Talk:Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Does anyone know anything about this group? —Ashley Y 03:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Their web-site is an ugly mess. And I think they might be specifically pro-Saudi, but I can't tell. —Ashley Y 07:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I would say specifically pro-saudi, I just think they are anti-Israel, and pro-any government that is against them.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is an oversimplification to call them "anti-Israel" unless there is some content that specifically call for the destruction of the state. It is also not accurate to call them "anti-Zionist" after a careful reading of their content and interviews. It is useful to have some type of "comparative Zionism" metric since they are quite different than other think tanks.
Their website is a mess, but I did find references from the theorists they rely on that I've included in the "stub". (from anon editor User:70.108.205.249)

Contents

Questions

To improve this article I would like to answer the following questions:

  • Who was involved in the founding this entity? And what are their political backgrounds?
  • When was this organization founded?
  • How is this entity funded?
  • What issues has this research institute been active within.
  • Does this institute in fact take an anti-Israel as claimed by Moshe or it is just an anti-Zionist stance (as claimed on their website)?
  • ...and why are they unable to hire a decent website designer? ;-)

--70.48.241.41 18:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is just a propaganda website with a bad dress up job, look over their website for 30 seconds and you will see.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me much the same as any think-tank:

  • It has a particular topic
  • It has a particular POV on that topic
  • It tries to influence policy on the topic according to that POV
  • It publishes articles, books and a web-site to that end.

I don't see a lot of difference between IRmep and WINEP here; they just happen to have different POVs and levels of funding. —Ashley Y 20:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that nobody listens to it, it isn't a real think tank, it is really just a somwhat amateurish website that has big dreams.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, please see my comment below. I may be that you are mistaken. It has been on C-SPAN and in a VOA discussion group as well as used as a reference in a number of news articles. I would prefer if it didn't seem as if you were trying to get rid of an article on a think think whose perspective you do not endorse.
Could you, Moshe, address exactly what you feel is POV about the current article via reputable sources? --64.230.127.239 02:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats the thing, you can't just pick any old website and then tell me to show reputable sources that talk about it, it isn't big enough for reoutable organizations to even write about, and I would like you to articulate the circimstances of it being on CSPAN, I have see 8th graders talking about Anarchy on CSPAN.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interview with the director of IRmep with the BBC in Spanish, hosted on the BBC website: [1]. Grant Smith is introduced in the article as "Grant Smith, director de investigación para el Instituto para la Investigación de Medio Oriente." Which translates, to "Investigative Director" of the "Investigation Institute of the Middle East" -- which is obviously a bastardization of "Institute for Research: Middle East Policy." An english translation of the transcript is provided on the IRmep website here: [2]. --64.230.121.230 16:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, no proof that it's something more than a website. Pecher Talk 19:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any independently verifiable information about this "thinktank"

Everything in this article seems to come from the website itself; is there any independently verifiable information that comes from any reliable sources? Jayjg (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If no verifiable, third-party information about them is available, the article probably has no place on Wikipedia at all. We don't know whether they are a think tank or just a website, and on top of that, I can't see any indication of notability in the whole article. Pecher Talk 16:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
For one, I cannot see their address on their website; they provide just a P.O. Box. Pecher Talk 17:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of references to their work all over the web by other groups. I think that the article should stay because they are a legitimate group -- although relatively new.
Also available on the main IRmep website is a VOA discussion with a IRmep guy and a C-SPAN forum featuring a number of analysts from IRmep -- both of these mean that the think tank is involved in Washington DC affairs and not a fake organization.
It is listed as a source for a number of news articles including: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. It's also the source for the report covered by a lot of blogs on how deep Saudi investment is in America -- it was covered by the well known LittleGreenFootballs blog here [8].
I think the fact that they have a PO Box as an address is irrelevant. In Canada, the main news organization, CBC, has a PO Box as its contact and has for years - see [9].
If any of you above feel like donating to the group you can do so via this link: [10] (Groundsprings is a charity clearing house -- thus it serves as a credible source that IRmep is a valid charity.)
There is a significant amount of information about this group -- there are a lot more "charitable think tanks" that do less. --64.230.127.239 02:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that they are a reputable think tank comes from the organization itself, frankly by looking at their website I think any claim about their reliability is extremely dubious at best.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What is your definition of a reputable think tank? I said they are a charitable think tank. Most think tanks have specific areas of focus and points of view -- basically think tanks are like companies that try to fill a market niche. I find your currrent criticism too vague to address -- that concerns me. I am concerned that this is more about the POV of the think tank than it is about their reputability. --64.230.121.230 16:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
They get quoted in the news only as a source of opinion, but I didn't see any factual information about them given by reliable third parties. If we don't come up with such information, the article may have to be deleted as unverifiable. Pecher Talk 08:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
To me, it appears as if the reports that IRmep is producing are based on research and are factually based. They are not writing opinion pieces that are they getting quoted. I am confused as to where you are coming from. Can you explicitly show me in each of the articles above why you consider their "research products" to be just opinion?
I am also confused as to your claim that everything about them is unverifiable. If they are introduced on C-SPAN as being a think tank is that verification? If a guest mentioned on a VOA broadcast as mentioned as being from IRmep is that verification? If I look up their charity registration will that show they exist? There is no central registry of "think tanks" unfortunately, thus maybe you are looking for a type of verification that does not exist in this industry.
Also, I think that it may be useful to use the IRmep page as a compare and contrast with the MEMRI page. The MEMRI page is a controversial charity based organization whose viewpoint contrasts with IRmep. You'll notice that all thoroughout the MEMRI article is quotations based on the MEMRI website -- the MEMRI website is used as a primary source in describing the organization. I would like to hope that there isn't two standards in wikipedia, one for groups one agrees with and another for groups that one would like to go away. --64.230.121.230 16:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
They ask a few writers and teachers loaded questions to get their point across and then call it a survey. This is not what a reputable organization does.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You are accusing it of biased reporting in order to further an ideological agenda. I can see how you can come to that conclusion. I don't think that is an argument for keeping it out of Wikipedia though. You should read the stuff Brian Whitaker has written in the Guardian about MEMRI -- the article is called "Selective MEMRI". Many believe, although many dispute it, that MEMRI engages in biased reporting to further a ideological agenda -- that said, it still has an article in Wikipedia. Although a good 75% of the MEMRI article is dediated to the controversy around it, which in a way means that having it in Wikipedia is still a valuable resource for "both sides". --64.230.121.230 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is time to take this to RfC in order avoid an edit war. Or if there are enough individuals on both sides we could take this directly to mediation. What is the feelings of others on this topic. I don't want to rush things. --64.230.121.230 16:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
About MEMRI, we at least know that it exists, which is not the case here. Pecher Talk 19:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Your implicit claim that we don't know if it exist is not supportable. It is a properly registered charity, it does think tank like work via releasing reports, is interviewed by news organizations (BBC included, which is one of the majors), mentioned as a source in various news reports, it publishes book(s) and it has testified before congress. Also, if you think that having a Wikipedia article on this group is going to make this think tank succeed, and if it doesn't get into Wikipedia it will fail, you may be assigning too much sway to Wikipedia. --64.230.121.230 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? when have I ever claimed that showing them on wikipedia will make them succeed, as a rational being this has never even crossed my mind, I just don't want to present the website as something it isn't like your version does.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I cannot recall anyone saying this sort of nonsense. A director's interview by the BBC is no proof that this organization is a think tank, not a website. Pecher Talk 06:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, then I apologize. I was trying to infer what was motivating both of you to treat this debate around IRmep as an emotional one rather than a logical one. --64.230.120.237 17:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Addressing the Neutrality and Factual Accuracy Dispute

I have, with some edits contributed by User:Humus sapiens, rewritten most of the article to clearly reference all claims made. I hope this provides a solid foundation upon we which can build upon. Comments?

Moshe, could you find a reference for the anti-Zionist or anti-Israel claim? I left it in, since I am trying to make peace, but it needs to a reference. --64.230.121.230 04:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Since my name was mentioned above, let's avoid misunderstanding: I find IRMEP's claims of neutrality pathetic. We should not legitimize this (or any, for that matter) organization based on unreliable sources. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the article claims that the organization is neutral, I don't think the organization claims that either to be honest. I think that we need to separate out the "neutral vs. non-neutral" discussiom from the "legitimate think tank" or "website" discussion -- the current comingling of these issues makes the discussion difficult to manage. I should state clearly that I think it is clear from many existing think tanks that it is possible to both be a legitimate think tank and be very non-neutral. --64.230.120.237 20:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Funding

I have removed most of the paragraph about funding since this frankly was mostly quite dubious, and once again had no corroborating reliable sources. I especially liked the phrase that not a single donor had hidden agendas.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the unnecessary aggression that you are showing here. Could you place a [citation needed] request instead of just reverting the work I put into the article? I have restored both sections that were deleted while placing npov-section tags on them. --64.230.120.237 17:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bud, they are dubious facts with no reliable sources, I'm removing them once again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert. Request for comment in progress. --64.230.120.237 19:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, do not re-add the information. The only source you have for it is a website which has proven itself to be extremely bias and unreliable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not a productive discussion as it. I have made a RfC. I have started a summary of the dispute below. I left you to add your perspective since I figure you can make the argument better than I can. Best.--64.230.120.237 19:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC Summary

April 13: Please note this RfC is still ongoing and a subject of multiple reverts over multiple days. One side is not participating in this RfC but is still reverting changes to the article.

The question: Is this organization a "think tank" or is it a "website which claims to be a think tank"?

Arguments in favor of think tank:
  • It states on its website that it is a think tank: [11]
  • It has a certificate of incorporation from the DC Dept of Consumer and regulatory affairs: [12]
  • It produces an ongoing series of academic surveys such as [13], [14].
  • It publishes original quantitative research: [15]
  • The US State Department promotes this quantitative research [16]
  • It is credited as a source in the following news reports in reputable media: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].
  • It is as claimed on its website, a properly registered charity, and it is possible to make donations to it via a charity clearing house website that verifies all entities served have an IRS tax exemption: [24].
  • It is featured in this video produced by the The Council for the National Interest: The Middle East in Election 2004: The Accountability Acts (2004).
  • It has taken part in forums organized on Capital Hill in Russell Senate Office such as [25] and Hart Senate Office Building [26]
  • It has taken part in VOA, which is a government news agency, discussions such as [27].
  • The director of IRmep, whose name, position and affiliation is clearly denoted, is interviewed by BBC Spanish here: [28], the english translation is provided here: [29].
  • An ideologically opposed magazine recognizes that IRmep is an organized, active "group" rather than merely a "website." [30]
  • It has served as publisher of 3 books with properly assigned ISBN numbers, cataloged in the Library of Congress-- these books are available in Amazon and numerous other bookstores.
  • The director of IRmep's essays are frequent, and timely appearing in progressive [31], libertarian [32] and conservative media [33]
Arguments in favor of website which claims to be a think tank:
  • "Calling it a website is just more matter of fact and NPOV."
  • "The difference is that nobody listens to it, it isn't a real think tank, it is really just a somwhat amateurish website that has big dreams."
  • "Thats the thing, you can't just pick any old website and then tell me to show reputable sources that talk about it, it isn't big enough for reoutable organizations to even write about, and I would like you to articulate the circimstances of it being on CSPAN, I have see 8th graders talking about Anarchy on CSPAN."
  • "For one, I cannot see their address on their website; they provide just a P.O. Box."
  • "Your claim that they are a reputable think tank comes from the organization itself, frankly by looking at their website I think any claim about their reliability is extremely dubious at best."
  • "They get quoted in the news only as a source of opinion, but I didn't see any factual information about them given by reliable third parties. If we don't come up with such information, the article may have to be deleted as unverifiable."
  • "They ask a few writers and teachers loaded questions to get their point across and then call it a survey. This is not what a reputable organization does."
  • "Sorry bud, they are dubious facts with no reliable sources, I'm removing them once again."
  • "talk page for why this shouldn't be here, also it says claims because it is dubious"
  • "either provde a corroborating and reputable source or stop adding thus ridiculous info"
  • "we shouldn't present this as fact when there is no reliable source to corroborate this"


Do not paint me as if I am being recalcitrient, I do not think an RFC is neccessary as this point, besides whoever set this up has no idea how to submit one. You don't just create a section on the talk page with a bunch of crap like this. If you can manage to convince somone it is neccesary then I respond then, until then I will continue to participate on the talk page discussion just like I have been since the beginning.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Any user can bring an RfC on an article. Further, article rfc's belong on the article talk page. This is actually exactly how article RfC's go. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

I've sprotected the page because there seems to be a lot of anon IP reverting and a 3RR violation. I reverted to the pre-3RR before protecting. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin -- impressive coordination to support others who share your ideological bent. It is clear that Moshe also reverted the same content three times but it was okay for him. I have seen how you work to marginalize those you disagree with, I am honestly impressed with your effectiveness - you are undeniably intelligent and passionate, if not somewhat POV in your take on things. In the mean time, I am trying to push this through RfC and I hope both Pecher and Moshe take part. You are free to as well. Best. --64.230.120.237 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I take by my comments. Sorry. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 23:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

IRmep: is it a charitable organization or a website?

Hi Moshe. I just made an edit [34] to the IRmep page with the summary "added claim they are a charitable organization registered in Washington DC with link to registration certificate". This actually summaried quite well the change I made. You reverted it [35] with the comment that "rv, please don'ty label your edits minor when thy really aren't". I am confused. Are you reverting the change just because I didn't mark it as minor? Or are you reverting the change because you feel it isn't factual? I understand that last time I intrepreted your behavior in a negative fashion and I apologize, that won't happen this time. I am just confused as to how we should proceed in resolving this argument as to how IRmep should be characterized. Did you notice that IRmep recently released their official Washington DC charity registration certificate? I used it as a source. Best. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 03:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you did it accidently but there is a checkbox right above the "Save Page" button that you are supposed to click for typos and such, you clicked it when making your edit even though it was a substantial change. Also it is inapropriate to describe this organization as charitable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to describe any think tank as charitable. Most are simply lobbying fronts. However, the IRS doesn't have a category for tax exempt lobbying fronts. Therefore, most are considered "Charities". --User:Slappy Tahblappy
Can we call the organization a "think tank"? I am more opposed to the label "website" since I believe it serves to minimish the organization. I acknowledge that many can disagree with the organizations work but that should be dealt with head-on such as it is in the MEMRI article. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 15:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Calling it a website is just more matter of fact and NPOV. It doesn't add any contentious labels and connotations.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Calling an IRS recognized non-profit corporation a "website" is simply not accurate. It has nothing to do with "point of view". AEI files a form 990 IRS declaration every year. Brookings files a 990 declaration every year. IRmep files a form 990 declaration every year. In fact, there may be nothing charitable about the activitiy of think tanks. But denying that corporation filing non-profit returns as a policy institute with the IRS, including declarations of each year's policy research to maintain that IRS tax exempt status, is nonsense. Of course it is a think tank. Case closed. There is no justification for minimizing IRmep, their work, or standing just because some don't like what it is saying. Let's move on.

The fact that it's registered as a charitble organization means that it's not just a web site. Calling it a web site makes it sound like it has no legal standing, and doesn't even exist outside of a few pages of HTML. This would be misleading. Moreover, I don't understand why you deleted most of the article. All that text did was quote the organization's own web site on the topic of what the organization says. It is not making any truth claims, outside of accurate quoting. Please justify this deletion. Alienus 23:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Alienus, in my opinion, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, is being disruptive and not participating the RfC because he doesn't have a leg to stand on here. I am having a hard time assuming WP:AGF on the part of Moshe. Anyways, I hope for a RfC comment to the newly focused RfC request. From there I am not sure which way to proceed but there must be a way to deal with such obvious uncooperative behavior. What you would recommend? I don't think a revert war is the best solution at this point. Feel free to email me. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I just recommended an RfC, not realizing there already was one. I'd say an RfM, but that likewise requires his cooperation. At this point, he's deleted a substantial amount of text for no clear reason, which I can't help but to see as vandalism. Perhaps we should just deal with it at that level. Alienus 23:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how Moshe is more disruptive or is engaging in vandalism than you are. If we decide to call IRMEP an "organization", we need to say something about its members. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, he's erased most of the article. That sure looks like vandalism to me. As for the members of this think-tank, it would be nice if we could say more about them, but hardly obligatory. Alienus 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an encyclopedic article, but rather a politics-driven editorial attempt to legitimize an unknown entity. So far we saw a solo performace by Mr. Smith: he runs a website, registered it as a charity, called it a "think tank", conducted some surveys and gave some interviews. Hardly an organization. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should even call it a "one-person think tank" -- I'm up for that until further reputable sources come through. What say you User:Humus sapiens? --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 01:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should call them a "two-person" think tank, and MEMRI a "three person think tank" [36] and then update as other analysts are found or revealed. Based on reviewing the participants of this discussion, I can see why they don't publish many names and phone numbers, better to avoid an "accident" arranged by Mossad or their "little helpers"... (unsigned comment from User:70.108.222.166)

Publisher

It's published books, hasn't it? So it's more than just a web-site. —Ashley Y 00:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No one can deny that Mr. Smith is very active. Maybe he even has a secretary (-ies). Does that make him an organization? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
No, just publishing books (let's ignore for argument sake everything else the group is involved with) doesn't make him an organization but it does make him more than a website -- if nothing else a "website and book publisher". (I don't see the point of pushing for the use of the "organization" term, rather the current description of "website" is incorrect.) Now let's include what else it does, it writes reports -- that's provable, see above RfC summary. Now we a very grounded description: "website, book publisher and report generator". I am okay with such a description -- its completely grounded too. What say you User:Humus sapiens? --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 01:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I would write something along the lines: IRMEP defines itself as A. B decribes it as C. Its activities include D, E, and F. Reliable information of its membership is not avalable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Done. I made my attempt at filling in the letters. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I feel that we give them too much credit. Let's see what others say. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
It is ironic that Humus Sapiens, who spent the better part of a week erasing the members of the board of the [Washington Institute for Near East Policy] has now become so fascinated with making sure there is adequate membership information of this organization. See the edit history, it is truly hilarious. It is a true testimony to Humus's real motivation here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.222.166 (talk • contribs).
Go ahead and check history. If you have a problem with my edits, see WP:DR. I take full responsibility for my actions and words. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The warning wasn't for you, it was so that others can see how inconsistent your editing is. Covering up the WINEP board while making a big deal that IRmep'ers work in a low-key way. The double standard speaks for itself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slappy Tahblappy (talk • contribs).
Please do not take an accusatory tone when talking to other users, different articles have different circumstances, you are not assuming good faith.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The above remark by Slappy Tahblappy is a personal attack, which is a violation of WP:NPA. Please comment on the article, not the editors. Pecher Talk 21:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
No personal attack intended. The record shows that Hummus "dips" into two different vats of editing criteria, depending upon his personal beliefs. Consistency is not a crime.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slappy Tahblappy (talk • contribs).
You continue attacking; please comment on content, not editors. In addition, please sign your comments on talk pages. Pecher Talk 21:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Who is attacking solidly sourced info on this page? Not me. How is this, "the content that Hummus edits, is edited by two different criteria". That neutral enough? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slappy Tahblappy (talk • contribs).

Adam Shapiro Affiliation

I have added information regarding the organization's affilation with Adam Shapiro and a reference to an editorial about Shapiro's views.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Smart move, Moshe. I've taken the liberty of filling out your *brilliant* analysis.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slappy Tahblappy (talk • contribs).

Yes Thank you, but I am sorry I have to delete your new additions since it does not qualify as NPOV. Thanks for the complement though.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, there is nothing neutral about a death threat, it reveals a lot about the people on your side of the issues though, doesn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slappy Tahblappy (talk • contribs).

I am sorry Slappy but It was clearly POV, I do not see where you have referenced the "death Threat", and you make it seem as if Shapiro had to conquer adversity to come to the hearing, that is considered POV, I'm sorry.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A thousand pardons, Moshe. If forgot to include a linke to the death threat! As you wish, voila. It is there! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slappy Tahblappy (talk • contribs).

Once again I am sorry but I really don't consider that a death threat.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, says more about you, than IRmep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slappy Tahblappy (talk • contribs).

The person made a cryptic and tongue in cheek remark that might imply he would like Shapiro to die, however no matter how cryptically he doesn't say he would want to kill him or anything, and besides anyone could tell it wasn't to be taken seriously, its like when John Malkovich said he would like to shoot Robert Fisk.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's much less, actually, because the purported "threat" comes from an anonymous poster of whom we are never sure whether he means what he writes. Pecher Talk 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
"We?!" So we can now understand that active members of the Little Green Footballs community have taken it upon themselves to share their wisdom about IRmep in Wikipedia? That is certainly a relief. Hate to have anyone with a bias doing all of this snail-paced editing. I hope some day all of you update your user pages as proud "affiliates" of LGF. That provides a wealth of insight into POV issues.[[[User:Slappy Tahblappy|Slappy Tahblappy]]]
Affiliation implies that Mr. Shapiro is actually involved with the organization. I'm given to understand there is a mutual respect society going on, this does, in no way, connote "affiliation". ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 00:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
On their Capital Hill forum Adam Shapiro was on their panel, which means he was speaking on their behalf, that would be affialiation. I added sources for this on the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Not sure what's going on here, but I see more reverting by a new account, which I assume is the same person as the anon IP who was causing a problem recently, so I've sprotected. If it's not required, let me know and I'll undo it. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Is citing sources and adding relevant information a "problem" for you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slappy Tahblappy (talk • contribs).

Slappy Tahblappy has now been blocked for 3RR, but I'm minded to keep this sprotected for a bit longer, because if it's the same anon IP as before, he has access to different IP addresses. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that there is a coordinated attempted by both SlimVirgin and Moshe to keep low the profile of this Arab-perspective organization. I find their behavior unfair and in general it disturbs me. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 03:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
If accusing us of being members of a cabal makes you feel happy then go for it, but don't expect other people to come running and say "thank you Grasshopper, I'm happy someone finally had the courage to speak out".
I'm getting kinda sick of your accusations against me on every single talk page I have encountered you on, including my own personal discussion page. Maybe soon you will learn how to make coherant arguments against other viewpoints instead of just focusing on the individual people who take opposing sides.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"thank you Grasshopper, I'm happy someone finally had the courage to speak out". [[[User:Slappy Tahblappy|Slappy Tahblappy]]]

Vandalism

Please don't remove whole sections without gaining a consensus here first. Alienus 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Whole sections? I removed one sentence whose only support came from IRmep itself, this clearly isn't vandalism, your summary was very misleading.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Support from the web site is sufficient to justify the inclusion of this sentence. If you had some citations to reliable sources that contradict it, then maybe you'd have a point. But you don't, so just end this edit war right now, before it begins, by restoring the section you removed. Alienus 01:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry buddy, when the reference does not qualify as a RS it is not my responsibility to find another source to say it isn't true.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that this organization's web site is not a reliable source about the organization's overall purpose and practices? Compared to what? Alienus 01:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The organization tends to glorify their actions, and their website contains many passages that are not exactly models of neutrality.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, their web site is necessarily authoritative about the contents of their web site. We don't have to endorse what it says, just report it. And if you have other sources that are relevant, we can report those, too. Let the reader decide. Alienus 04:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The wya it is presented now is fine because it specifies that it is a claim by IRmep itself. Before it was just presented as fact, even though it was possibly erroneous.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Complaints

Apparently there have been complaints to the Foundation about this article. Please make sure that everything that's added is reliably sourced. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. What Foundation and who's complaining and on what basis? Alienus 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The foundation probably refers to the wikimedia foundation, which is the parent organization of wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[citation needed] —Ashley Y 04:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I suspected that, but I'd rather hear Slim spell it all out rather than work from my guesses. Alienus 04:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me confirm that SlimVirgin does mean the Wikimedia Foundation. I was the one that brought it to her attention. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 11:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so what's the complaint and who's making it? Alienus 04:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. It just reminds us that no unreferenced material should be included int he article. --Doc ask? 00:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

POV tag is back.

Moshe, any particular reason for the tag? Alienus 04:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, then I put it back like 20 minutes later, so its the same reason why it was added in the first place, it isn't as bad but the article still makes the organization look more neutral and important than logic would tell you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the article makes this organization look neutral. It's very obviously a political partisan. As for importance, I'm guessing you wouldn't be happy unless the article stated that this org was unimportant. Well, it's not going to unless you can find a reliable source to support the claim. In short, your POV tag is nonsense and I'm removing it. Alienus 06:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Why is the POV tag back again? The page at the moment reads "Their website states blah blah blah" There is nothing POV about that. It's simply factual. I'm going to remove the tag. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What is POV is what the article doesn't say, some of their less mainstream views are ommitted completely.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Then insert those views, with citations. Don't insert a whiny tag when facts will do. Alienus 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again I was not the one that added the tag, please see WP: Office and then add it back, it has to do with a complaint.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Tags are intended as a temporary thing. Office actions are intended as temporary things. If someone complains about an article we should address their complaint.The article, as it stands at the moment is entirely factual. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 04:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk to Bastique about it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving the tag off. Furthermore, you, Moshe, need step away from this article. Each and every one of your edits have been created to lead the reader to a specific conclusion about the organization. Your bias regarding this organization and Isreali-Palestinian affairs is evident from your page and your edits. If the article entirely consists of "its website says" claims, then it is certainly not notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, and should be nominated for deletion.
If, on the other hand, it is notable enough, then one can assume that the website's "claims" regarding its status and organizational structure are valid, barring evidence to the contrary, and these items can be concluded as fact.
Moshe, this should be an article and not an op-ed piece for you, using slanted out-of-context extracts from its website. Nobody here wants to whitewash the organizations work or controversies.
Isreali-Palestinian affairs are most certainly not a topic in which I want to become embroiled. Please respect that, Moshe, step back, and allow subjective viewpoints to be included in this article. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 14:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to step back from this article at the expense of factual inaccuracy, I have a POV just like everyone else that edits wikipedia, just because your an administrator doesn't allow you to accusatory tone with me when it is quite unjustified.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You have a POV rather stronger than most, and with less ability to keep it from biasing the article. That's why his advice was sound: you need to back off and stop damaging the text. Alienus 00:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
And your POV is completley neutral I soppose, along with your tendency to erroneously title your edits as minor.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I will admit that my assessment of Moshe's contributions may have been a bit rough. And his assessment of my administrative capabilities are also inacurate. Although I volunteer for the foundation, assisting with correspondence, I am not one of the nearly 800 admins here on the english wikipedia. This is by choice, for this very reason. I do in fact have a strong opinion on some topics—however, Israeli-Palestinian is not one of them, and I feel safe being objective in this particular debate.
I am, however, an admin on Commons, where the debates rarely ever get past whether something is a copyright violation or not. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 01:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I never said that you have a POV on the IPC. I don't even really think that. Honestly the only thing that I thought was that you were being too accomdating of whoever launched the complaint. For example, any court in America would agree that it would be okay to say that Shapiro was affiliated with IRmep when he agreed to be on their Capital Hill Forum panel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
No court in America would agree to your definition of "participation=affiliation". The point of a panel discussion at a think tank is to air different, sometimes opposed, analysis. The best panels are contentious, and don't necessarilly tread the doctrinal lines of a given think tank. The typical format of a think tank panel is one or two "in house" analysts, and some visitors. It is too bad the Wikipedian doing most of the editing seems to have the least grasp on what it's all about. I also recomend that you pack up your little bag of POV and smears, and go edit a topic you actually know something about. (Slappy Tahblappy = Username)

I'm not going to continue this argument about my motives and knowledge, when Shapiro joined the organization's panel on their "capital hill forum" and spoke in front of congressman he was acting on their behalf and as what Law refers to as their "agent". You can dispute this if you think it will solve anything but for now I am not contending Bastique's rewording.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A little introspection never killed anyone. By your *flawless* logic, the first secretary of the Syrian Embassy, also on the panel, is "affiliated" with IRmep. If you honestly want to learn how an American panel discussion at a think tank works, read this transcript: http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1023/transcript.asp on the topic of international law. David Scheffer, George Washington University School of Law, is in complete disagreement with the rest of the panel on the topics at hand. He arrives with his own "affiliation", a law school, just like Shapiro comes packaged as ISM, and Kaddam as a "Syrian Diplomat". There is no dispute, only "mistaken" (giving a huge benefit of a doubt here) assumptions. [[[User:Slappy Tahblappy|Slappy Tahblappy]]]

Media appearances

What exactly is meant by "Their activities include media appearances..." what media? where is the source?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Media appearances refer to the broadcast news media. The source is their apperances on BBC, C-SPAN, VOA, various radio programs. This is common English. People fluent and comfortable with American or British English will understand it. [[[User:Slappy Tahblappy|Slappy Tahblappy]]]
Actually English is my first language and I have quite a command of it. Yet I still feel it doesn't make very much sense to say their activities include various media appearances.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You do? Then why is the idea of "media appearances" giving you so much trouble? If an analyst shows up at a broadcaster, does a show, and repeats the process over the years, I'd call that "various media appearances". What, pray tell, is your latest sticking point? Slappy Tahblappy
First of all, they didn't appear on C-SPAN as a pundit or something, C-Span aired an event that would've occured anyways, secondly it isn't clear if in this context "media" is referring to just television/radio/print, or "something related to Journalism".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
VOA: Punditry. BBC: Punditry. Armstrong Williams Show: Punditry. Todd Feinburg Show: Punditry. Jim Greenfield Show: :::::Punditry. Listen to their hours of wonderful punditry at http://www.podcast.net/show/11153 . I don't think people are going to think that "media" refers to construction paper or oil paints, but since you insist, I'll change it to "major broadcast media". [[[User:Slappy Tahblappy|Slappy Tahblappy]]]
Media appearances makes sense to me -- it isn't a very major claim anyways. Alternatively, it maybe more precise to use the term "pundit". If Moshe continues to feel strongly it may be best to take it to RfC to mediation -- it is often hard to find consensus betweeen individuals who see each other as opposing partisans. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 00:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/s/Talk%7EInstitute_for_Research%7E_Middle_Eastern_Policy_a53d.html"