Trichome

thcscience_admin


Images[edit]

Sheesh, Epeefleche, what is your beef with Myrick? ^_^ I used to think that using portraits like this one in a (German) federal election was a bad idea, but after Myrick's pic, I know it could have been worse. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. Hey, that's her current official picture, what can you do?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced tag[edit]

I have added template {{unbalanced}} to the overview section because it tells the reader far too little about what the book is about and does not infact expand on the lede. For example, what does the book actually say? What arguments does it use to claim CAIR is a front or that it supports a jihad? The article covers reactions but is none the wiser as to why and to what the people are reacting. -84user (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this to the bottom giving it its own section to make it easier to find. I agree. I think what has probably happened is that people have used the article to focus on CAIR, and there may be material in the article that should be elsewhere if it should be anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the RSs on this book, and actually have a different view. Our primary focus is to reflect RSs, including their balance. That is what the article does. True, the balance differs from most other books. That is because the nature of the RS coverage differs. Furthermore -- the tag is inappropriate. This certainly does not favor one viewpoint over another, as the tag suggests. That's completely inconsistent with the RS coverage, as measured against the article. If you want to pursue the issue raised above, please do here, but I will remove the tag Boldly as not only not accurate, but not saying what you say above.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been 14 months since the above posts. There is no evidence that missing information on neglected viewpoints exists. None has been added to the article. There is no reason to believe there is anything to add. We don't discuss what is in the book that is not covered by RSs -- that is OR. And the article, as it stands, faithfully reflects the RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of clearly unreliable sources[edit]

Really? CanadaFreePress? WorldNetDaily? Pajamas Media? A student newspaper? The scaremonger "Investigative Project"? Why would you waste everyone's time in this way? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. And removed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously thirded. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Scaremonger Investigative Project"? Sounds like POV. If this is a "clearly unreliable source", please show it. But with link to the relevant discussion on WP which determined so and no excuses. Gun Powder Ma (talk)
The project is embroiled in several controversies. It does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It's publications are self-published with no independent editorial process. If you think it is a reliable source, it's up to you to make the case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. You make the claim that is considered an unreliable source in WP, so you have to support this claim. So, where is the relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. There is no presumption that a source is reliable. It's up to an editor who wants to add content to make the case for the source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan is correct. If you think they are reliable, it's for you to go to RSN and defend them. Reliability is not the default position. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And of course you have 3 editors reverting you. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, Stephan is not correct and he has not provided any evidence based on the guidelines for being correct. There is no default unreliabilty position either, and a majority does not establish consensus. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See a number of third-party endorsements from New York Times etc. there. Now I would like to see equally large amounts of reliable sources which claim it to be a "scaremonger" project. So far, this has been simply asserted without a shred of evidence. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, their own website is a completely neutral source and far superior to, for instance, USA Today and Salon, which write that Emerson and his organization profit by spreading fear about Muslims. (What you refer to as a New York Times endorsement is the personal opinion of a NYT person known for his right-wing views. Nice try, but no.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If you go by endorsements on his own site, David Irving is a paragon of historical truth, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just have to love it when someone mentions Salon, a "source" more known for its complete lack of readers than anything else, to bolster an assertion that a particular source is one-sided. Amazing how this same hilarious commenter claims a supposed NY Times endorsement is worthless because the commenter is known for his "right wing views"(as if being "right wing" means one is inherently unreliable)in the same comment that lists Salon as some sort of paragon of objectivity that serves to demolish Emerson's credibility. If the former managing editor of the NY Times is not reliable, solely because of his political views, then a writer for Salon sure as hell isn't reliable either. To make matters worse, no links are provided to the Salon(who the hell cares about that anyway)and USA Today pieces supposedly excoriating Emerson for his "scaremongering". I have a strong suspicion that the condemnation of Emerson in USA Today, if it even exists, is the personal opinion of a guest USA Today editorialist(they have them in every issue) known for his left-wing views. Nice try, but no. To summarize Roscelese: Left-wing opinion is inherently reliable while right wing opinion is clearly unreliable. I won't even get into the moron comparing Emerson to a Holocaust denier.74.138.43.60 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simply dismissing the statements of AM Rosenthal by claiming he had "right wing views" is beyond hilarious. I notice Roscelese didn't bother to mention any of the other individual testimonies concerning Emerson that were contained on the same page as the Rosenthal testimonial. Hmmm, why is that that? I guess because it would be rather difficult to smear many of them as "right wing[ers]"(something that must be a devastating insult in the circles in which that particular editor travels). If you think Emerson is a scare-monger, then cite a source for such an assertion that isn't at least as biased, if not more so, as the testimonials you are summarily dismissing as hopelessly biased(yes, I am referring to the pathetic and pathetically unread Salon). Good luck with that one. Sorry, but merely throwing around the names of various websites and newspapers, a whopping two are mentioned(given Salon's readership "numbers" perhaps that should be 1.5), is not sufficient evidence that one is engaged in "scaremongering", and if you think it is, you have absolutely no business judging the claims of reliability put forth by other editors. That statement is doubly true for an individual who seems to think that calling someone a right-winger serves as both a scathing insult and unimpeachable evidence of unreliability.74.138.43.60 (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Muslim Mafia (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Muslim Mafia (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muslim_Mafia_(book)

Leave a Reply