid points.
3. So here's another point: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Usage by other sources."widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." What that means is that as more reliable sources rely on this source, then it is considered more reliable. If, instead, other reliable sources treat this source with warnings, then it is considered less reliable. So let's see how other sources we generally consider reliable treat Juan Cole. Do they treat him like a reliable source, and listen to what he says as if it is true, or do they treat him as a wacko fringe nutjob, and prefix everything he says with words saying as much? So I just Googled him, and am listing selected entries.
   1. PBS, Bill Moyers Journal. Juan Cole teaches history at the University of Michigan. His "Informed Comment" blog at juancole.com has become a go to destination for anyone interested in the politics of Islam. The author of several books, this is his latest, "Engaging the Muslim World." Note no caveats. Not "Cole is a fringe nutcase brought on so we can laugh at his views", but "Cole is a professor, writer, and expert on the subject." Also note that there aren't twenty experts being used, just two. Clearly Cole is being relied on. By whom? I didn't check if you two are Americans, but just in case: PBS, Public Broadcasting Service is the United States public television network, broadcast nationally, with a station in every major city, and a certain amount of US government financial support, though not control; we, Wikipedia, usually consider it a very reliable media source. Bill Moyers is a respected journalist, very experienced; likewise.
   2. [3] Harry Kreisler of the Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley. "We are pleased to welcome today Juan Cole, who is Professor of History at the University of Michigan. He's the author of many books and articles on Islam, book cover including Sacred Space and Holy War and Modernity and Millennium. His blog, InformedComment.com, covers the Middle East and has played an important role in informing the public about the Middle East and the Iraq War and the consequences of that war." Again, relied upon, with praise, without caveats,for a sizeable interview. By whom? UC Berkeley is "The top public university among "National Universities" in the United States." Harry Kreisler is Executive Director of the Institute of International Studies there, as well as a professor ... well, you can read it. Pretty clearly a reliable academic source.
   3. Here are two other academic sources that seem to want to know his opinion on the modern Middle East. [4] UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies invited him to give a talk. [5] Professor Terry Burke, Dept. of History, UC Santa Cruz asked for an interview. I haven't looked at these in depth, but they seem to treat him as someone whose opinion is notable. UCLA and US Santa Cruz are not the #1 public university in the US, but they are large, respectable, influential American universities. Ah, according to our article on it, UCLA seems to be ranked second. :-)
   4. [6] The New York Times Book Review reviewing his book on terrorism and the modern Middle East, Engaging the Muslim World, in depth. They don't agree with everything it says, but they certainly don't dismiss it as the rantings of a fringe nutcase. Again, don't know if you have the context, but the New York Times Book Review is possibly the most influential book review in the United States. Let's read our article: "Each week the NYTBR receives 750 to 1000 books from authors and publishers in the mail of which 20 to 30 are chosen for review. The selection process is based on finding books that are important and notable, as well as discovering new authors whose books stand above the crowd." Reliable, notable.
   5. But that leads me to change my Googling. Let's not take just the NYT Book Review's words, let's go directly to the Gray Lady herself, the New York Times. This, in case you don't know, is probably the most influential and respected newspaper in the United States, "a national newspaper of record", our article on it says. How does the New York Times treat Juan Cole?
      1. "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian," remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan and critic of American policy who has argued that the Iranian president was misquoted. Not called an expert, but specialist is close. Mentioned that he's a critic, but not a fringe critic. Treated as reasonably reliable.
      2. Juan Cole, a U.S. expert on Iraq, suggested the blasts may have been a message from the Damascus-based insurgency leaders following the prime minister's talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad. Called an expert; no caveats about being fringe. Clearly relied upon. By the way, that's the Associated Press there, published in the New York Times. They're not any less reliable, but they're a news agency, not a newspaper. In fact, they're the example agency in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations.
      3. But more than a dozen Shiite factions command their own armed followings in Southern Iraq ... according to Juan Cole, a Shiite specialist and professor at the University of Michigan. Back to the NYTimes. Again, no caveats about being fringe, just treated as reliable.
      4. “This is an order of magnitude different from those earlier demonstrations,” said Juan Cole, a professor of Middle East history at the University of Michigan, who has been tracking the upheaval on his Informed Comment blog. Again, no caveats about being fringe, just treated as reliable. Note that the fact he has a blog doesn't seem to embarrass the NYTimes any.
      5. All this puts Mr. Sadr in a position to amass more power, if he can avoid being arrested or killed, said Juan R. Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan and an expert on Shiite Islam. Again, no caveats about fringe, just reliable.
      6. I think the Sadrists are a social movement, not really so much an organization, Juan Cole, a Middle East expert at the University of Michigan, told the New York Times. Another "expert", right there. No caveats about fringe, just treated as reliable.
      7. These go on, I got 185 hits searching for Juan Cole at nytimes.com, but hopefully that's enough to show what they're like. The newspaper of record treats him as reliable all the time.
   6. Let's get back to the general Googling. Ah, here's another respected academic source, the MIT Center for International Studies. I'll have to quote the whole blurb, it's all praise. Juan Cole is Richard P. Mitchell Distinguished University Professor of History at the University of Michigan. He has written extensively about Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and South Asia. After Sept. 11, he launched a Weblog, “Informed Comment,” in hope of offering the public a more accurate interpretation of the Middle East, where he had lived off and on for almost ten years. Informed Comment became a phenomenon, generating in some months as many as a million page views, and making him one of the top bloggers in the world. Cole is widely respected as a public intellectual on the Middle East and, in 2004, was invited to address the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations concerning the war in Iraq. MIT, if you don't know, is possibly the world's most respected technical university, and has non-trivial respect for its other departments. "widely respected as a public intellectual on the Middle East" - isn't that almost word for word what Wikipedia:Reliable sources asks for?
   7. NPR, All Things Considered The deadly bombings Thursday in Iraq raises questions about the strength of the Iraqi forces. Juan Cole, professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan and author of Engaging the Muslim World, says the bombings show Sunni Arab guerilla movement is still active and determined. NPR, National Public Radio, is the United States public radio network, equivalent to PBS in many ways. Again, highly respected. They are treating Cole as a reliable source on ... yes, Middle East terrorism.
   8. Harper's Magazine says Juan Cole is one of the nation’s leading historians focusing on the Middle East. Over the past decade he has emerged as a commentator on Middle East policy and a reliable source for new ideas that may enable the United States to pursue its foreign policy objectives more effectively in the region. Whoah! Did you catch that? They specifically call him "a reliable source", those very words! I couldn't make this stuff up! "... One of the leading historians focusing on the Middle East" would have been enough, but, this - what more could we ask for?

I think I'm going to stop there, not because there isn't more to the Google, there is clearly plenty, but ... luck finding results like this shouldn't be pressed further unless absolutely required. :-) If the New York Times treats him as a reliable source on the subject all the time, if the Associated Press, National Public Radio, and Public Broadcasting Service treat him as a reliable source, if some of the most respected academic sources (Wikipedia:Reliable sources treats academic sources as the most reliable) treat him as a reliable source, if the list of other reliable sources treating him as a reliable, respected, source on the subject goes on and on... surely he's reliable enough for our purposes of including one row in a table. --GRuban (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A great deal of this is simply an expansion of an argument we've seen before, the 'Look how impressive Juan Cole's Resume is" argument we saw here. I know that Cole has been quoted on NPR and the NYT, you've said as much before. In fact, we have been through this before, Gruban, and my complaint then, as now, is that being an impressive expert does not make everything one says verifiable fact in the wiki sense. As I said before, wp:RS insists on peer review, and I can quote the sections that say so. Ive done so before. And I know what your response is going to be, you will quote the portion of wp:SPS that says that an established expert in the relevant field can be considered reliable. And then I will respond that being a professor of Middle eastern history does not make one authoritative on everything that happens in the middle east. We are going around in circles now, and, barring a different source that actually qualifies as RS in my view, I can tell you im not going to change my opinion no matter how many Juan Cole quotes you find. Id also say that you are not going to change your opinion no matter how many times I say that a reliable source must be peer reviewed and not an opinion piece.

So again I say lets put it to a wider audience, the reliable sources noticeboard. We can view the results as non-binding if you like, but at least we will have a fresh perspective. Bonewah (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS prefers, but doesn't insist on, peer review - if it did, no newspaper or non-academic magazine would ever be a reliable source. You seem to be basically rejecting Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Usage by other sources. Is that right? --GRuban (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am actually abiding by the very next section Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements of opinion which states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." And, as I have said before, I dont believe that Juan Cole is a reliable source about all things middle eastern, only middle eastern history. Bonewah (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This may, indeed, be something to take to the reliable sources noticeboard, where a wider audience can comment on the reliability of Juan Cole. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 18:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice the New York Times, NPR, PBS, and the universities are all relying on him for information on the modern Middle East, including insurgencies, not on ancient history. --GRuban (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I havent checked all of them, but the ones I did check rely on him for his opinion, attribute that opinion to him, and make it clear that it is only his opinion. Newspapers quote the opinions of commanders, troops in the field, and other people who's opinion might be of interest to their readers, that doesnt make them experts. Im also not seeing anything about Israel or Beitar Illit settlers, the actual subject in question, are we to believe that Cole is an expert on anything related to the middle east? Bonewah (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks like I can't convince you, and the proposal to take it to RSN is what we have left. Unfortunately I'm going to be busy in real life for a while, so won't be able to properly state the case for. If you like, you can find someone else from the long list on the original article talk page to try to defend the case, and take it to RSN with them. Or you can wait for me to free up, but it could be a while. --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im in no hurry. Perhaps in the mean time our moderator could work up a neutrally worded description of the issue? Bonewah (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my absence. I would be happy to do so, with agreement from both parties. The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 14:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree to that. I understand that people have varying schedules and priorities, but I would like to know that this issue is not going to be dropped. Im not trying to impose an arbitrary deadline or rush anyone, but I still consider this issue to be outstanding and want to make sure everyone else is going to continue working on it, even if it is at a relaxed pace. Thanks in advance. Bonewah (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested from the two other parties involved that we press forward with this issue, or at least assure me that the issue is not going to be dropped. Vicenarian and gruban Bonewah (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep me informed. If there's no action within a week, contact me :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still here. Waiting to hear from GRuban. Cheers, The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 02:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is still outstanding in my view. I am going to contact medcab and see what they say. Bonewah (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I have a bit more time now. So what's the plan? Do we jointly write up a description of the issue, agree it's reasonably neutral, and drop it on the RSN? Do we each show up on RSN individually and argue it out there? Something else? --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonewah and GRuban, I'll help if I can. From what I can gather about this case, agreeing a reasonably neutral description of the issue, and then posting it on the RSN seems to be a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im up for either a joint, mutually agreed statement, or 2 position statements that we review first. If it was my choice, Id choose the latter, but ill abide by whatever our mediator chooses. Bonewah (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a mutually agreed statement would be preferable. PhilKnight (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is my first shot. Bonewah, please feel free to edit, especially the arguments against bit. --GRuban (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutually agreed statement to RSN[edit]

This is a mutually agreed upon request from a mediation cabal mediation (parties: Bonewah, GRuban, mediators: Vicenarian, PhilKnight). The Wikipedia article List of charities accused of ties to terrorism has an entry for the Capital Athletic Foundation. The entry is based on multiple sources, but this RSN question is about this one: "Lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s “Charity” a Front for Terrorism", by Juan Cole, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2006, pages 28-29. Is this a reliable source for the entry?

The arguments against are that:

1. this is an opinion piece, which is unacceptable per RS "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." The article even states at the bottom that this is "commentary" first appearing in Mr. Cole's blog.
2. the only place this editorial directly accuses the CAF of supporting terrorism is in the title, the statements in the body are weaker
3. that Juan Cole is a dubious source for such a statement, being a professor of middle eastern history does not make one an expert on everything that occurs in the middle east.

The arguments for are that:

1. the entire List is a list of accusations, not of facts, and is clearly labeled as such; it makes no statements of fact other than that the accusations are made. The facts of all accusations in the list are highly disputed, except for one which is admittedly wrong.
2. the title is an important part of the source article, and quite clear
3. The New York Times calls Juan Cole "a Middle East expert at the University of Michigan" [7]; Harper's Magazine calls him "one of the nation’s leading historians focusing on the Middle East"[8]. He has published multiple academic peer-reviewed books on the modern Middle East, and is widely cited as an expert on it by PBS [9], UC Berkeley [10], the New York Times, [11] (>2000 results), MIT[12], NPR[13] and so forth, meeting WP:RS "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", while the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a 17 year old magazine, published in by some pretty heavy hitters.

Changelog[edit]

• Clarifying that JC is a middle eastern professor, rather than calling him an expert. Bonewah (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll insist on this one, I'm afraid. You're right that calling him an expert is shading the case were I to do it, which is why this is a direct quote from the New York Times. Hence the quotation marks and the attributing link to the source. --GRuban (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the New York Times really have to do with this case? Your quoting them because they call him an expert, not because they have any relevance to this issue. You are right about shading the case, but your still doing it, just by proxy. Further, you are disguising the fact that Cole is a professor of middle eastern history, not current events. Bonewah (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm quoting them because they call him an expert. That's the point, that other reliable sources rely on him. That's what the words "reputable", "well regarded", and others, that are all throughout WP:RS mean. That's what makes him a reliable source. Feel free to make the point that he is not a "professor of middle eastern current events" in your section; I don't think it's too convincing, since current events is a large part of a university History department, his academic writings cover current events, his fame is in regards to his writing about current events, and the NYTimes and the other sources citing him as an expert are citing him as an expert about current events, but that's your point to make in the "against" section, rather than by removing it from the "for". --GRuban (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hows that? Bonewah (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, I'd prefer the quote. You say that he's a history professor in the "against" section, we don't need to repeat it while the fact the NYTimes calls him an expert is an important part of the argument, and doesn't make the text any longer. Just noting they mention him 2000 times isn't nearly as strong - I'm sure they mention both Al Gore and Paris Hilton 2000 times as well. It's how they mention him all those times that is important. --GRuban (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The important part is that if you want to say that the New York Times calls him an expert, then say that. I say he is history professor because he is a history professor. Calling him an expert, either directly or in quotes colors the debate. Bonewah (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK. Better?
              • This part looks good. Bonewah (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Removing an excessive number of NYT links, he is sited in the NYT, we get it. Bonewah (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK --GRuban (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• linked RS directly to relevant section. Bonewah (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Included full text of Applicable RS rule Bonewah (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Further emphasized that the article is an opinion piece. Bonewah (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed #2 to reflect my view that this is an editorial. Bonewah (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ground rules for RSN?[edit]

What shall we take as the ground rules for this RSN exercise? Shall we refrain from commenting so as not to overwhelm the discussion? Limited replies? Reply with permission of the moderator? Also, to what extent are you willing to accept the RSN decision with regards to this case? For my part, if the discussion is useful, and involves a reasonable number of uninvolved editors, Ill accept the results as final. I do want to see actual useful discussion, though, not just one or two people saying Yes or No without any thinking expressed.

I still consider the name change aspect of this case to be outstanding, but I dont see that as having any bearing on this aspect of the case. Bonewah (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be able to comment (we might even be directly asked to clarify something), but limiting replies so as not to overwhelm the discussion sounds like a good idea. I'm not sure how to formally define how much is too much. Here is a proposal, I hope the mediator will weigh in on these proposed rules:

1. Don't write except what is needed in reply to an RSN comment (don't introduce new topics)
2. Don't repeat what has been said already
3. Don't write more than the RSN person we're replying to
4. Don't canvas (don't invite others to the RSN)
5. Appeal to the mediator in edge cases or if we feel we absolutely need to break any of these rules due to extenuating circumstances

If RSN seems to clearly determine that Cole is not a reliable source for this entry, I will agree to remove this source, and the Abd el Fattah one, which is a less notable source saying much the same thing, I imagine any reasons for removing Cole would apply at least as much to her. If RSN doesn't come to a clear decision ... well, at least we won't be any worse off than we were before.

In either case, that will still leave the IRmep and PNLM sources, which we haven't talked about as much. Your issues with them don't seem be RS issues ... right? Or are they? --GRuban (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, i believe my problem with them was that they dont explicitly back the claim. I dont believe RSN can help us with that. Also, there is the proposed name change to deal with.

I think the rules you have laid out are fine, everyone has used good judgement thus far, no reason to believe that will change. You said we should not canvas, but what about those who participated in the discussion back on the list's talk page? Bonewah (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid if we invite them, they'll just swamp RSN with what has already been said on the list's talk page. There's been quite a bit said there! I think just asking the RSN regulars to help us this won't give either side an advantage, as the numbers on the talk page seemed to be fairly balanced, but I think we would lose more in heat than we would gain in light by inviting. When you come right down to it, this is closely related to the Israel/Palestine debate, and there are quite a few Wikipedia editors on each of those sides who will happily write ten pages of very heated text. --GRuban (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im inclined to agree, still, a number of people agreed to mediation, even if they didnt actually participate. I cant help but feel that even if their presence is potentially disruptive, we still have an obligation to tell them about the discussion. What does our moderator think? Bonewah (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think making a note on the article talk page, saying that a disagreement regarding a source - the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs article by Juan Cole - used for the Capital Athletic Foundation entry, has been taken to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, would probably be enough. I agree the ground rules make sense. PhilKnight (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, perhaps we could let the note sit over the weekend so that people can have a chance to respond? Bonewah (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like no one belled that cat. :-) In a few days I'm probably going to be mostly inactive for a next week and a half, for seasonal reasons, and I suspect many others will have similar issues. If you want to post something on the article talk page before, that's fine, but can we not bring it to RSN until Jan 4th? Happy Merry Glad Celebrations Of the Joyous Season, and New Year to y'all. --GRuban (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope everyone had a nice holiday season. Are we ready to move forward with this? Bonewah (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason we cant move forward with this issue? Bonewah (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I checked for the first few weeks in January, and missed when you became active again. All engines are go, Cap'n. Post away. --GRuban (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I also missed your post. PhilKnight (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< Ok, I posted it. [14] Bonewah (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post RSN: Now what?[edit]

Ok, it's been posted, linked to from the talk page, and both Bonewah and I have stayed out of further messing with the issue. We've gotten:

• one reply that it is "all in all" not a reliable source, since Cole is not a government;
• one question of that reply, without further answer; and
• one reply that it "obviously, unambiguously, and indisputably" is a reliable source, but without explanation why.

Nothing more for a week. It's scrolled more than half way up the RSN page. What do we do now? Wait some more? "Ping" the RSN to try and get more people to give their views? Give up? We clearly don't have a consensus yet. --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment that we have not gotten a consensus, I would go so far as to say we have not gotten even so much as a useful discussion. Im not sure where to go from here either. Bonewah (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should kindly ask our moderator if he could nudge the RSN participants, to, well, participate. --GRuban (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Id also like to hear from our moderator on what he thinks we should do if RSN continues to be a bust. Bonewah (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged moderator. --GRuban (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a note on the RSN talk page. Are there any relevant Wikiprojects that could be notified of the discussion? However, if the RSN approach doesn't work, obviously we'll have to try something else. Maybe a RFC could get a better response. PhilKnight (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RSN post has been archived, the version before archiving included another opinion. PhilKnight (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Id be up for an RFC, but we did actually do that before on the 'List of charities' talk page. The result was more or less a deadlock, id say. As for projects that might be interested in this dispute Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism maybe? Bonewah (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly, that seems to be a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- this seems like the most sensible place to engage the project Terrorism people. Should we direct them here, direct them to our RSN discussion, prepare a new statement, something else? Bonewah (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably direct them here, with a side note to also see the article talk page, in a (probably futile) hope that people don't repeat the issues brought up there. The RSN addresses just Juan Cole as a reliable source, but the Terrorism WikiProject should be able to address the whole issue, including all 4 sources. --GRuban (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ive added a note on project Terrorism's talk page. Feel free to edit or addend that note if you think the wording is unsatisfactory. Bonewah (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update[edit]

Is this case still active? If not, what was the result? If so, where is the activity taking place? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. We had a mixed reaction at WP:RSN, and no feedback at all at WT:TERRORISM. I guess the good news is we've been able to remain civil, but we don't seem closer to a resolution. Want to help? Suggest something? --GRuban (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review the situation and comment eventually. Hipocrite (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to sum up, as an uninvolved, observer. Let me focus on one issue at a time. We agree that www.fatehfrc.gov.ps is a reliable source for the notable views of Fatah. As such, they have stated that "the "Capital Athletic Foundation" (CAF) directly procured sniper scopes, camouflage suits night vision binoculars, a thermal imager and shooting mats so that Israeli settlers could intimidate or shoot Palestinian Arabs moving through newly captured land." Regardless of the accuracy, this is a notable accusation of terrorism. As such, it appears to me that including CAF is mandated by NPOV. The question is then - "Is Juan Cole a reliable source." My answer to that is "For the views of Juan Cole, yes." The question is then "Are Juan Cole's view notable." My answer to that is "Who cares?" IE - since we can state that Fatah has stated that CAF is terrorist, do we really need to include that Juan Cole also says so? Who cares?

However, that belies the real argument I'd make if I were a participant here - which is "Who made this list, and why is it so worthless?" Lots of charities are accused of lots of things. What's interesting isn't the list of charities, but rather a series of sublists - "Charities listed as having provided support for the 1993 WTC bombing," "Charities pleased on the Terrorist exclusion list," and "Charities Accused but cleared of involvement with Terrorism," I guess, though I don't know which of these charities are interesting and which are just attempts by middle-east POV warriors to distort. A list of charities accused of something is not interesting - pare the list and make it relevent. Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]