Talk:Islamic Thinkers Society

message: This is the administrator of Islamic Thinkers Society website. Speaking on behalf of Islamic Thinkers Society, I have the right to publish what Islamic Thinkers Society is about. There was no copyright violation whatsoever regarding what was posted earlier as it was a duplicate of what Islamic Thinkers Society stands for and are about. Therefore, the article will be posted again which was about what the Islamic Thinkers Society stands for from first-hand source, not second-hand unlike the ones who were defining what Islamic Thinkers Society stands for in the eyes of the few Islamophobes.
Thank You. - I.T.S. Admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.110.143 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2006‎ (UTC)
:Any and all edits from your IP will be regarded as NPOV. Thank You. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 11:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I.T.S. Admin 

message: Damn, this page has had one of the roughest POV issues I've ever seen. The entire history is an accumulation of facts, constant vandalism, and painfully-dishonest whitewashing. And it still needs to be cleaned up.--Screwball23 talk 23:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: What does the phrase 'on the ground reversal' mean here?--Screwball23 talk 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'on the ground reversal' 

message: The years, as I see them now and especially as I first saw them have been completely misrepresented. Many of their activities have been ongoing and have media responses and political backfire that has spread some beyond the simple 2005 or 2006 distinction. What I believe should be done is either a categorization of their activites with dates on those, or far more specific details (like bulleted format) for the activities they've done within the last two years. Unfortunately, as the society does not conduct official press conferences, it certainly cannot communicate good details on the activities it has done on a day-to-day basis, much less organize or prioritize them into important and unimportant ones.--Screwball23 talk 19:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activities 

message: I believe this would be considered a credible source for the quote in the Controversy section (beginning with "We reject the U.N."):
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42296 Brit arrested in Iraq
tied to U.S. group]
This is the source for the NY Daily News quote:
City Arabs mourn terror king
-- S. Gartner talk 02:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I like a challenge- remembering that Wikipedia is not about the "truth" but about reliable sources. It is simply a matter of establishing who said what about whom. The relevance of a source for an article is usually decided by a consensus. The following are a list for us to discuss and arrive at a consensus. Ttiotsw 22:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source is on a par with Rush Limbaugh, about whom we also have an article. — goethean ॐ 17:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see how a single person is the same as an organisation. I do not think you are judging the sources correctly. Personally I have never heard of nor care for this guy nor would care for anything that CBN produces so I'm quite neutral on this. See below for some more references that may match interpretation of the criteria. Ttiotsw 22:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: These three sources together make it reliable -- mostly because CBN and The Advocate are from opposite ends of the political spectrum, and NPR is a good source. But for future reference, CBN will not be accepted as a reliable source by most editors, especially in regard to any political topic. It is a Christian organization which is highly biased to the point of being propaganda. The Advocate is also a political advocacy organization (hence the name) and may not be considered a reilable source on some issues. — goethean ॐ 22:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I guess I can link all three as a set. I'll wait 24 hours or so and if it still feels right or others have comments to add then I will cite all three and reword to incorporate the idea of this group being "radical" end of the Muslim spectrum (as opposed to the mainstream). Ttiotsw 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the NPR link was text, I'd say just use that. — goethean ॐ 23:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishing reliable sources enough for this article. 

message: The article has few sources so for the "radical islamic" bit I ref'd using www.cbn.com . This was reverted as an "unreliable source" . I do not agree with that revert - they may have a certain spin to their content but we have an article on Wikipedia Christian_Broadcasting_Network on this news group and they have quite a long history (founded 1961) so this newsgroup is already notable enough I feel to add as a reference as to who has called the "Islamic Thinkers Society" a "radical islamic" group. I'm adding my cite back in on this basis. Ttiotsw 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source is on a par with Rush Limbaugh, about whom we also have an article. — goethean ॐ 17:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see how a single person is the same as an organisation. I do not think you are judging the sources correctly. Personally I have never heard of nor care for this guy nor would care for anything that CBN produces so I'm quite neutral on this. See below for some more references that may match interpretation of the criteria. Ttiotsw 22:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CBN ?

message: Around 55 seconds into the NPR report,  refers to them as "radical young men and women" - filed by Dina Temple Raston, but I do not know if such rich media content is the right way. A transcript is available (at a cost). As with say print books whereby they are not available online but are cited as "page x" can we cite this online media and say how many seconds into the report the information is cited ? Ttiotsw 22:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPR ?

message: It is inevitable that lifestyle choices will hit up against Islam as many Islamic countries persecute Gays. So it's inevitable that I can find  which refers to this as a "radical group". This magazine has a print and web presence and so is probably the best reasonably reliable source. Ttiotsw 22:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These three sources together make it reliable -- mostly because CBN and The Advocate are from opposite ends of the political spectrum, and NPR is a good source. But for future reference, CBN will not be accepted as a reliable source by most editors, especially in regard to any political topic. It is a Christian organization which is highly biased to the point of being propaganda. The Advocate is also a political advocacy organization (hence the name) and may not be considered a reilable source on some issues. — goethean ॐ 22:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I guess I can link all three as a set. I'll wait 24 hours or so and if it still feels right or others have comments to add then I will cite all three and reword to incorporate the idea of this group being "radical" end of the Muslim spectrum (as opposed to the mainstream). Ttiotsw 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the NPR link was text, I'd say just use that. — goethean ॐ 23:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Advocate]] ?

message: this article is not going to improve if the Islamic Thinkers Society keeps whitewashing it. I removed the statement that they made because it was not encyclopedic in nature and it served only to try and whitewash their organization. I would like to add that they have not committed terrorist acts in the United States, but that they are being watched as a full-blown al-Qaeda splinter group.--Screwball23 talk 19:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 11:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  statement