Talk:Muslim Students' Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just wanted to post that as of this timestamp, the last two edits, 66.x.x.x, are mine, Wikipedia sometimes just forgets that I'm signed in.
- MSTCrow 07:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there some equivalent of the MSA for Shi'a? --Saforrest 15:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nationally, the MSA identifies itself as Sunni, but most of the individual clubs on college campuses are welcoming to Shi'a members. BhaiSaab talk 19:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
How about some definitive statements? Unsigned comment by DrWorm
Contents |
[edit] DiscoverTheNetwork.com
I fail to see how discoverthenetwork.com can be considered a reliable source. It's a blatantly right-wing website, and most of the allegations on the linked page have no proof, simply links to other pages within the same site or on other political websites. Please try to find some verifiable sources (and source them in the article, the NPOV way). Valarauka 00:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are misciting WP:RS and WP:V. Nothing in either of those policies says the source has to be neutral. Your assertion that the site is unreliable because it does not list its sources is like saying the Washington Post is not reliable because it does not show its sources. Your points fall flat. 4.249.66.130 04:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- First off, please WP:AGF - going to my talk page and calling me a vandal isn't really nice. I'd already stated that I wanted to discuss the matter on the talk page, and I wouldn't edit the article again until the dispute is resolved. Second, I can't imagine how anyone could even consider the Washington Post and DiscoverTheNetwork at anywhere near the same level of reliability. Horowitz has been known to make false statements on multiple occasions in order to support his views. You can check this on his wikipedia article, which does happen to be substantiated. I'm not saying the source has to be neutral, I'm saying it has to be reliable. And if it is non-neutral but reliable, you should attribute the statements in the article, not list them as facts with ref-links (per WP:NPOV). And finally, here's what I'm citing:
- From WP:V - "Sources of dubious reliability:In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight."
- From WP:RS - "Partisan, religious and extremist websites: The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source."
- Valarauka 11:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do we have any assertion besides yours that it is reliable?? You're the one adding information: the burden of proof lies on you, not me. And try to remain WP:CIVIL - telling me to go away isn't going to work. Valarauka 02:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- First off, please WP:AGF - going to my talk page and calling me a vandal isn't really nice. I'd already stated that I wanted to discuss the matter on the talk page, and I wouldn't edit the article again until the dispute is resolved. Second, I can't imagine how anyone could even consider the Washington Post and DiscoverTheNetwork at anywhere near the same level of reliability. Horowitz has been known to make false statements on multiple occasions in order to support his views. You can check this on his wikipedia article, which does happen to be substantiated. I'm not saying the source has to be neutral, I'm saying it has to be reliable. And if it is non-neutral but reliable, you should attribute the statements in the article, not list them as facts with ref-links (per WP:NPOV). And finally, here's what I'm citing:
[edit] POV Issues
This articles makes it seem as if MSA is a terrorist organization when this has never been proven true. It needs to be written or use citations to prove the linkages between MSA and terrorist organizations. 8.04 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am going to try to rewrite and add to this article as soon as I can collect more sources unaffiliated with the MSA.--Zaxim 17:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is misleading. Some of the editors have been trying hard to frame MSA as anti-semitic and anti-Israel. It is definitely true that most Muslims feel strongly about the plights of Palestinians and the injustices committed by Israel, but most MSAs on campuses have remained fairly apolitical. Compare that to campus Hillels where half of their events and activities are to exonerate Israel and where very few are willing to acknowledge the undue sufferings Palestinians have been going through.
[edit] Tags
I'm pretty sure that we need to tag this article for general clean up and NPOV critisism. For example the article talks about the Queensborough Community College-speech controversy, and in that section provides general information about the structure of the MSA. In the main desc it also immediatly dives into Discover the Networks and the controversy that surrounds it. In my opinion I think that the controversy allegation be placed into their own section, while retaining certain elements of it in the main desc. Forgive me if I'm completly wrong, I'm quite new to editing. Despite using wikipedia for a good deal of time. --Zaxim 18:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flawed
This article is seriously flawed. There is no single group called the "Muslim Students Association". Many colleges have organizations of Muslim students in the same way that they have Indian students associations or chess clubs, for example.
If the article is trying to describe Muslim Students Association National, then the title should reflect that, and the article should describe the purpose, history, structure etc. of MSA National. In this case it would not be relevent to mention actions of individual Muslim student groups that may or may not be affiliated with MSA National. As of now, the article inaccurately attributes the actions of various Muslim student groups in the United States to "The MSA".
Whereas some Muslim student groups have chosen to affiliate themselves with MSA National, all Muslim student groups are not part of MSA National _by definition_ in the way that a local "Campus Crusade for Christ" is affiliated with a specific national organization. The premise of this article is akin to saying that any Christian student group on a college campus is a manifestation of the Campus Crusade for Christ.
In addition to the serious inaccuracies above, this article is also clearly biased. I suggest deletion for this article, and I also suggest the creation of a relevant and neutral article on MSA National.
--Imran 19:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's simply not true. DRK 19:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- DRK, I'm curious to what you are stating is untrue? I've looked at some of your edits and I respect the amount of effort you've expended on wikipedia. I think you probably would agree that this page needs to be fixed? --Zaxim 20:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Again, please provide examples of either factual inaccuracies or pov edits. Imran/Inhendley's assertion that MSA does not exist seems unlikely when there is a website for it (http://www.msa-natl.org). DRK 20:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you'd read his argument more carefully, he is drawing a distinction between MSA-National, and the various MSA student groups that exist in colleges all over the US. The article as it is now assumes all of those are one and the same, which is definitely not the case. -
Valarauka(T/C)21:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)- How is that not the case? The various MSA student groups are affiliated with MSA-National. Saying that the actions of the individual groups do not reflect on the national organization is nonsensical. DRK 21:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you'd read his argument more carefully, he is drawing a distinction between MSA-National, and the various MSA student groups that exist in colleges all over the US. The article as it is now assumes all of those are one and the same, which is definitely not the case. -
- Again, please provide examples of either factual inaccuracies or pov edits. Imran/Inhendley's assertion that MSA does not exist seems unlikely when there is a website for it (http://www.msa-natl.org). DRK 20:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- DRK, I'm curious to what you are stating is untrue? I've looked at some of your edits and I respect the amount of effort you've expended on wikipedia. I think you probably would agree that this page needs to be fixed? --Zaxim 20:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Irrelevant Statements
We have to consider that the umbrella organization, MSA National, has little control over the activities of its chapters, which are mostly independent. MSA National only gives suggestions to these chapters, but other than that, they are wholly independent. The article should discuss, therefore, the history of MSA National, as well as common activities of its chapters, not controversial events or activities that one chapter may have held or engaged in, unless these activities can be proven to have been endorsed by MSA National. The article also relies heavily on discoverthenetwork.org who accuses simply refers to any chapter as "The MSA." This is quite ambiguous. I am removing the following information for the reasons listed below the statements:
- According to Discoverthenetwork.org, MSA chapter's websites feature propoganda released by Osama bin Laden, and the MSA publicly engages in recruiting campaigns for fighters for Chechen independence from Russia.
- Reason: Discoverthenetwork.org could very easily provide proof for this accusation, yet there is no proof in the article, just the accusation.
- On March 15, 2003, during a rally in San Francisco, according to Discoverthenetwork.org, MSA representatives passed out publications, banners, and placards with the word "Israel" with the "s" replaced by a swastika. Other placards likened a swastika to the Star of David.[1]
- Reason: There is no established link with MSA National here, nor is this a common activity among MSA chapters nationally.
- When invited, the MSA chose not to participate in or endorse the May 14, 2005 "Free Muslims March Against Terror," according to Discoverthenetwork.org[1]
- Reason: Is this MSA National, or a local chapter? And why is something that the MSA did not do particularly noteworthy? We could compile endless lists of what organizations don't do.
- Aaron Klein, a journalist, attended a meeting sponsored by the MSA at Queensborough Community College in New York. Abu Yousuf and Muhammad Faheed, two American-based leaders of Al-Muhajiroun, a group with suspected ties to al Qaeda, gave speeches about Iraq. Yousuf claimed that the War in Iraq was a "Christian crusade to rid the world of Islam" and the United States will likely attack the other Arab countries. Yousuf also claimed that American soldiers "starve, rape and murder our brothers and sisters [in Iraq]." After criticizing American support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, he continued, "Because there is no way to justify this war, we must find a solution." He then introduced Faheed. Faheed claimed that there is a conspiracy against Islam by Christians and Jews, and that Muslims "must not recognize any government authority, or any authority at all besides Allah. We are not Americans! We are Muslims. [The U.S.] is going to deport and attack us! It is us versus them! Truth against falsehood! The colonizers and masters against the oppressed, and we will burn down the master's house! We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress! The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it!" Faheed said the war against Iraq would be "felt in America." He then expressed that "the so-called terrorists are the only people who truly fear Allah. Since everyone fears the worldly things that Allah controls, they therefore fear these Islamic organizations [which have been labeled terrorist organizations]. We must join with these organizations. They are the only worthy causes, and the mighty superpower only fears them."[2]
- Reason: This is all related to one single chapter, and as before, there is no established link with MSA National nor is this represented as something that is common within other chapters.
Note that I did not delete the statement regarding the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. If I remember correctly, this was indeed a controversy related to the national umbrella organization. BhaiSaab talk 13:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's a much more reliable source for the Holy Land Foundation claim: [1] BhaiSaab talk 13:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary, that information is far from "irrelevant." You cannot go through and delete huge amounts of sourced content. MSA does have control over its chapters. If it wanted to, it could kick them out. Local chapters have to register and form a "constitution" reviewed by MSA National. The activities of local chapters, as in all organizations, reflect on the national or international organization. If you want to split the article into a page on Muslim Students' Association' controversies and the overall MSA, then fine. On a separate issue, I encourage the qualifications that discredit Discover the Networks, but these qualifications need to be sourced. DRK 19:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ok, I asked about DTN's reliability on the discussion page for WP:RS a couple of days ago - this is the only response so far:
- "Reliable for what, exactly? It sounds like it might be a reliable source for the views of David Horowitz, the individual article authors, or the organization the runs the site. It also may be an interesting place to find topics to research; a politician's opponents are more likely to remember negative information than supporters, and that can be useful in seeing how balanced an article here is. But as an organization that examines topics where they have a declared and prominent viewpoint, I don't think they would be a good source for the factualy, WP:NPOV information that should make up the bulk of a Wikipedia article. William Pietri 01:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)" (emphasis mine) -
Valarauka(T/C)21:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Also, the irrelevance point is absolutely correct - I really don't think that over half the text of an article on "the MSA" (even assuming all local chapters are affiliated with MSA-National, and that it's a tightly-coupled organization) should be about a speech sponsored by one of the local chapters at a *community college* in New York! Even if the speakers had been actual members of that MSA, it wouldn't necessarily mean anything about the views of "the MSA" as a whole; as it is, it's frankly ridiculous. Also, I don't really think there is any "controversy" - the only place I even found mention of that speech was on DTN, FrontPageMag, and similar websites, all of which were basically copies of the same report by Klein. It's like sourcing most of the information on Martin Luther King from KKK press materials. -
Valarauka(T/C)21:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the irrelevance point is absolutely correct - I really don't think that over half the text of an article on "the MSA" (even assuming all local chapters are affiliated with MSA-National, and that it's a tightly-coupled organization) should be about a speech sponsored by one of the local chapters at a *community college* in New York! Even if the speakers had been actual members of that MSA, it wouldn't necessarily mean anything about the views of "the MSA" as a whole; as it is, it's frankly ridiculous. Also, I don't really think there is any "controversy" - the only place I even found mention of that speech was on DTN, FrontPageMag, and similar websites, all of which were basically copies of the same report by Klein. It's like sourcing most of the information on Martin Luther King from KKK press materials. -
-
- Well DRK, it seems that Valaruka agrees with me. You will have to prove that each "MSA" chapter is part of Muslim Students National and that their controversial activity was sponsored by the national organization before you list the controversial activities here. BhaiSaab talk 01:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- I couldn't find anything that stated MSA National reviewed each of the chapters' constitutions. That's probably false. BhaiSaab talk 01:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- It seems that there is a clear difference of opinion on this point. I think proving that each of the chapters mentioned here is a affiliated with MSA National is excessive since, at least in the sources presented, they are said to be affiliated. Im not sure how you were unable to find that MSA National fails to review its chapters constitutions. Look at the registration process. MSA National sees all of the documents that pass through the club. When requesting guess speakers individual chapters have to contact MSA. I really find this argument pointless. The only legitimate rationale for removing the criticism sourced to DTN is that DTN is unreliable. If there is a consensus that it is unreliable, the statements are removed, otherwise, they remain. See Talk:Discover the Networks#Poll. Thanks, DRK 02:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- An affiliation does not indicate that the MSA National supports each of the events. You will have to prove it does. I find it kooky that an article about several hundred MSA organizations has 75% of its text concentrated on one event. BhaiSaab talk 02:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, I do not. Please express your opinion on Talk:Discover the Networks. DRK 02:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- An affiliation does not indicate that the MSA National supports each of the events. You will have to prove it does. I find it kooky that an article about several hundred MSA organizations has 75% of its text concentrated on one event. BhaiSaab talk 02:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- It seems that there is a clear difference of opinion on this point. I think proving that each of the chapters mentioned here is a affiliated with MSA National is excessive since, at least in the sources presented, they are said to be affiliated. Im not sure how you were unable to find that MSA National fails to review its chapters constitutions. Look at the registration process. MSA National sees all of the documents that pass through the club. When requesting guess speakers individual chapters have to contact MSA. I really find this argument pointless. The only legitimate rationale for removing the criticism sourced to DTN is that DTN is unreliable. If there is a consensus that it is unreliable, the statements are removed, otherwise, they remain. See Talk:Discover the Networks#Poll. Thanks, DRK 02:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DTN
Is there a reason that the revert warriors are removing the statements that the info is coming from Discoverthenetworks.org? JBKramer 17:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No logical reason that I can think of. - Valarauka(T/C) 17:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation
I have had this article protected because the revert warring was rampant. You guys now have to demonstrate that you have reached a compromise before this article will be unprotected. If you wish, I will mediate the discussion, and hopefully help you work this out, and find a comprimise that everyone agrees to.
If this is to occur, I need full co-operation from everyone involved. Please post below whether you will accept mediation to try and reach a compromise, or any questions you have. Daniel.Bryant 04:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sure... I'm not sure mediation is neccessarily neccessary. If by Friday the consensus on Talk:Discover the Networks is that the website is unreliable then I wont object to removing content sourced to that. Notice I have chosen not to way in, as I do not particularly care. However, I do care when sourced content is removed. I'm a stickler for sourcing. It's what makes Wikipedia a credible source. DRK 05:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Perfectly fine by me. The only revert I made to the article was to keep the disputed tag up there, which I felt was necessary while the debate continued. -
Valarauka(T/C)06:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, DRK and WTPP were suspected sockpuppets of Freestylefrappe, evading a ban and ArbComm restriction to one account. The RFCU just confirmed the sockpuppetry and both have been indef-blocked. I don't think there's anything to mediate anymore. The other user involved in the revert-war was Bakasuprman, who reverted twice completely out of the blue, with no explanation or participation in the talk page. I think this article can be unprotected now. - Valarauka(T/C) 20:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
