Talk:John McCain 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Insertion of potentially damaging material

I have fully protected this article as User:Commodore Sloat was adding in potentially libelous material. To be honest, I'd prefer to see more concrete sourcing. The ambiguous wording of it itself is enough to give readers the wrong impression (e.g. "McCain hung around with people related to Saddam Hussein?!"). No, we don't want that. There has been some edit warring over the issue which will, hopefully, be solved here. Is the sourcing good enough? Is it even relevant? Is it even notable? Some questions asked by other users via edit summaries. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The source seems to be a HuffPo article by Murray Waas which gives no sources. AFAIK HuffPo is not a RS. The only other source given is a guest on a TV talk show referring to the Waas piece; that's obviously not a RS. -- Zsero (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If this were even true, it should be in the William Timmons article, where it would be far more relevant. This and the insertion of stuff about terrorists supposedly wanting McCain to be president show a clear agenda. Enigma ^message 01:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is a reliable source -- this is not a blog entry; it is a news article by a very well respected investigative journalist Murray Waas. There is absolutely nothing libelous in my edit - reporting facts is not libelous whether or not those facts seem to be unfortunate given that McCain is now opposed to Saddam Hussein. Protecting the article in order to push your POV is a very grave abuse of your administrative privileges. csloat (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also I'd like to respond to the false claim that Waas "gives no sources." His sources are a matter of public record from the criminal trial of Tongun Park. I really don't understand the claim that there is anything libelous here -- this is a fact reported by a reliable investigative reporter based on public court records. And it is certainly both relevant and noteworthy -- it was even mentioned by a U.S. Senator and former Presidential candidate and reported in another reliable source, but that information is being censored here as well. csloat (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is most assuredly not a reliable source. Enigma ^message 02:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's always censorship went something you want in there is removed several different editors, isn't it? Look at my userpage, do I look like a McCain supporter? No. I'm definitely not. But I can see disparaging material, potentially irrelevant and untrue, was being added. There is a consensus against the addition of that material, and, as such, I will unlock the article, but, please, do not readd it in. Thank you. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? There is nothing disparaging about mentioning a campaign that this person was involved in. It is a fact that comes from public court documents. And it is discussed by a well known investigative reporter in a reliable source, the Huffington Post. People are asserting that it is not a reliable source but for what reason? That it leans to the left? Like other reliable sources, e.g. the Nation, National Review, Salon, Slate, Fox News, which also have political slants? It is a news source, and the source has an editorial board, and the journalist himself is quite well respected. On top of that, this story has been cited by John Kerry on MSNBC. I think it's foolish to keep repeating that this might be defamatory -- it's not. Frankly I don't even see what's so bad about having been involved in a campaign to end sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s; as even Madeleine Albright acknowledged, those sanctions were murderous at times. So I don't think there's any credibility whatsoever to the claim that this is defamatory, and the claim that this is not a reliable source is sheer, utter nonsense. csloat (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

HuffPo does not have editors or fact checkers. In any case, even if this were completely reliable, a consultant's previous clients are not relevant to biographies of his later clients. If someone was defended on a criminal charge by the late Johnny Cochran, it would definitely be a violation of BLP to mention Cochran's most famous client, unless he were directly relevant. -- Zsero (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a lie. The Huffington Post has an editorial staff like any other reliable news source. Second, this is quite relevant, this is a biography and it is an aspect of the person's biography. Johnny Cochrane's biography certainly mentions his clients, even ones that might be embarrassing, such as O.J. Simpson. csloat (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your Johnny Cochrane analogy. This is relevant to the McCain presidential campaign; I wouldn't put it in the John McCain biography page for the reason you mentioned, but it's certainly relevant here. It's notable for sure -- it was explained by an investigative reporter in the context of this campaign and was even significant enough for John Kerry to take note of. Since we have established there is zero chance of this information being "defamatory," it seems the only reason to exclude it is to give this page some kind of pro-McCain slant, which isn't appropriate here. csloat (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

But, ironically, including the information could potentially give the article an anti-McCain slant! Shock horror! It goes both ways! :-O Please read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I did; could you read them as well and let me know what the problem is here? Here's something else to be shocked about -- including information about the Tate-LaBianca murders on the Charles Manson page might give that article an anti-Manson slant! Yet we include that information anyway because it is accurate and well sourced. Why would we exclude this particular information here? I'm not worried whether the article ultimately has a pro- or anti-mccain slant as long as all the information on the page is accurate and verifiable; and in this case it is quite verifiable that a well known investigative journalist uncovered information from public court records documenting a McCain campaign advisor's previous campaigns, and that this news was commented on publicly by a former presidential candidate. (Again, I'm not even sure why anyone would consider this defamatory or would consider the source unreliable, and to this point nobody has even bothered to try to give a reason -- you've just asserted it without any rationale or evidence.) csloat (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if you accept the sourcing, you still have to question the relevance. The standard game in American campaigns is to find every person the other guy is associated with, and then look up every offensive or stupid thing those people did, or every louse those people were associated with, then try to tag the candidate with all of this. Both sides do it to each other, incessantly. That doesn't mean we have to play this game too. Timmons' lobbying for Freddie Mac is relevant, because it's a current issue that the incoming president will spend much of his time on. Sanctions against Saddam in the early 1990s is no longer a relevant issue. Incorporation of Timmons' association in that era is simply done to try to make McCain look bad. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but it's being done by a noted journalist and by a former presidential candidate. This is clearly relevant information. I'm glad you are backing off of the sourcing canard at least. csloat (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never said anything about the sourcing, that was others. HuffPo is actually a difficult case – parts of it are partisan blog ranting, but other parts are real reporters writing stuff. What we don't know is how rigorous the the fact-editing and editorial control is on the latter. Byron York at National Review is another example of this; he comes out of a reportorial mindset, and some of what he publishes looks like real journalism, but you don't know what the editing is like. The WP:RS guidelines don't really come to terms with all this. Over the last several months, I've seen many editors give a blanket proclamation that nothing in HuffPo is a RS, but I think that's too simplistic. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As for John Kerry saying something on this, I give that no weight. He's just playing the bash-the-other-side game, with more lingering bitterness than most I would imagine. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And finally, remember that the most appropriate place for information about Timmons is going to be the William Timmons article, not here. That's why hyperlinks are so valuable. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Byron York is not the best comparison since Waas, to my knowledge, does not publish the kind of opinion pieces York does. But it's pretty clear that Huffington Post has an editorial board (and to nitpick about fact-checking on a Murray Waas article based on public records is a bit like asking about the methodology for a Gallup poll. I agree the material belongs on the Timmons article as well as here, but it keeps getting deleted there too - I'm really not getting what people are so embarrassed about with this one. It's factual, it's in a reliable source, and it was mentioned in other sources including one as public as Kerry. It may be out of bitterness as you suggest, but that's no reason to pretend it didn't happen. It's not our job to psychoanalyze public figures. csloat (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Kerry, statements from politicians about other politicians or their campaigns are never WP:RS or useful in any way. Otherwise, we'd have to state that Obama is a socialist and McCain is a twin of GWB and all sorts of other nonsense. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Powell endorsement

The paragraph about Powell should be removed. Unless we list every prominent person who's endorsed a candidate, why is his so notable? And how about including, as a measure of how good a judge of character he is nowadays, his testimony in court this week about how good a guy Ted Stevens is? "No", you say? Fine, then don't mention his Obama endorsement, or his attack on Palin, and we don't need to mention the Stevens testimony to put it in context. -- Zsero (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We do have such a list: List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements. This article mentions the most important ones. So we can mention the New Hampshire area newspaper endorsements in December 2007, or the party figures that began endorsing him after the Florida win, or the GWB endorsement, or Nancy Reagan, or the Colin Powell endorsement that went the other way. It would be best if we had some kind of polling metric that told us which endorsements had the most effect (most don't have much, if any), but we generally don't, so we go by which get the most press attention. The Powell one got a lot of that. Material about Powell and Stevens belongs in the Powell and/or Stevens articles, not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite, which is why the paragraph sloat added about Al Qaeda doesn't belong. Enigma ^message 23:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've removed it. Only endorsements that the candidate solicits or appreciates are relevant. Candidates aren't responsible for nutjobs, criminals, terrorists, etc. that issue so-called endorsements of them. Material about al-Qaeda's desires for the outcomes of U.S. elections belongs in one of the al-Qaeda articles, if anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, neither McCain nor Palin solicited Powell's opinion, and I'm sure they don't appreciate it. Shall I go ahead and remove it? -- Zsero (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm talking about the candidate who's the recipient of the endorsement, not the other candidate. But of course you know that. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What a bunch of nonsense. We don't know which endorsements are appreciated or not, and there is no reason that such a standard would exist other than that you just pulled it out of the air. I'm restoring that information since it is notable, relevant, and was extremely well reported in multiple reliable sources; hell, even the McCain campaign found it important enough to comment on! Do you really believe this page should only include that information that McCain finds favorable? Perhaps we could ask him to be the sole editor on this page, it might make things a lot easier. csloat (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article would be in much better shape if Wasted Time R were the only editor. Fair point. Enigma ^message 00:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about the good Senator from Arizona, but if you are correct then Wasted Time R should start his/her own encyclopedia and exclude whatever information he/she finds inconvenient or troubling. I'm sure Wasted Time R-opedia will be a big success, but Wikipedia has a much different mission. csloat (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I see Bush's endorsement and Nancy Reagan's endorsement are mentioned. Are we cherry-picking endorcements here? --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revise and extend my remarks. Somehow I never read, or misread, the context of the Powell endorsement as in the text here: "Republican and former US Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell endorsed Obama on October 19, 2008, and said of Palin 'Now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president.'[281]" I don't think that's worth including at all; there's already too much Palin commentary in the article, and Powell's conclusion that she isn't ready to be president is the same conclusion a jillion other people have reached and stated. What was notable about Powell's endorsement of Obama is that he was going across nominal party lines and that it gave Obama extra credibility as a national security figure and that it got a big play in the press, all of which presumably hurt McCain more than the average endorsement. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And if Powell's judgment of Palin's readiness is to remain in the article then we need to know how good a judge of character he is. Which brings in his testimony for Stevens. And that could get messy. Best avoid it by deleting Powell's opinion altogether. -- Zsero (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC on al-Qaeda "endorsement"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• The result was include relevant information as neutral as possible. This debate was near impossible to compromise and develop a consensus on, so please discuss any changes to this section on the talk page. If you edit and get reverted, do not revert the revert. This article is an inch away from another protection and edit warriors will see little tolerance. Digital^NinjaWTF 06:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Should information about al-Qaeda's so-called "endorsement" of McCain's campaign be included in this article?

support for including the information: This is the edit that is being deleted by Zsero and a couple other editors; they refuse to offer any arguments as to why it should be deleted. One editor has made some arguments that it should be modified; hence I shortened it and clarified it from the earlier version that they did not like. This compromise was not enough for some editors however and they continue to edit war for deletion. Rather than give in to their bullying I chose to open this RfC. As far as I can understand it, the only argument they have is that this information should be elsewhere in the article - if that is so, they should move it, not delete it. If someone has a suggestion where, I will move it myself. But it should not continue to be deleted. And we should add the McCain campaign's response. This was a very notable moment in the campaign, it was commented on by numerous commentators -- a small portion of the sources mentioning it includes the NYT, the UK Telegraph, Fox News, Washington Post, The Nation, Associated Press, and many more, including the McCain campaign itself, which held a conference specifically to address this endorsement. I think it is absurd for people to keep deleting this. csloat (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC comments

• to start, i've just made a few amendments to your formatting of this RfC - i hope that's okay. Sssoul (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• as for the statement you're in disagreement over: i support including it. it's too long, and a clarification of what reponse it "prompted from the McCain camp" seems more relevant than the lengthy quote from the Washington Post, but i don't see any reason to eliminate this verified fact from the article. i'd suggest something like:

On October 22, 2008, the Washington Post reported on an emerging consensus on websites with ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda supporting a John McCain presidency as advantageous for al-Qaeda's continued war against the United States.[191] This "endorsement" was reported in several major news sources; [add a few refs here: AP, NYT] the McCain camp responded [summarize their response, with citations].

hope that's some help. Sssoul (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - From what I can tell, there are only three arguments against the section: it is poorly placed, it is too close to a parent article, it requires consensus to be included. The first two are not excuses to delete the material. Deleting material that is simply in the wrong place or poorly written is a sign of a POV pusher, if you ask me. In response to the second, there is no established guideline that says the default action is exclusion. This was intentional, I think, to force us to reach consensus. With my endorsement, and the endorsement above mine, the count is now 3 in support and 3 opposed. The oppositing actually needs to try and convince us now. I'm eager to hear a counter-argument. I'm restoring the material per WP:PRESERVE as there has been no argument given supporting deletion, only revision. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all, consensus is required to include anything at all. Second, this isn't in fact an al Qaeda endorsement at all, not even in scare quotes; it's merely a report on comments that appeared on various unofficial web sites; are we talking about blogs, or something similar? Third, it's extremely likely that the Jihadists learned from bin Laden's mistake in 2004, when his threats against states that would vote for Bush provoked resistance instead of compliance, and are now trying the opposite tactic; by reporting this straight aren't we playing along? In any event, I've now edited the piece to make it smaller and less WP:WEIGHTy, added Walid Phares's reaction for some balance, and changed the title to make it more accurate. I still oppose having any mention of this at all, but this is a gesture towards Sssoul's comment above. -- Zsero (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'll say it again. There is no default for material when consensus can't be reached. You do not get to put the burden on the supporters to reach consensus and then refuse to listen to or respond to arguments. I reviewed your most recent edit. It said, "Jihadis support McCain. It's probably reverse psychology." This is not fair weight. I added the suggested reason for the endorsement. Now it says, "Jihadis support McCain. They think he'll screw up the US. It might be reverse psychology." This is fair. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Include, but don't use the word "endorse"- This is a valid topic, but it should be structured like "Comments from AQ members indicate that they believe that a McCain presidency would be advantageous to their efforts etc. etc." rather than "AQ endorses McCain." "Endorse" implies that the endorser is operating within our democratic system and is trying to use that endorsement to advance the endorsee's political fortunes. That isn't the case--AQ is hoping for a particular electoral result to advance their goals, not trying to get voters to side with McCain.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HoboJones (talk • contribs)
• Include, for reasons I stated above. I'd agree with modifying it and including the McCain camp's response. csloat (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, per HoboJones' comment, I put "endorsement" in quotes to address that concern, since that was the word used by Wash Post + AP when reporting it, but I'm ok using different words as well. csloat (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Exclude. This is, quite frankly, horseshit and textbook WP:UNDUE. This has no relevance to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign in any way, and there is no official endorsement mentioned. In actuality, this is mainly a summary of rantings from extremists on a jihadist blogs. Plain and simple, this is obvious wikismearing. While we're at it, why don't we google for skinhead endorsements for John McCain. Gimme a freakin' break... --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: Nobody's claiming it is an "endorsement," but the fact is, this was a major news event, and it had a significant effect on the campaign when it happened. Claiming that it's "horseshit" may be accurate but it's irrelevant - there is nothing undue about mentioning it in the context that it happened. If skinhead McCain endorsements create as significant a public event (discussed in multiple reliable sources) as this did, absolutely it would be included here too. csloat (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with csloat. This is exactly what we should be writing about: events with significant news coverage. Take a look at WP:UNDUE. We know that this has been widely reported in the MSM. WP:UNDUE says include.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AzureFury (talk • contribs)

  Comment: Often when it comes to political topics, people tend to forget that Wikipedia is not news. Sometimes neglect of this policy is unintentional, and sometimes it very intentional. I personally think that in this case it's the latter, judging by your comments. Being mentioned by news networks does not necessarily make content appropriate for Wikipedia, and being the hot topic on jihadist message boards doesn't even begin to approach the slightest bit of notability. This is an obvious attempt at smearing. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Please strike your abusive and uncivil comments above; you may benefit from reading WP:AGF. In response to what little of substance was left in your comment beyond the personal attack, I would point out that this is not just something "mentioned by news networks" -- it was seriously discussed by terrorism experts who found a consensus among jihadists with ties to al Qaeda, and it prompted a conference from the McCain campaign itself. Clearly they thought it was notable enough to address; we should as well. csloat (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  There are no abusive and uncivil comments above, therefore nothing needs to be striked. I suggest you reread my comment because you continue to fail to understand the WP:NOT#NEWS policy. Being fit for print in a news publication does not make the material encyclopedic; notability is required and there is nothing in the least bit notable about al-Hesbah, the reported website with all these terrorist rantings, or other jihadist websites. Wikipedia is not a place for gossip, and that is essentially what all this is. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is abusive and uncivil to state that I am intentionally distorting Wikipedia rules. Hope that helps you figure out which passages to strike. Also please do not distort my words - as I said before, I did not advocate for including something simply "being fit for print in a news publication," but rather something that terrorism experts concluded represents a consensus view, and has been discussed as a significant topic in various reliable sources. Your other claim is a canard; I am not advocating linking to any jihadist websites, so it is not relevant whether those sites would be notable or reliable. I'm talking about linking to such sources as the Washington Post, NYT, AP, which usually are not considered "jihadist." csloat (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, where to start? It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that this material completely lacks notability, yet you insist because it's newsworthy that it's fit for Wikipedia. Hmmmm... the content is about terrorists favoring a McCain presidency, lacking any sort of official endorsement whatsoever from notable organization -- there is certainly no ill intent here to include non-notable scathing material here. Also, admitting that this material may be horseshit doesn't help your case either. I assume good faith until bad faith is expressed.

And I suggest you reread my comment and the source material to this smear-job. When you do, you'll find that a.) I never suggested that you want to link to jihadist websites, and b.) al-Hesbah is the subject of the Washington Post article. In fact, if you read the source material again you'll see that it is worded without any certainty, take the 2nd paragraph for instance: And at least some of its supporters think Sen. John McCain is the presidential candidate best suited to continue that trend. Even the journalists who wrote the article question the supposed "consensus" from these websites. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Csloat wrote: ...and it prompted a conference from the McCain campaign itself — huh? What conference? -- Zsero (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Conference call. This is the reference mentioned above, though this is easily substantiated from other sources as well. csloat (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  A conference call is a very different thing from a conference! Oops, there goes your argument. A campaign holding a conference call (i.e. a multi-way phone call) to discuss the smear du jour is hardly evidence of the smear's notability. They surely have conference calls several times a day! How else are they to discuss the news, and decide how to react to it? -- Zsero (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  If you think my argument had anything to do with the difference between a conference call and a conference, you need to re-read my argument. No wonder you were unable to respond to it. If they have conference calls several times a day, why don't other conference calls get such significant media attention? If they were responding to a "smear du jour," why does their response not characterize it as a smear? If it is not notable, why do they bother responding to it at all? If it is something the McCain presidential campaign felt the need to react to, that is certainly quite notable for this article (which is about the McCain presidential campaign). Hope this helps. csloat (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose inclusion I agree with Amwestover. Enigma ^message 05:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose inclusion - this is just as ridiculous as the "Hamas endorsed Obama" nonsense. This is the kind of thing WP:WEIGHT was written for. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - This is from WP:NOT#NEWS:

News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.

WP:NOT#NEWS is about the creation of articles not the content of articles. This is not an applicable policy. Especially since the 2008 election is still ongoing. Of course we're going to be using material from the news. In addition, let me remind people that this is not a vote. Simply saying, "I don't want this here," or, "I agree with people who don't want this here," is not contributive. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It'd be more useful if you included the entire policy instead of cherry picking a couple lines out of it to make the point you want. The policy is about article creation and content, and is very applicable for this discussion. Just because an article exists doesn't mean that everything is fair game on the subject. Notability is paramount for an encyclopedia entry, whereas the news' main goal is to reports facts. For instance, someone's house burning down is newsworthy, but it is not encyclopedia material. If it's the White House, then it's encyclopedia-worthy. As it pertains to the issue at hand, none of this includes a single statement from Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, which would at least be notable. These are websites where jihadists express opinions which has no notability. Like I said earlier, it's essentially gossip.

And indeed this is not a vote (a !vote, if you will), but it is more than appropriate for editors who share the view of another editor to state so during a request for comment. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I like how you accuse me of cherry picking quotes and then don't mention the quotes that I supposedly missed. Perhaps you can't find any? I included the quotes I suspected you were referencing since you neglected to do so. Please correct me if you can find something that mentions the content of articles. Saying the policy is about the content of articles doesn't make it so. I think the consensus view among jihadis is notable. Even if it wasn't, WP:BLP says we can mention any rumor that is widely reported by the MsM. This could not be any more cut and dry. Oppose it all you want. Your arguments for exclusion are embarassingly thin. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Grabbing two sentences form a policy that is eight sentences long is cherry picking. So, you missed most of the policy. There's no need to re-paste it, you can click the WP:NOT#NEWS link which I've posted about a hundred times by now. Saying that the policy is about creation only and then only citing two lines from the policy doesn't make the policy only about article creation. The policy discusses notability, article creation, and content. Further context is available in the super policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

And I'd like to know what version of WP:BLP you're reading, because the current version doesn't mention anything about rumors "widely reported by the MSM" being valid content for a biography. That may be fine for your sowing circle, but Wikipedia is not a place for gossip.

Unless you intend of discussing based on the spirit of policies instead basing arguments off a few lines from a policy, further comment from me will not be necessary. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from WP:BLP. "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article." Please quote where WP:NOT#NEWS mentions content. Until then, enjoy your humble pie. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I take the freedom to reply point by point (also this wasn't directed at me).

• "If an allegation or incident is notable,...": Not everything notable at the time ought to be included. Only events that will be still notable and relevant in the future. Right know it barely is above recent news (coverage) and has still a long way to climb to encyclopedic standards.

• "...relevant,...": That's the crack point. Besides media coverage, what makes it really relevant right now? (This is my major reason for rejection).

• "...and well-documented by reliable published sources,...": Yes it is, but so are other issues that don't make it to inclusion.

One last point for closing: I don't consider the edit in question being gossip at all, quite the opposite is the case. Just again, that would be no argument to include it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse someone of leaving something out of the policy for nefarious purposes, besides reading WP:AGF it would be proper form to quote the part you think they are intentionally leaving out. In any case, you are splitting hairs about al qaeda websites -- terrorism experts confirm this is a consensus view of al qaeda jihadists and the articles clearly state these are websites with direct ties to al qaeda. Your personal opinion about these websites is something you're welcome to hold, but it has no bearing here - let's stick to what the reliable source say rather than imposing our own interpretation on it, ok?

By the way, you violated the 3RR in your edit warring over this issue; please revert yourself or you run the risk of being blocked. I already warned you on your user page about it. csloat (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

He left out the rest of the policy. Click on one of the dozen links to the policy in the RFC to read the rest of it. And it appears that you didn't reread the Washington Post article like I suggested. No terrorist "experts" are mentioned in the article. In fact, there aren't any "experts" in the article. There's only a single senior analyst from a Islamist website monitoring firm; and the authors of the article don't even hold his conclusion to be certain. Until you demonstrate that you're knowledgeable about the article, further comment from me will not be necessary.

By the way, I suggest you read WP:3RR before making accusations because you appear to not understand certain aspects of that policy either. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is a senior analyst not an expert in your opinion? Certainly his title suggests his expertise (and SITE is well respected and nonpartisan). And 3RR says that three reverts in 24 hrs is the most you should do; you did four. csloat (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol. He's not an expert, he's just a senior analyst. I like how you're withdrawing from the discussion after each of your arguments gets completely trashed. Guess I'll have to treat your edits like vandalism if you're not going to even try to justify them. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from Aaron Klein: "Klein interviewed a Hamas political advisor, Ahmed Yousef, who expressed positive sentiment for Barack Obama." Hamas' endorsement is encyclopedic material. This is likewise encyclopedic material. This BS needs to stop now. Those who are reverting the addition of this cited, neutral, significant material are not even taking part in the discussion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I just recently reverted the insertion providing the following edit summary:"good for news but redundant and unsuited for WP article". If McCain would become elected President and this "endorsement" [wrong word actually as someone mentioned at some point] would lead to notable political "complications" it would be reasonable to include. Same kind of edit was tried to be included in Obama's articles and if I'm not mistaken (since things change way too fast to follow it all) it was left out (or in my opinion ought to be left out for the same reasons I stated above). I don't give a "vote" here but rather just expressing my personal view on this.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't kid yourself. A revert is a vote. I'd like to read over the discussion of the similar edit to the Obama articles. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't "kid" myself but acknowledge that you have a valuable point there in your interpretation of my attempt, not to be drawn into this drama like discussion. Gosh, you're right; I'm now part of it, not by reverting only once what I mainly did to give my reason for non-inclusion, but for commenting here. My mistake and therefore I'll deal with it. I'm back from casting my ballot and try to find the discussion on the (comparable) Obama edit. It might take a while since I have other things to do too. Here on WP by choice and privately, well, not so much by choice.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get to this Obama stuff yet (imagine why) but user:Scjessey, as he mentioned further above might know where to find it (quicker) than I. You might want to ask him about this or I might do it at some point.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - I don't know that "endorse" is the proper word to use, but certainly this meets with our core policies -- it's reliably sourced (many, many times over), and can be worded as to not violate WP:NPOV (though any response by the campaign should be noted). I don't see any germane argument against inclusion that is based in policy; the arguments against inclusion smack of censorship. Full disclosure: my input was requested at this RFC. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion - Absurd. Why anyone would think to mention an overseas terrorist organization is beyond me. A little logic would be nice (e.g. last time I checked, none of them could vote nor are they U.S. citizens). If this utter babel penetrates a featured article, I'm adding the endorsement that Obama is the [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=77539 messiah] in his BLP article, it actually is well sourced. Digital^Ninja 03:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, no one cares about Al Queda or their associates. The Washington Post is just demonstrating their poor journalism again! It's a wonder why consensus among the Wiki community is that the WP is a reliable source. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 12:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Include - seems well sourced. The Rupublicans have long justiied policy positions on what AQ thinks and does (e.g. stay in Iraq for now, no time tables, domestic debate on Bush policy gives comfort to our enemies, etc. etc.). This seems likewise relevant. 65.246.42.2 (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

this user was blocked for vandalism and his vote shouldnt be counted. 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

• Include brief mention and link to the main article under subsection Al Qaeda reaction under Press coverage or perhaps another section. Gotta love the 'free speech for americans' ethos, digital; how exactly does that fit into your idea of democracy for the world? It's supposedly a -right-, not a reward, to say nothing of, being here utterly unaffected by any considerations but WP policy. Anarchangel (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Last minute support of a careful mention of this material. There are plenty of reliable sources for it, including: The Washington Post, AP, Telegraph.co.uk. Fox covered unsavory supporters of both candidates. If included, we must include something like this from Wired, preferably a non-blog source, that states he rejected the endorsement. Anyway, that's my 2¢. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 05:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source for the response, via Randy Scheunemann. (Sorry I put that in the wrong place.) And, oddly from Russia, another source. I'm guessing McCain mostly ignored this, but that's my POV. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 05:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• oppose inclusion - wp:undue 96.232.251.177 (talk) (comment moved from out-of-place below)
• Oppose inclusion. McCain endorsing BinLaden would deserve mention, AQ 'endorsing' McCain is just trying to put wind in their sails, and up your skirts. Shenme (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely useless vote. All you've said is you don't want it here. We're debating policy which trivally backs including the material. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• please do not attack other editors. thank you 96.232.251.177 (talk)
• Not absolutely useless, if reaction to your "absolutely useless vote" statement gives you pause in the future. I will try to say more clearly for you. I don't think that the 'event' was important enough for inclusion in the overall scope/progress of the campaign. I don't believe anyone thinks it significantly changed the course of the campaign. It was as news-worthy as the latest "tanned" comment, and has as little continuing total effect. If policies rather than discussions are your thing, I believe I am referring to some version of the WP:UNDUE argument? Shenme (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. There is nothing wrong with this material. It is properley sourced, and it adheres to NPOV, and that's what matters. How is it an endorsement? It is just referenced material. Thanks, Jackelfive^(talk) 06:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Strongly. Content complies with relevant WP content policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP; is significant material, citing qualified reliable sources; should be included. Significant because the entity expressing the hope of a McCain victory is an enemy with whom America claims to be engaged in a global war, an enemy which has sworn to destroy America and has already cost the lives of thousands of American citizens, and an enemy which is a prime focus of American foreign policy. And McCain was a candidate to lead America against this enemy. I oppose use of the words "endorsement" or "support" and favor wording the edit to record the fact that AQ expressed the view that a McCain victory would be to AQ's advantage. Writegeist (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we close this RFC for now?

Ahm, can we close this somehow with at least a temporary consensus either way?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote to you on my talk page, I read and participated in the discussion above, and it is clear to me that the weight of the arguments disproportionately points toward inclusion of some version of the paragraph on this topic, and even a simple !vote count shows a majority who participated favor inclusion. I think it was incorrect to say I misread the consensus; I counted !votes again and it is still 7-5 favoring inclusion. But again the important point is that the weight of the arguments is quite decisive here; we have a very well sourced (and multiply-sourced) claim here whose notability is affirmed by multiple sources and even by the McCain campaign itself. csloat (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"...the weight of the arguments disproportionately points toward inclusion of some version of the paragraph on this topic..."!

Yes, there I am with you, on your side. Not that I care a lot about any inclusion but as I pointed out on your talk page, I would absolutely accept a shorter and less "forceful" rewrite to be included.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Changing my stance in part and think my last edit [1] is within the RFC spirit. I made two paragraphs out of it what seems minor (but thinking about it more seriously shows a bigger impact for the better). Still, I think there is some rewording/add on/left out required. Anyone still interested in working on this now that the election is over? Because it seems to get pretty quiet here since after the election.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Roll Call

I've gone through the RfC and listed the people I can find for inclusion and against inclusion. Sorry if I missed or misrepresented you. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Revision - I count "For" votes for those who believe the content, however it is represented, should be in the article. This does not say anything about the particular wording or length. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For: csloat, AzureFury, Sssoul, HoboJones, (The Magnificent Clean-keeper?), Blaxthos, 65.246.42.2, Anarchangel, Jackelfive, Writegeist, DigitalNinja, Master of Puppets*

Remark: After initially opposing it I changed my "vote" towards a possible inclusion with compromising on the language. Not sure if it counts for being listed as "For".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Against: Zsero, Amwestover, Enigma, Scjessey, 96.232.251.177, Shenme, LedRush, FangedFaerie, Collect. 71.249.165.11

Total: 12 for, 9 against.

Given DigitalNinja's comments below we actually have 12 for, 8 against. I believe there may be more as we take the word endorsement out. In any case, the vote doesn't matter as much as the arguments and evidence, and on that there is an incredible preponderance in favor of inclusion in some form. csloat (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

-*This user is an admin, expected to uphold Wiki policy.

• • I'd just like to add that while I am an admin, that doesn't make my opinion any more important than anyone else's. In this matter my thoughts count just as much as the rest. :) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 10:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

rtally is also against it. masterofpuppets didnt comment on this page 96.232.251.177 (talk)

also a lot of them said it should be a brief mention not the extended thing you kept adding 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

rtally is a sockpuppeteer who has been blocked for abuse of the system; this looks like a continuation of that abuse. csloat (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out, from the edit history:

"Master of Puppets (talk · contribs) m (cited, therefore appropriate for that reason. Please don't edit war again or I'm going to have to lock this...)"

Which is why I think he put MoP on the for side. And that's all I'm gonna say about that. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this issue from the policy side, the mention should be there. Al-Qaeda is a prominent organization that has been covered by hundreds of sources and is arguably a major player in American opinions; if multiple news sources reported that they expressed interest in John McCain during his presidential campaign then I think that should be included. Wording should be settled as well. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 10:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that this so-called "endorsement" was not from al-Qaeda. No source claims that it was. It's some alleged expert reporting a "consensus" on AQ- and Jihadist-linked web sites. Basically blog comments.

Also, 12-7 is not a consensus, especially when you're counting on your side hobojones who only agrees if the word "endorsement" is left out, and anarchangel and fangedfaerie who would only support a shorter and careful version. With "endorsement" in, it becomes 11-8, which is even less of a consensus. So who is claiming there is a consensus for inclusion? -- Zsero (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It was recognized by experts as having come from websites edited by al Qaeda. It represents the al Qaeda "consensus" as best can be determined. You can demand an official endorsement but that's silly -- all we need to is accurately record who said what in which reliable sources. It may or may not be how any particular al Qaeda member feels but that;s not Wikipedia's job to sort out. You are distorting the opinions of others to make a feeble case for exclusion. The consensus is pretty clear, and even without it, the Wikipedia rules about these matters are crystal clear. It should be included. But if you're going to join with the anon ip in edit warring, we'll have to sort this out in mediation. csloat (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

MoP seems to have been under the impression that this was from AQ itself — "a prominent organization" and "arguably a major player in American opinions". I corrected that. It's definitely from AQ itself; the commenters this "consensus" was culled from may be members of AQ, or supporters, but if the notability of the "endorsement" rests on the fact that it came from a prominent organisation then it's important for MoP to realise that it didn't.

And no, there is no consensus for inclusion. Unless you're under the impression that "consensus" is just another word for "majority". 12-7 is not a consensus, and 11-8 is certainly not a consensus. -- Zsero (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: The Hamas endorsement of Obama was from an official Hamas spokesman. I just looked at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and the word "hamas" does not appear. Nor does it appear on the Talk page, or in the archived Talk page. I'm not about to go through the history to find whether it was ever there. But if you think the AQ thing belongs here, then may I expect your support if I add the Hamas thing there? -- Zsero (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that, even though the Hamas mention belongs there more than the Al Qaeda one does here. :) Enigma ^message 15:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:WAX isn't a valid argument, Zsero. "(X) doesn't have it, so why should (Y)?" Every article is different here; in terms of the Hamas thing, I think it should be included in the Obama page. Why it hasn't been inserted is a question for anyone to answer, but that's not what we're talking about here. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I see it as valid. It would not be accepted in that article, even though it had an actual spokesman announce its support, so why would we accept it here? Enigma ^message 17:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The hamas thing did not get as much press coverage nor provoke a reaction from the obama camp that I am aware of; either way, however, it has absolutely no implications for this discussion, which is about neither Hamas nor Obama. Frankly, nitpicking about whether this is an "official" al Qaeda pronouncement is ludicrous; that's not what is noteworthy about this. It's not up to Wikipedia to sort this sort of question out -- leave that to the experts, and let's record here what the experts and journalists say about it. That is all that is being recommended by inclusion here. csloat (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it did provoke a reaction from Obama and his camp. WP:NPOV states that we must be consistent with our treatment of these articles. Enigma ^message 20:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't see anything on WP:NPOV mentioning Obama or Hamas. It's just not relevant at all here; take it to the obama page if this bothers you. This page is about the McCain campaign, and I don't think Hamas endorsing Obama has any implications for this page. csloat (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it has everything to do with this, because we should treat all political candidates in the same way. You're only arguing this point. When I see you arguing for the same treatment of the Obama article, then maybe I'll give your argument some weight. Right now, you're coming off as very partisan and committed to pushing a certain POV onto this article. Treat everything consistently. Are you willing? Enigma ^message 07:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Because no one has chosen to add the Hamas endorsement to Obama's articles does not mean we can't add the Al Queda endorsement to this article. What if we went over to the Obama article and tried to add it and they made the same argument you're making right now? "It's not in the McCain article." We have to start somewhere. Let's add this here and then move to the Obama article and add the Hamas endorsement there. Or start a discussion now, as you prefer. This is not an excuse to keep this out of this article when it so clearly complies with policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Make that Oppose. In reviewing the sources, I see this repeated: "The message is credited to a frequent and apparently respected contributor named Muhammad Haafid. However, Haafid is not believed to have a direct affiliation with al-Qaeda plans or knowledge of its operations." In light of that information, and the fact that we don't have a reliable source about the McCain camp's reaction, I must respectfully change my mind. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 14:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. So that makes it 11-8; 10-9 if the word "endorsement" is used. Definitely not a consensus. -- Zsero (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For some reason my brain failed to register the "-linked" portion of the news stories at 5 AM. I read over them today, and while I still support inclusion, I think it should go something along the lines of "Multiple major news sources reported that extremists had taken interest in the McCain campaign".

Also, note that this isn't a vote. I'm just laying that reminder out for everyone, as consensus is determined by the arguments given by people, not how many people make one argument. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there are political motivations for terrorist to "endorse" someone. Not to mention the fact that the primary source being claimed by all mainstream media is a password protected blog none the less. This entire thing wrecks of undue weight and POV in a potency I haven't smelled since the Democratic primaries... Digital^Ninja 17:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Zero, you're saying over and over again, "I disagree with this one word in this particular edit so the entire topic has to go." We've been telling you over and over again that you're making arguments for revision, not for exclusion. I just don't know how to explain this any simpler. You don't get to change the vote based on the most extreme possible circumstances. If I'm not mistaken, the current edit says "Jihadist reaction" as opposed to "Al Queda endorsement." What is your problem with this edit now? In addition, I will support a mention of Hamas' endorsement of Obama if you decide to add it. I'm an inclusionist and I will always support including facts. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Azurefury -- a vote for including without the word endorsement is still a vote for including. I would say only use the word endorsement in quotes attributed to whoever said it -- certainly Wikipedia should not claim this is an official "endorsement" -- when I first added the paragraph I put endorsement in quotation marks to signify that very point. So I think Zero's point is a red herring. csloat (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm going to switch my vote to include and revise. The problem isn't the sourcing, it's the fact that in principle, you have one side arguing over the nature of the endorsement, verses the terminology. Furthermore, the simple term "endorsement" being used in this context is sanction: formal and explicit approval; "a Democrat usually gets the union's endorsement". I think it's safe to assume that AQ doesn't "endorse" John McCain since McCain would vow to hunt them down and kill them (according to his own speech). Such an obvious remark needs to be taken at face value, which means placing it in context to that in which it's being presented, which is in this case an Encyclopedia. The statement needs to be presented in a context in which there is an explicit explication covering the fact these people are politically motivated for supporting one guy and not the other. It's not our job to determine truth, however it is our job to determine common sense when writing these articles, and a little needs to be exercised here. Digital^Ninja 19:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments are !votes. Consensus is required. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

.... Digital^Ninja 20:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Exclude And here I thought the silly season was over. AQ would not endorse someone out to stop them -- this whole bit is worthy of Samuel Beckett. Collect (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"And here I thought the silly season was over." Me too and we sure aren't the only ones being "surprised". But since it is not over, let's deal with it as we did for almost two years now.

" AQ would not endorse someone out to stop them." That we just don't know. Do they wanna "stop" or are they looking for more reasons to continue? It's a crap-shot and hard to find reliable sources to help US out.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to the extent that it's not Wikipedia's job to determine al-Qaeda's intentions here, so the dispute is academic, but the reality is it's not a crapshoot at all. Terrorism experts like Joseph Nye and Richard Clarke have specifically commented on these "endorsements" and explained why al Qaeda prefers a knee-jerk war-fighter to a cautious pragmatist as an adversary. It's not about who wants to "stop" them -- presumably both a President McCain and a President Obama would have wanted to "stop" them. It's about who is an easier enemy, and it is clear to most experts that they prefer an enemy who is easily manipulated in this way. (bin Laden himself bragged about this in 2004, saying something to the effect of, all we have to do is raise a little flag with the word "al Qaeda" on it in some remote corner of the world in order to force the infidels to waste their money and effort trying to destroy us). And if you read books on al Qaeda from experts with extremely divergent political views from Fawaz Gerges' _The Far Enemy_ to Michael Scheuer's _Imperial Hubris_, you find that many such experts agree on one thing -- al Qaeda has been laying a trap that the Bush Administration fell right into by invading Iraq. Al Qaeda's military commander Seif al-Adel put it this way: "The Americans took the bait and fell into our trap." csloat (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Al-Qaeda would endorse them isn't the issue here. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

How about this

Something along the lines of "multiple news sources reported that Al-Qaeda was claimed to have endorsed McCain's campaign...^[1][2][3]"?

Or rather, how is this against any policies we have? It isn't POV, it is certainly notable, and it relates to McCain's presidential campaign. Whether AQ did it or not doesn't matter; speculation can come later. All I know is that multiple news sources published this, and there's nothing saying we can't state that in the article. Oh, and if Obama's article doesn't say he was sponsored by Hamas, then discuss that there; again, WP:WAX shouldn't stop us from improving this article because another one is lacking. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed but the problem is this really isn't about an "al-Qaeda endorsement". We can point out that that word was used by the newspapers to characterize what experts found to be a consensus view on extremist Islamist sites linked to al-Qaeda, or something to that effect. csloat (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. The problem with this is that Al-Qaeda hasn't demonstrated any endorsement of John McCain whatsoever. There is no endorsement anywhere, and the "support" from John McCain is coming from non-notable individuals. Until notability of the subjects of the article can be proven, this contribution is not encyclopedic and therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. To put into perspective the undue weight of this contribution, this jihadist gossip has it's own section and two whole paragraphs, whereas the National Rifle Association's endorsement of John McCain is merely a mention in a sentence. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 06:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That argument has been soundly defeated in the discussion above; the material is clearly notable as attested to by the statements of several terrorism experts, respected journalists, and the McCain campaign itself. But I agree with you that it doesn't add up to "endorsement," and though we can quote those who use the term, it should be clear that it is being used somewhat ironically rather than as a description of an actual endorsement. ASlso, the NRA endorsement was expected and raised little significant comment whereas these comments garnered far more attention. csloat (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, no, you haven't demonstrated the least bit of notability here. What you have done, however, is admit openly early on in this "discussion" that you think this contribution is horseshit but you still think it should be included. Logic clearly doesn't work with you, and you refuse to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, so hmmmm... I wonder what your motives could possibly be? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the irony that you should talk about Wiki policy after calling me a Wikilawyer! Would you agree that the opinion of a large group of people is notable? That's exactly what we have here, a "consensus" among jihadists. There. Notability established. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about Amwestover? Go back and re-read my remarks if you don't understand them, but it is improper to assume bad faith just because you don't understand what I'm saying. Notability and reliability of the sources has been well established; you are the one ignoring logic. csloat (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Amazing, both of you are still demonstrating a complete unwillingness to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. What a surprise! Smear campaigners often do that. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In attempts to help check the controversy created by the inclusion of the Al-Qaeda bit, I suggest a rewrite with a single source, the New York Times. I'll first address the reason for a single source; they all say the exact same thing. Furthermore, I think we need to detail a few key points made in the source (e.g. a password protected website), and that the person who mentioned the "endorsement" was actually unmentioned in the article. Finally, the term "endorsement" never appears in any text related to the Islamic website, and only appears as the hook for the news paper article. If this can be agreed to, I'd word it like this:

"On October 25th, 2008, a password protected Islamic extremist website which occasionally hosts Al-Qaeda propaganda was found to contain a conversation regarding possible support for John McCain during the 2008 Presidential Election. The article asserts that any support is likely contributed to a continuation of George W. Bush's aggressive terror policies under McCain, which ease obtaining new recruits [2].

Some of you aren't going to like this, but if you read the article, this is completely accurate and neutral in relation to the article. Input? Digital^Ninja 20:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. This isn't just one website we're talking about, and it is an extreme distortion to hide the fact that terrorism experts concluded that this represents a consensus among al-Qaeda members posting to websites. I'm all for sticking to direct quotations from the mainstream reliable sources, and if we use the word "endorsement" I am all for keeping clear who used the term, but I don't like using the summary to actively distort the issue, which is what the above summary comes across as. (Not intentional on your part, of course, but nonetheless this distorts what was actually reported). csloat (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not really sure where you find this distorted. It's a perfect summary of the article. What you suggest is cherry picking quotes to add weight, when weight should be reduced as it is in the body of each news sources article. Additionally, I've read nothing about a consensus among Al-Qaeda members posting to websites. There seems to be only one website in question. Further, who is determining that these individuals even are Al-Qaeda? One of my biggest problems with this entire issue is that it's a password protected website, of which sometimes Al-Qaeda posts on, and an unnamed apparently anon users posts rubbish. Digital^Ninja 21:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and lastly this assertion is of the current "argument" and not of you personally. I don't see you cherry picking anything. I'm just using a generalization. Cheers, Digital^Ninja 21:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is "cherry picking" to acknowledge that there is a terrorism expert who cites this as representing a consensus view. If there was no connection between this website and al Qaeda as you imply, why are terrorism experts and reliable mass media sources commenting on it as if there were? I think your wording of this minimizes its significance. If you don't believe this, you are not reading the original Washington Post article on the topic and just reading Kristof's commentary, which is useful but not definitive. WaPo reports that "The Web commentary was one of several posted by Taliban or al-Qaeda-allied groups in recent days that trumpeted the global financial crisis and predicted further decline for the United States and other Western powers." It also reports that "the extremist Web site al-Hesbah... is closely linked to the terrorist group [al Qaeda]." To quote further, including the stipulation that it is not an "official" endorsement, WaPo reports: "It was unclear how closely the commentary reflected the views of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who has not issued a public statement since the spring. Some terrorism experts said the support for McCain could be mere bluster by a group that may have more to fear from a McCain presidency. In any event, the comments summarized what has emerged as a consensus view on extremist sites, said Adam Raisman, a senior analyst for the Site Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamist Web pages. Site provided translations of the comments to The Washington Post. "The idea in the jihadist forums is that McCain would be a faithful 'son of Bush' -- someone they see as a jingoist and a war hawk," Raisman said. "They think that, to succeed in a war of attrition, they need a leader in Washington like McCain."" You ask who is determining these individuals are al Qaeda? That is not Wikipedia's job to answer that question -- Wikipedia should simply report that the Washington Post and Site Intelligence Group have concluded that they are. I don't think it's a good idea to use Wikipedia to second-guess professional reporters and policy experts. csloat (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think it would be reasonable to include from the Kristof piece the fact that other terrorist experts (Nye and Clarke) confirmed that this "endorsement" makes a lot of sense in terms of al Qaeda strategy. Also, I'm not sure it's worth quoting here, but Kristof does give the Hamas/Obama link to this article that other editors seem to be fishing for: "The endorsement left the McCain campaign sputtering, and noting helplessly that Hamas appears to prefer Barack Obama. Al Qaeda’s apparent enthusiasm for Mr. McCain is manifestly not reciprocated."

Just to clear up some points, I'm not saying there is no connection between the website and Al-Qaeda. The points I'm trying to make I'll list:

• None of the news articles establish that an actual Al-Qaeda member wrote the actual bit of support.
• All of the commentary I read suggests that if any support from Al-Qaeda is evident, it's because he (McCain) has harsh policies of terrorism that allow recruitment of new members easier than a softer policy.

Nope. It is way more complex. Sorry I have to leave you without further information as I just don't have the time right now for an essay regarding this.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• In the actual text of the quotation off the Islamic website, the word "endorsement" is never used.

I'm reading what you wrote, and it just seems to further support my original proposal for rewording. The news articles all discount the weight of such a statement pulled off the Islamic website. Therefore, we should convey the message in a similar manner. We can't just list what was on the website, we need to address the analysis each article lays out, and every one is similar to the New York Times in this regard. Digital^Ninja 21:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your #1 is a red herring -- the news sources establish that "The Web commentary was one of several posted by Taliban or al-Qaeda-allied groups." That's all we need to say. Your #2 may be correct, but it's irrelevant -- we're not here to speculate on al-Qaeda's motivations for preferring Senator McCain as president. Perhaps they just like Bible Spice's hairdo. It doesn't matter; we chronicle what reliable sources have to say about it, not our speculations. Your #3 is likewise irrelevant. The word "endorsement" is used by the news articles commenting on the issue in reliable sources, so that is who we quote. The news articles do not "discount" the weight of this information; what they do is articulate the various views of reliable commentators, and I have no problem with quoting them. Nobody is advocating that we "list what is on the website" - I'm not sure of your point there. Finally, the NYT article is a commentary whereas the WaPo article is a straightforward piece of reporting; I have no problem with quoting the NYT also but the WaPo article needs to be cited as it is the one the others refer to. Finally, it appears you are conceding my point that we need to cite the full context here, including the fact that experts conclude that this is a "consensus" view of al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists and that this is consistent with what experts like Nye and Clarke have shown as well. I hope that is correct, because if so, we appear to be moving towards a resolution. csloat (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of this is absurd. You don't quote a news paper's headline just because they said it, that is a prime example of wp:undue. Further, you didn't even address my point number one: None of the news papers directly state it was a known Al-Qaeda member who wrote the material. To state otherwise is a prime example of what wp:syn was written for. Regarding my number two point, I wasn't speculating, I almost quoted it from the NYT piece; I hardly had to summarize it. I really don't understand where you're having a hard time with this. I'm trying to convey this as simply as I know how, all your messages make perfect since, they just aren't valid towards what I'm suggesting to add to the article. What I'm adding is, once again, a perfect summary of the NYT's article and really all that needs to go in there to make the encyclopedia work. Digital^Ninja 02:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You're the one not making any sense. Read the Washington Post article, then re-read the above. Your version distorts the issue and censors the important details. Blaming this on the New York Times does not help. csloat (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I find it irresponsible in the extreme to throw around names like Al-Qaeda and Jihad when those organizations haven't even been confirmed to have said and or mentioned this issue, specially when it's already been dismissed. Digital^Ninja 02:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Jihad is not an organization; the issue is jihadists, of which Al-Qaeda are a subset. And there is nothing irresponsible about quoting or mentioning what reliable sources conclude about jihadists connected to al Qaeda. csloat (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What struck me as the most important part of the whole section was the fact that the consensus of extremist websites was that a McCain presidency would work in their favor. We should mention that they are tied to Al Queda, but I don't think that should be the emphasis of the section nor of the debate. If nothing else, I think this should be about the Islamic extremist viewpoint since the US is fighting a "war on Extremism" or whatever they're calling it these days.

I think arguing over the word "Endorsement" is kind of silly. We know that nothing official has been done here so there's no reason to specifically use the word "endorse" except to make a point. A synonym would be perfectly acceptable in my opinion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Campaign status

There seems to be a dispute over maintaining past statuses in the infobox. The Obama campaign follows this convention, and the McCain campaign did as well until recent edits wiped out past status. I think the status should be maintained since the infobox doesn't stipulate current status. One cited reference to an older campaign, Kerry's, apparently only has the last status of the campaign, but the infobox was not present during the duration of the campaign. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your intention (as you stated in your edit summary) was to keep it conform with other articles and I'm guessing you where referring to the correspondence Obama page. Well, so let's keep it balanced in your spirit. And "status" is always referring to the current one; No doubt about that. I'll go ahead and change it again, not to edit war but to keep it balanced with Obama's page for now. If consensus is reached in either direction, fine with me, but it should be the same consensus for both campaigns.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Add on: otherwise it needs to state "former status" what it doesn't.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Status" means something's current state. The current state of the campaign is "over". Giving a history of past statuses, or "key dates", is well beyond the function of an infobox. -- Zsero (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You reinstated my point very clearly and it would be hard or basically impossible to argue against it. I'll stay open in case the impossibility's getting smashed by something we overlooked, but I doubt it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes can actually be quite robust. For instance, many infoboxes for politicians mention not only their current position, but past positions as well. However, I think it would be better if infoboxes for campaigns had a "milestones" section or something like that. I think the U.S. Elections WikiProject created the template, I'll pick their collective brain on that idea. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's work for a little bit of Wikipedia:Etiquette, please. Zsero and Amwestover, this was not necessary: [3][4][5][6] It's just an infobox. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 04:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of us was breaching etiquette; quite the contrary actually. We were using the edit summary to explain what, I think, both of us thought were simple points. When more explanation was required it moved to the talk page. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Right now there are more people favoring inclusion than exclusion. This is clearly enough support that some amount of a mention will go into the article. New material does not need the approval of a page's regulars. But for the sake of argument, let's say it wasn't so clear. Let's say we had exactly equal support for inclusion and exclusion. In this situation, it would not be appropriate to say "consensus is required to add material." This is not Wiki policy. Wiki policy is intentionally silent on this matter. One side does not get to claim victory by default. We find a solution or we edit war, and no one wins (for long). Now consider solutions. If we completely exclude all mention of the material in question, those supporting exclusion get everything they want, and those supporting inclusion get nothing they want. Is this compromise? We can compromise by discussion how the material is phrased and the length of the section. Those favoring inclusion give ground from the original sensationalist version, and those favoring exclusion give ground from complete omission. We need to start talking compromise and drop this "you need consensus" stuff, since it's a given that it's going in. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No. You seem to think "consensus" is a synonym for "majority". Adding contentious material needs a consensus, and you haven't got one, so it stays out. And don't pretend that any attempt to add the Hamas endorsement (which was official and confirmed) to the Obama page would not be immediately reverted. Just look at how all mention of Bill Ayers was kept completely off Obama's main article, despite Kurtz and Diamond having clearly documented a decades-long political alliance between the two. There's not a chance in hell that the Hamas endorsement would be allowed, and under those circumstances WAX does not apply. -- Zsero (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Zero, I'm done talking to you. From this point forward, consider my comments directed at the reasonable members of the opposition. This does not include you. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to rain on any slim consensus parade, but... I did not see this article or this content debate 2 days ago... and if I had I would have voted very quickly to exclude the content. I have browsed over the for/against discussions on this page several times today. I am baffled at the amount of 'Wiki-wheel-spinning' over what is, essentially, a cotton candy news article about a 'non-event.' It was a 'weak' news story built on "blogs and rantings" and not based on any "official statements." Since the entire issue seemed to die a pretty quick "relevancy" death other than here it is really just trivia... and in the article... it sticks out as just that... an "awkward trivia" sore-thumb. It has it's own section header?.. with a misleading title?.. like a Wiki version of a National Enquirer headline?? In a nutshell... On October 22, 2008, the Washington Post reported that comments found on jihadist websites with ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda appear to support a John McCain presidency. Counter-terrorism expert Walid Phares called these postings "part of a reverse psychology", and pointed out that they appeared on unofficial web sites rather than on an Al Qaeda public announcement. That is all 'meat' carved out of that entire section... the rest is just fluff 'n filler. As for as 'news-worthy'... it isn't. And for as 'encyclopedia-worthy'... it isn't. Why is there such a grand debate over such a blah/boring/trivial news item? Move along, nothing to see here. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So the terrorism experts you like are "meat" and the ones that you don't like are "fluff and filler"? Interesting position but it has no basis in policy. csloat (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm... sorry... but that made absolutely no sense whatsoever??? The Real Libs-speak politely 23:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That it is not significant is your judgement. I think it is significant. When we can't agree we fall back on Wiki policy. Wiki says include. That's all there is to it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki says include. That's all there is to it. The problem is that Wiki does not say to include. Enigma ^message 05:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sophisticated argument. Let me counter with an equally sophisticated argument. Ya huh. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is wikilaywering. Other than needlessly counting votes, you haven't provided any proof of notability of the contribution or relevance to the article. Until otherwise proven, and worded neutrally with due weight, it's a given that this is not going to be included despite your incorrect assumption to the contrary. You have also demonstrated a deliberate attempt to circumvent consensus discussion and incivility towards others. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 06:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who seriously wants this information added to the article is bent, and has a seriously distorted prospective of what constitutes a decent encyclopedia. I still can't believe that logic and reason haven't succeeded in bringing this debate to a halt. As User:Wiki libs said, this is a weak, pathetic attempted of a news story based on blogs and private message boards. Obviously, the kind of bullshit Wikipedia deliberately tries to exclude from it's information sources. Using a legit secondary source to bypass the a piss-poor primary source the story was based on doesn't necessary violate WP:RS by letter, but it certainly does by spirit. Digital^Ninja 15:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from WP:NOTE: The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. Notability, in the sense used to determine article inclusion, does not directly affect article content. WP:WEIGHT is an applicable policy, but the opposition has not been discussing it. No, instead they've been betting on the slim chance that anyone will be swayed by the "we win until you convince all of us" argument. Stubbornness will not earn you the right to do whatever you want on this article. It's time to start talking compromise, and long past time the opposition has started making concessions. If you want to play the brute force game, you will lose. Like I said, there is enough support that some mention is going in, so let's discuss how rather than if. If you think it is not neutral, rewrite it. If you think it is too long, rewrite it. You do not get to delete an entire section because you are too lazy to improve it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, as a side note, it was not useless to count votes because you guys kept claiming consensus until I did. Now you're claiming that we need an overwhelming majority to get any mention of this material in here. If we get that, will we need every single individual to agree before it gets any mention? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you weren't so busy wikilawyering and instead familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia policy, you'd realize that, yes, it is useless to count !votes and think that is holds some sort of authority. I'd say you should familiarize yourself with the concept of consensus, but since you're trying to circumvent it, it's pretty obvious that you do know what it is. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Circumventing consensus is claiming that more than 50% support is not enough for even a brief mention. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How is "more than 50%" anything like a consensus? Do you even know what "consensus" means? Because you seem to think it's a synonym for "majority". -- Zsero (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You've performed enough wikilawyering, so I know that you know what consensus actually is; you're just hoping that other editors don't. You're resorting to counting !votes as if Wikipedia were some kind of democracy. The consensus policy page is short, it's impossible for you at this point to have not read it. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Amwestover, you can join Zero in the group of unreasonable editors. Digital and I will be about half a page down discussing ways in which we can improve the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know you'd like to ignore the consensus process, you've made that perfectly clear. But that's not going to get you very far. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Digital Ninja, please familiarize yourself with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and do not make comments like this again: "Anyone who seriously wants this information added to the article is bent, and has a seriously distorted prospective of what constitutes a decent encyclopedia" That is not only demonstrably false but it is also extremely unproductive to the discussion. In fact we have shown conclusively why this information belongs in the article. But if we hadn't, making abusive personal attacks won't help change anything. csloat (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What? Please don't classify me as "guys", I never said a mention of the instance shouldn't be brought up. I'm simply appalled regarding the way it's written and think it (the way it's written) should be deleted and re-written in a much more neutral fashion, which I've presented. And no, I never said "we have a consensus", and no I don't think a super majority is necessary for inclusion. I'm not a fan of being misrepresented as stating something I never did, so stop it. And Sloat, if you "have shown conclusively why this information belongs in the article", there wouldn't be so much opposition would there? Given the definition of "conclusive", I think I'm right. Furthermore, I am civil and I did not attack anyone as my generalized statement represents. I think both of you are good editors who want to improve the article or else you wouldn't be here. It was not my intent to make you feel attacked. My intent was to bring about strong debate in hopes of learning exactly what drives you reasoning. It's quite clear you have the best intention of the article at heart, I simply happen to strongly disagree with said intention. Between WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK, and WP:RS I think there is more than enough to oppose. I'm also a strong believer that blogs and message boards should never be used in an encyclopedia. It makes no sense to quote a secondary source thats simply drawing conclusions based an a freakin' chat room. Digital^Ninja 02:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the red herrings. Nobody is advocating using "blogs" and "message boards." The kinds of citations being discussed are the Washington Post, New York Times, and Associated Press. csloat (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My comments were aimed at the opposition in general, Digital, not you personally. I would consider you a member of the "reasonable opposition," a set not equivalent to the set of opposing editors. I feel that the Wiki is too harsh on blogs as these can and often do represent the opinion and feelings of many. Not to mention that experts often have their own blogs. Here we have an expert who claims that islamic extremist bloggers agree that a McCain presidency would work in their favor. If we assume that non-blogging islamic extremists are equally or more fanatical than blogging islamic extremists, this gives some measure of the opinion of the wider group of islamic extremists. I think the opinion of islamic extremists is noteworthy. That's what I want to see represented in the section. Any rewrite will have to mention this in order to get my support. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(<---) I happen to agree with you 100%, mainly because an expert did comment as such. Right now, the way it's worded with selective quotes, seems to have innuendo that a vote for McCain would represent support for or helping of terrorists. I completely disagree with that. That would be nonsensical in my opinion. I think summary style should be used, without any word of "endorsement", and without analysis of both sides in a small mention. Also, I'm not fond of using Al-Qeada's name since officially they've said nothing of the matter. Jihadist or Islamic Extremist works just fine IMO. Thank you for your thoughtful response. Digital^Ninja 02:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point a mention of Al Queda is a reasonable sacrifice to achieve consensus. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Such a concession isn't likely to induce cognitive dissonance here. Agree. :) Digital^Ninja 02:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a "reasonable sacrifice," it is essential to accuracy since that is what is described in the articles in the Washington Post, NYT, etc. csloat (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

C'mon sloat, work with us here. How many weeks have we been arguing about this? You have to admit that the connection to Al Queda is pretty weak. How many Islamic extremist groups are there out there? A consensus view among Islamic extremists does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al Queda. Really, the only facts we have is that the websites were linked to Al Queda, but I'm sure they were linked to basically every other terrorist organization as well. Omitting this fact would not necessarily be censorship, if that is your concern. We can leave it out as editorial control. Do you really think the fact that Al Queda is linked to some degree to these websites is the important part of this story? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's perfectly acceptable to list the website might have a connection to Al-Queda. However, I think the name should only be used once, to illustrate the site thought to have such connections. Also, it needs to be clear, leaving no connotation that this is Al-Queda's confirmed position. Further, I don't like the way "password protected" website reads, I don't mind that it's in there, but right now it makes it sound like it's a "super top secret Al-Queda encryption protected server of terror", which I don't think is the right innuendo to send. I think pointing out that is was a "blog", as stated in the source, would help.

I really think we're making good progress here. In fact, I'm even thinking of adding AzureFury to my Christmas card mailing list for being so reasonable regarding this :) Digital^Ninja 14:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The connection to al-Qaeda is as stated in the articles; no more, no less. I also have reasonable confidence in terrorism experts' ability to sort these things out, and it's really not the role of Wikipedia editors to second guess such experts. And frankly your comment that "I'm sure they were linked to basically every other terrorist organization" betrays a paucity of expertise on the topic -- al Qaeda is a very distinct organization in many ways (or loose collection of organizations, depending how you define it) and is strongly opposed by many other jihadist organizations. So it's my feeling that if terrorist experts such as the SITE researchers find connections to al-Qaeda, there likely are such connections. (I believe the original article said "al Qaeda and the Taliban" were linked to these sites). But either way it's not for us to judge whether we think that info is credible; just to record that it was published and who said it. And yes, I do think it is an important part of the story that al-Qaeda was connected to this. If the Mujahideen-e Khalq showed some support for McCain's candidacy, it probably wouldn't have been big news. I agree with DigitalNinja that "password protected" is not necessary. csloat (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is stated. I don't deny that an Islamic extremist blog will have blogs from members of Al Queda. I'm not second guessing anyone. I'm doubting the significance of the claim, and making a WP:WEIGHT argument here against the mention of Al Queda. All that was said was "these sites are linked to Al Queda." Infact, the articles specifically declare that we still have no idea what Al Queda's opinion on the matter is. It would be reasonable to say a mention implies unfairly that Al Queda is making the statements. That's why I think it's a reasonable sacrifice to achieve consensus. By the way, consider showing a measure of civility to your only support in this issue, hmm? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

NEW PROPOSAL

Ok, I have a new proposal. Please weigh in and let me know what you think. First, I think we should eliminate the current position of the “Jihadist reaction” section and move it somewhere else. The reason for the move is it seems out of place and uninvolved editors have expressed similar feelings. Secondly, I think a mention of the Jihadist reaction should go in the bottom of the Endorsement section. Now, I know what you’re thinking, “OMFG ENDORSEMENTZZZZ OMGFBBQ !!!!11!!!1!!one!!11!1eleven1!!!!1”

Please calm down and listen to my reasoning. Right now, the “endorsement” section is pretty fluffy (overly positive) and that’s one of the reasons I don’t like separate sections to carry the label endorsement. I tend to like summary style, putting the endorsements relevant to the date it was given in the overall prose. However, in this instance we can use the section to our advantage. If we mention “Jihadist reaction” directly below the endorsement section, it will help balance out the fluff and give appearance that the full spectrum is being given (however I still don’t want the word endorsement being used in the Jihadist reaction section as it’s not an Al-Queda’s official position).

This way, the transition from official “endorsements” (a positive thing), to Jihadist reaction (obviously a negative thing) can transition smoothly and make logical placement sense.

Now, here is what I think the text should say. Feel free to add your opinion, after all, this project was ‘’created’’ by using everyones POV, not just mine:

On October 22, 2008, the Washington Post reported on comments appearing on an Islamic extremist private internet forum which has suspected connections to Al-Queda. According to Adam Raisman, a senior analyst for the Site Intelligence Group which monitors Islamist Web pages, "[T]he comments summarized what has emerged as a consensus view on extremist websites," and further stated that, "the idea in the jihadist forums is that McCain would be a faithful “son of Bush” — someone they see as a jingoist and a war hawk." Counterterrorism expert, Walid Phares, called these postings "part of a reverse psychology", and pointed out that they appeared on unofficial web sites rather than on an Al Qaeda public announcement.

I removed the section about a “terrorist attack”. That is pure hyperbole as Muhammad Haafid isn’t even identified as Al-Queda, or even a terrorist for that matter. He was simply quoted so The Washington Post could make a point.

The rest is a very analytical, informative piece that brings like to the situation in a notable, mannered, neutral way, providing all relevant information to the reader as well as sources the reader can choose to investigate further if they feel compelled.

Thoughts, opinions, ideas? Digital^Ninja 15:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG, that's almost a whole screen on my laptop. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Quit using your cell phone as your laptop :-D Digital^Ninja 16:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This addresses the issue I have with giving a whole section to jihadist when public figures and organizations such as Bush, Nancy Reagan, Lieberman, and the NRA each share their own section, but it doesn't address my central concern in all this. Notability of the jihadist has not been established: they're unknown individuals who have no authority or public noteworthiness. The website supposedly has ties to Al-Qaeda, but even the website didn't make an official endorsement. If this were a direct endorsement from Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or even the actual website itself, notability wouldn't be an issue. But it's not. Essentially what was done is tantamount to someone roaming MySpace for opinions on the election and drawing the conclusion that there's a consensus that internet users support Barack Obama. In addition to it being non-notable, it's not even remotely scientific.

Sources and their wording and methods have to be scrutinize; it's a step that's skip all too often on Wikipedia. Perfect example of this is an unrelated issue of the Secret Service stating that threats on Obama increased as the election drew near. Several supposedly reputable British papers -- I only read the Telegraph's article, but there were apparently others -- had headlines saying that Palin's campaign rallies were the catalyst because of her accusations of Obama "palling around with terrorists", and the text of the articles claimed this as well. However, the conclusion is completely drawn by the reporter and is not supported by his source material whatsoever. The Secret Service never linked Palin's rallies to the increase in threats, in fact they blamed it on racists and white supremacists -- not anti-terrorists. Regardless, that didn't stop people from trying to shove that rubbish into Palin's Wikipedia article. It appears that greater minds prevailed on that issue, but I haven't checked the article since yesterday morning so who really knows. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I would argue that since several notable mainstream media organizations mentioned this incident, a brief mention in Wikipedia is justified. If you run your opposition based on WP:N, you will likely fail. I agree that the way it's presented now is giving the incident undue weight given the reasons you stated above, primarily the lack of credibility mentioned in the website, however, experts in the field thought it was important enough to comment on. I feel presenting it in a toned down version, and explaining the incident in a neutral way is just fine. So if you have another argument besides WP:N issues, please discuss them. However, everyone here will disagree with you if you continue saying it's not notable so please don't just repeat yourself over and over. That's a great way to get nowhere, delay any type of consensus, and run the risk of your actions eventually being perceived as disruptive. Regards, Digital^Ninja 17:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an incorrect assumption that the mentioning of an incident by the mainstream media entails notability of said incident. The media's purpose is based on reporting facts or events, not reporting based on subject notability. I've used this analogy before (maybe not on this particular talk page), but your neighbor's house burning down is not notable. The White House burning down is notable. Both incidents will be covered by the news, but only one incident is appropriate for Wikipedia. Reasons for the White House's notability would be beyond the scope of such a news article, they would instead be confirmed by other sources. Conversely, your neighbor's house would not have any third-party verification of notability because it is in fact not notable. The same can be said for these jihadists. Outside of this news story, there's no verification of their notability. But if we were talking about Al Qaeda and the Taliban, there would be plenty of sources to verify their notability.

I think notability is still very pertinent to this, but focus should be put on this part of the Wikipedia notability guideline: WP:N#NCONTENT. Most of the notability guideline discusses article notability, but this part of the guidelines focuses on content notability which is the issue at hand. I obviously suggest you read the exact wording, but to summarize: appropriate weight should be given based on subject notability and Wikipedia articles are not an exhaustive summary of all possible details on a subject. There are plenty of things that have been left out of this article, mainly for notability and verifiability reasons, but let's keep this to endorsements (even though we know there's been no formal endorsement). The endorsement snippet from this article very briefly summarizes a larger article that is a list of endorsements, and Obama's campaign page has a similar snippet with a link to a larger article. For the most part, these are hardly exhaustive lists even though they may seem large -- to be technically exhaustive there'd have to be 120 million endorsements between both lists. But more importantly, nearly everyone listed on these endorsement lists has notability, and a vast supermajority have enough notability to have their own Wikipedia articles. Do you really think that the individual jihadists, or the websites they posted to which were used to formulate this consensus/pseudo-endorsement are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles?

It's all an issue of notability and weight, and based on the notability of said jihadists, their notability is vastly overshadowed by other public figures and organizations that have actually endorsed McCain. Being generous, I'd say they deserve at the very most a sentence of mention in the article. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll use your very analogy, except untwisted, to help show you how I understand notability. If my house burns down, it will not be in national, mainstream news, however if the White House burns down, it will be in mainstream, national news. I think you are confused by how news works. Nobody wants to hear about non-notable events. Enough mainstream sources, and political experts commented on this to make it notable as a brief mention. Now please, stop repeating everything you say, and stop reverting the article. Is there anything else you'd like to point out besides notability? I'm sorry, but on the notability issue, you've lost like 4:1. Digital^Ninja 19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The news is not motivated by notability, that's why policies like WP:NOT#NEWS exist. If it did then Wikipedia and Wikinews would be one in the same. And a distinction between national media and local media is irrelevant since their goals are the same: facts and events. I think you're confusing interest/audience with notability in your version of the analogy. Local stories are covered by the local media and national stories by the national media. Just because the scope is national doesn't give the subject inherent notability. Often national news stories are on notable subjects, but that is not a given and I still have not seen proof of that here.

My main concern for this issue is still notability (and weight), and it has not been addressed. I have yet to see proof that the jihadist websites have notability outside of this story, and I have yet to see an explanation for why they deserve more weight than hundreds of other notable endorses of John McCain. Per WP:N#NCONTENT, there's no reason to give them any significant space, or any space at all in my opinion when accounting for other notable endorsements.

I'd also like to point out that claiming I've "lost" on the notability issue isn't constructive or going to help anything. It's similar to counting !votes. I don't mind discussing this further, but if I've repeat anything, it's because I don't believe it's been addressed. And also, a protected version of a article is not an endorsement of that article; it's an indiscriminate halt on editing to encourage discussion. Unfortunately, all this halt in editing did was result in a useless "Roll Call"; up until very recently, when you contributed your opinion and version of the material. Now if all editors involved in this issue were editing in the spirit of Wikipedia, they'd hash out issues on the talk page instead of re-adding contentious material to the article over and over again. It'd be nice if some of these editors would also familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and etiquette. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Often, national news stories are not notable subjects, but that is not a given as I still have not seen proof of that here". Ugh. I don't think we're going to agree. It's unfortunate that you won't listen to your own advise as to what the purpose of article protection is. But instead, you revert immediately after protection expires. Digital^Ninja 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you copy/pasted that. Re-read what I wrote, it appears that you misread it because what you typed is not what I wrote.

As for the other comment, I wasn't the one who started a roll call that needless gobbled up discussion for two days, nor was I the one who counted !votes. These are the things that get nothing done during an edit freeze. And since nothing was accomplished, I saw no reason to preserved the edit-protected version of the article. And since now, finally, a different version is being worked on there's no reason to keep re-adding the previous material which lacks consensus. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, my bad. Thank god you didn't write that, I was really starting to loose hope :). I agree that the roll call consumed valuable discussion time. However, it's important to get as many opinions as possible. That way, people don't have to deal with us battling it out by ourselves! And yes, I'm working on a different version. Why don't you try modifying the version I created to something you could tolerate as a compromise and token of good faith? It's obvious that this is going to be a continual war until so. I personally would prefer no mention at all. However, I realize that position would go nowhere. So seriously, I really don't mind what you delete out IMO. I just want this to be over! Digital^Ninja 21:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Would a war prove notability, Amwestover? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I really want to see the explanation of why the extremists support McCain. Right now, your proposal essentially says, "extremists think McCain will be a bad president like Bush." Not surprising, a good chunk of the US thought the same thing. What interested me the most was this: It further suggested that a terrorist strike might swing the election to McCain and guarantee an expansion of U.S. military commitments in the Islamic world. "It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda... Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America. This mention of an expansion of the military presence in the Middle-East seems to be perfectly consistent with McCain's aggressive stance on rogue states. Not to mention, it reveals the overall strategy of extremists, not to defeat but to exhaust the US. Personally, I feel with all the economic trouble going on in the US along with the two wars, exhaustion is a very real threat. Perhaps we could cut those two sentences down a bit, but I really want to see a mention of the exhaustion strategy. Your suggested move of the material I think is a clever way of avoiding implication by section. I think we've just gotta nail down the final wording and we can put this stuff up for good. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The election is over. WP:CRYSTAL does not even begin to cover some of the silliness proposed -- sort of like WP:BROKENCRYSTALBALL at best. Collect (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Constructive. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Original research and soapboxing, common tools of smear-artists. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I can work with that. I want to make sure though the understanding is present however that the quoted material is not from a confirmed terrorist, that the information in no way guarantees they would "exhaust" America even if it was from a terrorist, and that the use of "exhaust" America with the word "succeed" preceding it is a very real implication of defeat, regardless of wording. However, I think the point you are trying to draw upon is the context of why the bit about exhausting America, is an important piece of context. I don't think we should use quotes for that however, as we would be directly useing the words of an obviously someone with a lot of POV, a suspected terrorist, to add weight to a point. So, that being said how about something like this:

---

On October 22, 2008, the Washington Post reported on comments appearing on an Islamic extremist private internet forum which has suspected connections to Al Qaeda. According to Adam Raisman, a senior analyst for the Site Intelligence Group which monitors Islamist Web pages, "[T]he comments summarized what has emerged as a consensus view on extremist websites," and further stated that, "the idea in the jihadist forums is that McCain would be a faithful “son of Bush” — someone they see as a jingoist and a war hawk." The website also suggested a terrorist attack before the election might sway the vote in favor of McCain, and provoking McCain into triggering a prolonged battle against Islamic extremists, and the eventual 'exhaustion' of U.S. resources. Joseph Nye from The New York Times details further into extremist motives to say, "From their [Islamic Extremists] perspective, a continuation of Bush policies is best for recruiting,".

Counterterrorism expert, Walid Phares, called these postings "part of a reverse psychology", and pointed out that they appeared on unofficial web sites rather than on an Al Qaeda public announcement.

---

How does that look? I added one more quote as to their possible MO at the end, and I separated the last sentence to address any concerns people might have that it simply isn't notable. Hopefully this makes everyone happy. I like it, personally. Digital^Ninja 18:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for writing that up. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Compromise

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

*note - removed RfC tag as the entire conversations is already posted. Digital^Ninja 20:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So far, this is what we have. Please !vote below as to weather or not you agree. Please be mindful, a dreadfully long battle and compromise formed this newly forged section. Please show the same respect, and compromise for consensus as other editors have shown. Thanks,

P.S. - disruptive comments will be deleted for the sake of brevity

---

On October 22, 2008, the Washington Post reported on comments appearing on an Islamic extremist private internet forum which has suspected connections to Al Qaeda. According to Adam Raisman, a senior analyst for the Site Intelligence Group which monitors Islamist Web pages, "[T]he comments summarized what has emerged as a consensus view on extremist websites," and further stated that, "the idea in the jihadist forums is that McCain would be a faithful “son of Bush” — someone they see as a jingoist and a war hawk." The website also suggested a terrorist attack before the election might sway the vote in favor of McCain, and provoke McCain into triggering a prolonged battle against Islamic extremists, and the eventual 'exhaustion' of U.S. resources. Joseph Nye from The New York Times details further into extremist motives to say, "From their [Islamic Extremists] perspective, a continuation of Bush policies is best for recruiting,".

Counterterrorism expert, Walid Phares, called these postings "part of a reverse psychology", and pointed out that they appeared on unofficial web sites rather than on an Al Qaeda public announcement.

---

Sources used:

• http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/10/al_qaedas_propaganda_aims_to_a.php
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102477_pf.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristof.html

• Support - per above conversations. Digital^Ninja 19:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good to me. Thanks for writing that up. [moved from above - User:DigitalNinja]AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Based on non-public sources as viewed through an editor's eyes. Presents surmise ("suspected connections" hardly qualifies as a fact). Of dubious relevance to the campaign in any way, as the campaign did not seek any such endorsement. Other campaigns do not have such "reverse" endorsements listed, so this one should not be the exception. There is no proof of precisely who wrote what at all, and the entire surmise is about as valid as saying Palin is not Trig's mom. Violates WP:CRYSTAL as it posits the possiblility after the fact that a terrorist attack might have been made (basically an extreme case of alternative history). Adding in editorial comments does not make this one whit more factual, and the primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to present facts, not opinions. Opens the door to fake KKK endorsements and the like also based on "suspected connections." http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/the-kkk-endorses-john-mccain/454/ or for Obama http://www.eons.com/groups/topic/1176361-Obama-Picks-Up-Coveted-CPUSA-Endorsement . Collect (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• It isn't an endorsement and won't be listed as such. It's not WP:CRYSTAL since we're simply reporting on secondary sources (completely conforming to WP:RS by the way). As for your Obama analogy, that's a different article. Digital^Ninja 21:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It indicates the desire of AQ for McCain's electin, which is, perforce, an "endorsement." It is CRYSTAL snce it posits an event which did not take place (an attack). It reports not secondary sources, but "suspected" tertiary sources. As such it is as valid as the tertiary sources about Palin not being Trig's mom. And the fact that you know it would never pass muster in ANY other article shows that it is a POV insertion and not an encyclopedia insertion. Collect (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, we're reporting on what The New York Times, The Washington Post, and a Counter-terrorist Expert exclaimed. You don't want it in the article; great! I don't either. However, obviously more people do or we wouldn't be here. Just because they aren't at their computers at the moment doesn't mean they won't return. Just read the massive RfC a few paragraphs up. I opposed inclusion, however, I decided to compromise and try a much more neutral rewrite. So, either way, I know you are against it. You're preaching to the quire here. The point now is to compromise. If you don't like the proposal, offer a rewrite and most likely I'll support it anyway (in less it adds more weight to the incident). Get it? Digital^Ninja 21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect, your first point is supporting the word "endorsement." Your second point is completely false. This is from WP:RS: Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. We are supposed to report on thid party sources ideally. We can even use primary sources as long as the information we cite is easily verifiable. WP:RS is not an issue. In regards to your third point, so far, I've offered my help if people chose to add similar material to other pages and no one has taken me up on that offer, so you do not get to use other articles as a precedent for this one. Finally, actually read through WP:CRYSTAL. We are quoting someone else talking about the future. We are not making predictions. This is not even a remotely valid argument. Overall, you have not offered one coherent argument against the inclusion of this section. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

AzureFury, on another note I actually like the way that new write up flows. It adds even more relevant information then before, unloads the weighty wording, and makes sense. Thanks for working with me on a compromise. It's ironic that after I opposed inclusion so hotly, and you supported inclusion so fiercely, now we're the only reasonable people left :-D Digital^Ninja 22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

I do not agree to this so-called "compromise". For one thing it's way too long and therefore gives too much weight to a trivial item. The whole bit about what a pre-election terrorist attack might do is completely inappropriate, since we now know that there was no such attack. As Collect said, it's a BROKENCRYSTALBALL.

All these stories come from the same source, so they're not really separate stories; and they all rely on this one report by SITE Intelligence Group - what exactly is its expertise? It makes money by reporting on what's it finds on jihadist web sites, and it seems to me that the only lasting effect of this whole incident was to give it some free advertising! SIG itself isn't even notable enough to have a WP article, though its predecessor, the SITE Institute, and its founder Rita Katz do have very short articles. What does that say about the significance of its findings?

The fact that WaPo and the NYT published this story doesn't prove it's significant; they published it because it made McCain look bad. WaPo's own ombudsman now admits that the paper was in the tank for Obama, and the NYT's bias is beyond doubting.

I'd urge editors to read this too, by someone with credentials (such as they are) that seem no worse than those of the "expert" cited by the WaPo story, pointing out that any talk of al Qaeda exhausting the USA has to be taken as bluster, considering that AQ is so exhausted itself that it has problems just keeping up its communications.

For all these reasons I'm opposed to any mention of this; but at most it should be confined to one short sentence, about "sentiment on some jihadist web sites" or some such language. -- Zsero (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is I don't disagree with you. Now stop complaining and start suggesting compromise. All your arguments are fundamentally flawed:

1. "Article is too long therefore must be giving too much weight": WTF?
2. "Pre-election terrorist attack not notable": I agree, however I compromised with better wording and context.
3. "Stories from all same source": Who cares, all WP:RS is concerned with is secondary or third party reliable sources.
4. "Seems to [you] only lasting effect free advertising": So, I'll add to the article, "Zsero from Wikipedia thinks...."
5. "SIG doesn't have article therefore anything they report not notable": Do I have to explain?
6. "WaPo and NYT published it, not significant": What about Fox News? and the half doezen other mainstream sources who reported it?
7. "NYT in the tank for Obama": Seriously, thank god someone acknowledges this besides me. Throw MSNBC, CNN, CBS, and NBC in there too. However, for the sake of this argument, what about Fox News? We'll just add Fox as a source, satisfied?
8. "Your other points (if any) aren't even worth debating.

Now that thats out of the way, why don't you re-write the proposal in an ultra compact, neutral, informative way? I'd be very interested and give serious consideration if anyone would take it upon themselves to re-write. So, before anymore of you regular opposers cast your !vote, cast that same vote with a script of how you would write it if it had to go into the article. Cheers, Digital^Ninja 00:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I didn't say the article was too long, I said your proposed paragraph is too long, and therefore gives a trivial story far too much weight.
2. No, the speculation about an attack has absolutely no place in the article at all. No better wording, it must stay right out. It's just a hypothetical that didn't happen.
3. Multiple stories all based on the same source don't add anything; they all count as one. If the original source isn't reliable, any story based on it is equally unreliable.
4. This is not a separate item, it's part of the previous item. Elevating SITE Intelligence to the status of an "expert", and quoting it in the story, gave it free advertising, and that gives it a motive to at least exaggerate its findings. Basically, many commenters above have uncritically assumed that these findings were in fact made by "experts", and I'm challenging that assumption.
5. I guess you do have to explain. If the company reporting this finding is not notable enough for anyone to have bothered creating a WP article about it, then how significant or credible are its reported findings? Its predecessor did have a WP page, but it got so little attention that when I looked it up today I found that it still spoke of the institute in the present tense, and nobody had bothered to update it with the news that the institute closed nearly a year ago! If it were that notable, surely someone would have done this earlier.

That'll do for now. I don't see why we need to compromise on any mention at all, but if I had to, I'd put it something like this: "In late October comments appeared on web sites linked to Islamic extremists, claiming that a McCain victory would be good for the jihad; McCain supporters dismissed these as bluster or as an attempt at reverse psychology." -- Zsero (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank god! I'll go with that, in fact, it doesn't even need it's own section, just stick it in the body somewhere and quote the NYT, since they had the smallest article mention. Now was that so hard? :-D Digital^Ninja 02:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this fine for the rest of you? Digital^Ninja 02:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added refs and wikilinks. Don't use the Kristof piece, because it's an opinion piece, not news reporting. The sentence is about a news story, and the responses to it. The responses are of course by definition opinion. -- Zsero (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(<---)That works for me! Plus, I really like how weight is dramatically taken away from the incident. This is how it should be as it's just a political cheap shot IMO. Plus, looking at the bright side, if anyone comes complaining about it in the future we can just point them to this discussion and inform them that consensus has been reached on the matter. Good work everyone.

Would anyone care if I closed/archived this massive waste of time? Digital^Ninja 04:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with it having its own subsection. It should just be one sentence in a larger paragraph dealing with reactions to his candidacy. Having its own subsection, with a title, still gives it too much weight. -- Zsero (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, completely. I just couldn't find a spot to "stick it". In fact, I would prefer it presented with other information that is trivial. Digital^NinjaWTF 05:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, claiming consensus without consulting either of the two advocates for inclusion? Nice. I see that we've cut away basically everything important to the section's supporters and left only "there may have been some support but it was BS" such that the section sounds like the author was rolling his eyes. I've rewritten the sentence to include the most important facts. I hope the opposition can learn from my example. I rewrite when I am dissatisfied rather than delete or revert. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Support with slight modifications per my edit here. Other recent edits stripped the important information from the article and added blogs that do not meet WP:RS. csloat (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I never officially claimed consensus. It was important though, especially since everyone was away, that I motivate them to add something in effect to the article since they were simply reverting away without contest yesterday. I personally like the single sentence because I have always been against the validity of this subject. However, I also like the longer version that has now been inserted into the article, and can easily live with that (hence I wrote it). Digital^NinjaWTF 14:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Especially since there is no consensus to front-load all this stuff into the article. IPOF, the article needs a visit from Roto-Rooter at this point <g>. Collect (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unfortunately, I think this is a step back from the previous suggestion which didn't have this being in it's own section. In addition, titling the section "Islamist reaction" is pejorative. (I know you didn't originally title it that way, DigitalNinja, but that's how it is right now.) Islamist and jihadist are not interchangeable. Jihadists are a subset of Islamists who advocate terrorist tactics; not all advocates of Islam as a religion and a government believe in terrorism as a tactic. But more importantly, I still say this is undue weight. This event, and the subjects of the event, have much much less notable than other subjects in the article. At most, I think this shouldn't be more than a sentence in a section. [continues below]
• Suggestion. But where to put that sentence? It wouldn't necessarily fit well in any existing section at the moment. Here's my suggestion: expanding the Opinion Polls section. (And slightly renaming it, maybe to Public Opinion instead.) This is a section that I was active in keeping current during the last couple months of the election season (both here and at the Obama campaign page). Now that the election is over, I've intended on restructuring the section, but squabbling over this issue has taken up most of my allotted wikitime. I think the wording needs finality to it, spikes and changes in opinion should be chronicled, predictions versus actual results should be compared, and so on. I've also toyed with the idea of adding international opinion to increase the scope of the section, and that is where I think this would fit best. I think a one or two sentence summary would be appropriate along with information about international opinion polls since most of the world wished they could cast a ballot in this election. Quite frankly, unless they want to pay my taxes for me I don't really care who the international community supports as far as the campaign is concerned, but there is admitted notability to the international opinion since acting like there wasn't a vocal international opinion about this election is an exercise in denial. I'll create a subsection to this section to collect editor's opinions on my suggestion. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Amwestover's Suggestion

I suggest that due to notability and weight issues that the size of this contribution be greatly reduced, down to a summary of a sentence or two. The short summary should be included in a revamped Opinion polling section -- probably renamed to Public opinion or something similar -- which will have a new subsection on World opinion. (This is a task I've planned to undertake myself since the end of the election, but other editors are of course welcome to do the same either with me or independently.) Alongside material about international opinion polls for example, would be this brief summary about the jihadist website. This would remove the jihadist material from its own section/subsection, which I don't believe it deserves, but also put it near similarly subjected material so it doesn't seem like we're just shoehorning it somewhere. Inline addendum: And perhaps most important of all, grouping it with other opinions should completely remove any stigma that this is an endorsement, official or unofficial. [ Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC) ]

I encourage people to voice their opinion on the idea. As for what the actual summary sentence(s) should be, I'm honestly not sure myself. I plan on devoting most of my time to the Opinion section revamping effort so I'm not sure if I'll come up with one myself. I suggest that other editors come up with ideas on how to shorten this summary if you support my idea, and we'll see who comes up with the best one. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with conditions - 1, the key information remains (consensus and exhastion IMO). 2, the "bluster" statement is removed as it trivially fails WP:RS. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I'm willing to look at alternative ways of writing this material at this time, but I don't agree that it is too long or that it belongs in another section. csloat (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, AzureFury is putting forward a considerable effort to compromise. It would show a great deal of good faith if all us exclusionists do the same. The re-write I came up with is not too bad, and it can be shortened if needed. Hash out where to place the material in the article. Compromise, and don't expect the better deal, either party. Digital^NinjaWTF

I suggest that the consensus is that this needs a lot of trimming. And is not the only section or the only article which needs trimming. Collect (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is noted but is incorrect, as far as I can tell there is no consensus for arbitrary "trimming". I agree with AzureFury that any trimming should not eliminate the key points. But Wikipedia is not paper, and it seems pretty concise as it is. But as I said, I'm willing to look at any proposed revisions, but I think "trimming for the sake of trimming" -- especially when there are potential POV implications -- is not automatically a good idea. csloat (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree Seems to be the best compromise, which is how WP is supposed to work. I do not count it as ideal, but it would be closer to NPOV than some other suggestions. Collect (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Seems to be a good compromise to me. I would even offer a strong support if AzureFury's points are addressed. Digital^NinjaWTF 05:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion:

---

On October 22, 2008, the Washington Post reported on an emerging consensus view on Islamic extremist websites which have suspected connections to Al Qaeda. According to Adam Raisman, a senior analyst of Islamist Web pages, the jihadists believe that McCain would be a faithful “son of Bush” — whom they view as a jingoist and a war hawk. One website suggested a terrorist attack before the election might sway the vote in favor of McCain, and provoke McCain into triggering a prolonged battle against Islamic extremists, resulting in the 'exhaustion' of U.S. resources.

Counterterrorism expert, Walid Phares, called these postings "part of a reverse psychology", and pointed out that they appeared on unofficial web sites rather than on an Al Qaeda public announcement.

---

That's 4 sentences, a little more than was desired I know. I couldn't cut it down without losing any important information though. Thoughts? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you know Raisman is such an expert? Because he says so? I can accept that he saw these comments on the web sites and told the WaPo about them, but are we really to rely on him saying that it was a "consensus" view? And why is the date or the paper's name important? The speculation about the possible effect of a terrorist attack that never happened has no place in the article whatsoever. The current version that I have restored is two sentences, and doesn't leave out anything important. It says there was such a report, very briefly describes it, and cites two McCain supporters dismissing its importance. No need to name any of the people cited; anyone who wants to know their names and credentials can follow the refs. -- Zsero (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't. The "SITE Intelligence Group" is now a "for profit" company. The only reference I can find for Mr. Raisman is that he is a high school graduate from Philadelphia (1998). No acadenic credentials, or other reason other than that he is an employee of a company which sells reports on what it says are translations of Islamist web sites. No published articles in the field. In 2006 he was cited as saying an Islamist game in which you try to assassinate President Bush was "propaganda." http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/59b6cbd90c225eff?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22adam+raisman%22 I found, after assiduous search, no qualifications for him at all. He has no paper trail at all. No books. No articles. No nothing. A miasma. Collect (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And that is my point: SITE Intel has an obvious motive in playing this up to the WaPo — free advertising. And if we quote Raisman and his company by name, all we do is give them even more advertising. Which would be justified if they really were experts, but I see no reason to make any such assumption. As I wrote earlier, the SITE Institute was only very marginally notable, as evidenced by the fact that no WP editor noticed that it had closed down, and the new SITE Intel isn't even notable enough for someone to have created an article on it. So its expertise is highly debatable, and certainly shouldn't be taken as greater than that of the two McCain supporters whose responses I cited. I'm going on and on about this because earlier commenters seem to put great store by this "expert"'s assessment and to demand that we defer to it. -- Zsero (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any issues what AzureFury's proposal save for one, Zsero is right about the fact that we give an aweful lot of weight on what Raisman has to say. Maybe a slight re-word there? I'll take a stab at it in a few moments. The content needs to stay the same just unload the wording some. The speculation about the possible effect of a terrorist attack is relevant and adds context to the whole thing. It should stay. Neutral on his last point. Digital^NinjaWTF 14:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What does the wrong speculation add? Some jihadist takes a guess at what might happen if they do an attack; or rather Raisman tells us what the jihadist guessed might happen. But there was no attack, so who cares? How's this game of hypotheticals at all relevant to the campaign, or to anything at all? -- Zsero (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it solidifies context by further expressing motives of said Jihadist. I personally don't think there is any credibility in the statement, and I'm not advocating it's inclusion based on relevancy of that particular sentences' point, but rather the fact it adds to the overall prose by contributing to the authors point. That said, I think it should stay, but don't mistake that as I care. Digital^NinjaWTF 16:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Adds to the overall prose" is right. It adds nothing but empty words. Look, the point is that these posters on the web sites thought (or pretended to think) that McCain would be good for them. That has some slight relevance, enough for a single sentence, maybe. But that they engaged in idle speculation about terrorist attacks that never happened, and as far as we know were never even planned or attempted, I mean, why not devote half a page to all their chitchat? I'm sure SITE Intel will supply some for a suitable fee. -- Zsero (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I personally wouldn't even recommend SITE as a reliable source. You're argument for exclusion is good, and I'm not disagreeing with it. I'm simply trying to play devils advocate for all parties involved. Digital^NinjaWTF 18:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Zero, I'm reminding you that my comments are never addressed to you until you decide to be reasonable. Since you are outright lying about the information contained in your version, you have demonstrated a continued lack of reason. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

SITE's translations are widely considered authoritative, and their terrorism analysis is widely respected. This is easily documented. I don't think Wikipedia editors' ignorance of terrorism research as an academic field justifies treating SITE differently than we would other private think tanks that hire experts who are frequently cited in the mainstream media. csloat (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Their translations are not at issue. The issue is whether an expert whose credentials are nowhere to be found is to be treated as an expert. All I could find is that he is, indeed, a high school graduate. I found no reason to believe he is a translator at all, so I have no reason to doubt his translations. If SITE wants to assert expertise of an employee, it ought to give a c.v. of some sort for that employee. Collect (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fact-checking or reference-checking service. It is an encyclopedia. I believe this is explained somewhere on the site. I'm not sure why you think graduating high school hurts someone's credibility, but I really don't care. What I do know is that Raisman is a respected commentator on these matters who has been frequently cited in the mainstream media since at least 2006 (that's what I found in Lexis/Nexis, and it wasn't just articles about anti-Bush propaganda). And, as I said, SITE is frequently cited as authoritative on these matters in both the media and in terrorism scholarship. In fact, the only actual criticism or doubts I've seen raised about their qualifications is right here on Wikipedia, by you. I think your speculation falls in the category of original research. It's irrelevant to what belongs in this encyclopedia, in any case. All we need report is that the Washington Post, and AP, and NYT, and dozens of other credible and reliable sources, quoted him as concluding that a consensus of jihadist sites expressed "support" for McCain. (I put "support" in quotes because I agree with you that it is not really support). In any case, your nitpicking about Raisman or SITE is really not relevant to anything we're doing here. csloat (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

WP should try to use the best information available. Using a person who is asserted to be an expert sans any information on him is hazardous. Much like taking Martin Eisenstadt to be an White House insider. I found only two references to his reporrts, neither of which appeared to be scholarly in nature. If you have access to SITE reports and can show that he is, indeed, an expert and not a name used for a press release, fine. Right now, it is as though there were (say) a "Harding Foundation" issuing reports by Press release asserting that its expert made a report. I would have caught it by being careful, while those who assume that a foundation has experts would be caught. Collect (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What matters, is that the Washington Post [7], the Associated Press [8] and other sources [9] have reported this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How about this:

---

On October 22, 2008, the Washington Post, New York Times, and Associated Press, and other sources reported on an emerging consensus view on Islamic extremist websites which have suspected connections to Al Qaeda. According to the report, the jihadists believe that McCain would be a faithful “son of Bush” — whom they view as a jingoist and a war hawk — and suggested a terrorist attack before the election might sway the vote in favor of McCain, and provoke him into a prolonged battle against Islamic extremists, resulting in the 'exhaustion' of U.S. resources.

Counterterrorism expert, Walid Phares, called these postings "part of a reverse psychology", and pointed out that they appeared on unofficial web sites rather than on an Al Qaeda public announcement.

---

Three sentences, no mention of an "expert," or SITE, contains all important info. Deal? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "alleged emerging view on Islamic" and delete the "attack before the election" since such did not occur, and would be "alternative history" at best. Inserting "ifs" into BLPs is iffy at best, to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a consensus view. The "allegation" is not disputed, and we have a counter-argument at the end of the section. I think I'll cut "and suggested a terrorist attack before the election might sway the vote in favor of McCain, and provoke him into a prolonged battle against Islamic extremists, resulting in the 'exhaustion' of U.S. resources." down to "and suggested he could be provoked into a prolonged battle against Islamic extremists, resulting in the 'exhaustion' of U.S. resources." I think this is enough compromise on my part. I'm putting it into the section, you can move it later if you like. If certain combative unreasonable editors want to fight over this, then so be it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

AzureFury's personal attacks do not frighten or impress me. I'm still not seeing any argument against the version that's there now, which is already a compromise. Really there should be nothing at all about this, but what's there now is an acceptable compromise, that treats it without any fuss. The only real problem I have with the current version is that being in its own subsection gives it too much weight, but Amwestover will fix that by adding more about international reaction, and making that the heading. AzureFury's proposed text is far too long, gives the incident too much weight, puts too much reliance on one specific word used by Raisman, which we have no reason to believe is accurate, and engages in hypotheticals. I do not find it at all acceptable, and if that's the sort of hardline stance AzureFury and allies are taking then I see no reason to compromise, and will retreat to my original position that we should not mention this trivial nonstory at all. -- Zsero (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.