Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- by a growing consensus -- as violating WP:ALLEGED and WP:FORK. No opinion on the merits of the allegations. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism

Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm sorry to nominate an article for deletion that it looks like someone has put a good bit of work into, but this article just does not seem to be on an encyclopedic topic. Even the title of the article is a violation of the MOS guideline WP:ALLEGED--who has asserted that Tablighi Jamaat is connected to terrorism? The article doesn't say. There is one reference, an article in the Middle Eastern Quarterly, that does indeed make such an assertion, but one reference from what our Wiki article on MEQ calls "a publication of an American conservative think tank" will not a neutral article on "Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism" make. The long list at the end of the article of "Terrorist suspects alleged to have links to Tablighi Jamaat" is WP:SYNTH. Tablighi Jamaat is a large movement; of course it will have some members who are convicted of crimes. Should we have an article on, say, "Anglicanism and allegations of drug-dealing," containing a list of all of the people who have ever belonged to an Anglican church and later been convicted of drug-dealing? I think this article should be deleted, since it's essentially a negative POV-fork of the main article on the movement. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• WRT the name -- I agree the article's basename should have been made clear it was addressing allegations.
  1. When I started this article I started it under the name Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. Administrator User:Jossi arbitrarily renamed it.
  2. A concern over an article's name is not grounds for deletion.
  3. Due to Jossi's rename the previous (procedural) {{afd}} was obfuscated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. Geo Swan (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• WRT comparisons to Anglicanism -- The nomination asks "Should we have an article on, say, 'Anglicanism and allegations of drug-dealing,' containing a list of all of the people who have ever belonged to an Anglican church and later been convicted of drug-dealing?" This is a straw argument. No one disputes that a very small minority of Anglicans have dealt drugs. But no one is suggesting that being an Anglican should automatically put an individual of being a drug-dealer or terrorist. Individuals are automatically falling under suspicion of ties to terrorism, in part, due to an alleged association to terrorism. For some of the Guantanamo captives the allegation of a tie to Tablighi Jamaat was the most serious allegation. Three Guantanamo captives died in custody on June 10, 2006. At the time the DoD claimed they were very dangerous men, committed terrorists. In September 2007, when the memos prepared for their review Boards were made public one of these men turned out to be one of the individuals for whom the most serious allegation was that he had a tie to the Tablighi Jamaat movement. Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks GeoSwan for your thoughtful response. Regarding the points you've made, the name Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism has the same problem regarding the WP:ALLEGED guideline (who is making this allegation?). Regarding your second point, I'm puzzled by how "the allegation of a tie to Tablighi Jamaat" might have been "the most serious allegation" for some of the Guantanamo captives. Tablighi Jamaat is a large movement--for example according to the main wiki article on the topic, 40% of UK mosques are Tablighi Jamaat. So, I'm very skeptical that simply "having a tie" to Tablighi Jaamat would represent a "serious allegation." Also, my rationale for deletion is that this article is a negative content fork on the subject of Tablighi Jaamat. Thanks,CordeliaNaismith (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is making the allegations? Western security officials, security officials in Totalitarian Islamic countries, pundits who are suspicious of muslims, in general. The article was renamed to Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism by U.S intelligence about six months after it was created. IIRC it Jossi's name was restored following a discussion at requested moves. Geo Swan (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the suspicions an association with TJ trigger are puzzling. Nevertheless they do trigger those suspicions, in some quarters, as you can see from Mana Shaman Allabardi al Tabi's allegations memos, among others. I think, in his particular case, the TJ allegation was the one the DoD considered the most serious. Geo Swan (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep well referenced encyclopedic article on a notable aspect of TJ. adding all this info to main article would violate WP:UNDUE. I can see the concerns about the title and the use of word alleged but what the most appropriate title is needs to be discussed on the article talk page not in an AfD.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete

Browsing down the first ten of fifteen references, I found several primary documents that would be useful for original research, a link to an outfit associated with Daniel Pipes, a Hindu Times editorial piece, and a couple of broken links. I also found a couple of articles stating "the TJ says it does not have ties to ***" which is odd, considering this is an article about allegations it does in fact have those ties.

I did not find an article from the NY Times or The Guardian, nor did I find a reference from a reputable scholar published on a university press. Perhaps I missed them. True, the Hindu Times is a big outfit, but someone could perhaps claim the Hindu Times is a Hindu newspaper rather than a Muslim one, and this fact affects their POV. If this is a noteworthy article, it would require only a couple of quality, mainstream references to justify the article's existence. I didn't happen to notice any.

But, even assuming there are a couple of good sources, still if the quality of the sources I looked at are any indication of the overall quality of the sources, then I would have to think there's probably not much inside the article that is verifiable. So even if the article is noteworthy, anyone who feels strongly about keeping it should also be willing to get the references up to Wikipedia standards, because it looks like an editor might take a couple of hours to go through and tag a large percentage of the content.

And actually, I don't have an opinion on whether there are noteworthy allegations, perhaps there are. But judging from what I can see, it would be hard to know if the allegations in the article are the same ones which are noteworthy. I suspect the article goes beyond what (presumably? allegedly?) is alleged in the mainstream press, or it would not be resorting to original research and going outside the mainstream for its sources.

Thank you, Cordelia Naismith, for bringing this up. You are %100 on the mark.

Aquib (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Really what do these references from NY times have to say about TJ [1], [2]. And maybe this source is not reliable either [3]. what quality of sources are you looking for if you think NYT is not reliable ???--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful links. The mainstream allegation in them is TJ, while staunchly nonpolitical and nonviolent, may be subject to exploitation or manipulation by terrorists. The terrorists may use the organization for shelter and travel, without TJ's knowledge.

The second sentence of the Wikipedia article in question states In recent years, allegations and concerns have risen about whether, or how much, the organization is linked to Islamic terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda. I see no suggestions of linkage between TJ and the terrorists in the mainstream material you have provided, unless you are suggesting linkage as one might link airports and airlines to terrorists. So the second sentence of the WP article in question goes beyond the bounds of the mainstream material you provided. The second sentence is also sourced from the Middle East Quarterly, which is a conservative think tank rather than a mainstream news outlet. -Aquib (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, there are no "allegations of terrorism" in the mainstream sources, so the title of the article is a misrepresentation itself. Aquib (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Really ! this is what NYT says "During their weeklong preparations, the men stayed in Raiwind, the headquarters of Tablighi Jamaat, a Muslim missionary group often described by terrorism experts as the antechamber of Al Qaeda and the Taliban."[4], that TJ is a peaceful nonviolent movement is complete OR. the appropriate title can be discussed on the article talk page as I have suggested above.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Antechamber is a somewhat imprecise term in this context, but your point is taken. So I assume we have mainstream reports of the targeting of TJ members for recruitment by terrorists, as well as the use of TJ facilities and identities in order to facilitate movement. All this without the knowledge of the TJ organization.

The article is not neutral or verifiable, and it contains significant amounts of original research. The section listing detainees and their visits to TJ facilities is only topical when viewed as original research implying duplicity on the part of TJ. The theme of TJ duplicity goes beyond the mainstream allegations of exploitation. The portion of its content acceptable according to Wikipedia's criteria belongs in the main article.

If the article were rewritten to Wikipedia's standards, it would be a stub.

Aquib (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You are the one doing OR. NY times is a reliable source. here is another article which talks about accusations against TJ by both FBI and MI5[5]. The article is not neutral or verifiable ???? maybe madrassah times would be more neutral and verifiable.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good article. As in the NYT article you provided earlier, however, this Guardian article states the FBI and MI5 allegation is the targeting of TJ followers for recruitment by terrorists, there is no allegation of duplicity by TJ in this article.

Not sure why you are saying I disagree with your NYT articles, they are acceptable, they just don't allege duplicity by TJ itself. They weren't intended to. -Aquib (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

----

and here is another in depth study about TJ by Fund for Peace,[6] I quote "The TIJ resembles a revivalist movement more than a structured organization, but its secrecy and ties to Pakistan’s lawless frontier have caught the attention of counter-terrorism officials around the world—as has the tendency for the TIJ to surface on the periphery of numerous terrorism investigations."--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Fund for Peace organization, but they use Alex Alexiev from the Middle East Quarterly Review repeatedly as a source of criticisms and accusations. As I mentioned earlier, MEQR is a neo-conservative publication associated with Daniel Pipes. This paper is not from a top-tier, mainstream source, as one would expect to be used when authoring Wikipedia articles on controversial topics. As important and controversial as this issue is, there should be adequate material available from the quality mainstream outlets and scholars published by university presses. Aquib (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

------

And you also might be interested in what Center for Security Policy has to say about them.[7]. Again I quote "The estimated 15,000 Tablighi missionaries reportedly active in the United States present a serious national security problem. At best, they and their proxy groups form a powerful proselytizing movement that preaches extremism and disdain for religious tolerance, democracy, and separation of church and state. At worst, they represent an Islamist fifth column that aids and abets terrorism. Contrary to their benign treatment by scholars and academics, Tablighi Jamaat has more to do with political sedition than with religion."--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested in this source either, according to its Wikipedia article, The CSP advocates neoconservative and Wilsonian policies based on a philosophy of "Peace through Strength". It lists Richard Perle as a notable member. It is clearly a partisan organization. Also, as was the case with the Fund for Peace paper you supplied, this paper is not from a top-tier news outlet or a peer reviewed academic source published on a university press.Aquib (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You may not be interested in hearing anything negative about TJ but the fact remains per NYT and guardian they are under the scanners of intelligence agencies worldwide. MEQ is a scholarly journal albeit with a conservative focus. Just like NYT has a liberal bias. They both clearly meet WP criteria of RS as mentioned in WP:RS ande what they say merits attention . trying to suppress this info by getting article deleted when every Intelligence agency is paying attention to TJ ( for its ties to terrorists) reeks of an extreme POV.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We are establishing a clear pattern by reviewing these sources. Mainstream sources do not report allegations, of complicity or duplicity in terrorism, on the part of TJ. Apparently some neo-conservative organizations do, and some partisan and/or less well known, perhaps less rigorously reviewed organizations have publicized those more serious allegations, but those sources are not usable according to Wikipedia content policies. If the more serious allegations were supported with evidence, this evidence would be in the top tier mainstream news outlets and peer reviewed academic sources. I am assuming no one alleges a conspiracy by academics and media outlets to suppress evidence in this matter.

The less serious allegation, that TJ is unwittingly susceptible to exploitation by terrorists for shelter and identity "cover", is well documented in the mainstream. The allegation that terrorists recruit susceptible TJ members is also well documented. Aquib (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition, many in the mainstream are suggesting organizations such as TJ serve America's national security interests by channeling the lost and dispossessed into nonviolent, apolitical organizations.

No number of additional mainstream sources which do not mention the more serious allegations will prove the more serious allegations. No number of non-mainstream, non-peer reviewed or partisan sources will prove the more serious allegations. Original research, non-NPOV sources and non-verifiable material are not allowed in Wikipedia articles - especially when dealing with subjects as controversial as this.

We are not voting on whether we should change Wikipedia's core content policies.

Aquib (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies. NPOV is achieved not by using NPOV sources (there is no such thing, as all sources have a POV), but by reporting on all usable reliable sources. Disagreeing with a source's political position does not make it non-reliable. Also, MEQ is peer-reviewed. Bradycardia (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, Bradycardia, thank you. The questions are whether MEQ's peer review process is acceptable according to Wikipedia's standards, and whether MEQ is a reliable source for WP articles regarding alleged terrorism. It appears these questions has been raised before, and I am willing to raise them again.

If the article's proponents wish to address the problems I have identified in the article, that would be helpful. Those defending the article as written will find their position tenuous in an objective forum.

Aquib (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I should not take credit for raising these questions. Thanks again, CordeliaNaismith.

Aquib (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

and I suppose MI5 and FBI are not mainstream organizations. TJ is also banned in certain countries as a terrorist organization maybe those countries are not NPOV either[8]--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a discussion about the article, not our personal opinions on the subject of the article. We are currently discussing the reliability of sources, in particular, the Middle East Quarterly.Aquib (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I found this discussion in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard archive. The indication is Middle East Quarterly is controversial as a source and is the subject of disputes. I am putting up a new inquiry to try to get opinions from third parties not currently involved in this discussion. Aquib (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

no we are discussing whether this article should be deleted or not. MEQ is just one small part of the argument. Anyway several countries have actually banned TJ. per Voice of Russia Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Krygystan are the countries where it is banned for "suspected connections with Terrorism & Al-qaeda".[9]. clearly these countries have gone beyond just allegations and have actually taken action to curb their activities.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

These countries have gone beyond allegations? Has been anybody of this organization been charged or sentences for any acts of terrorism? People might want to have also a look at our policy WP:ALLEGED. IQinn (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Voice of Russia, Russia Today and Middle East Quarterly are all extremely controversial for sources, in terms of their reliability. Sources for this article's implications of duplicity or complicity by TJ itself simply are not available anywhere in the mainstream, or we would have seen them by now. -Aquib (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for talk pages where I can post notifications of this discussion would be appreciated. -Aquib (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep — As pointed out by Aquib, some of the alleged links here are purely circumstantial, but some go beyond that, and overall, it seems worth reporting on them. This article is a subarticle of Tablighi Jamaat, so it's not a content fork. Some editors have expressed concerns about verifiability, so I'll point out that there are many reliable references from mainstream newspapers like the New York Times, The Guardian, etc. Bradycardia (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Or to put Geo Swann's straw man refutation a different way: Yes, we should make an article on 'Anglicanism and allegations of drug-dealing,' anytime Anglicanism becomes equated with drug dealing, whether erroneously or accurately; and/or Anglicans from various countries are rounded up by another country and imprisoned, without habeas corpus legal representation or due process, on no basis other than their religion; and/or Anglican churches are prevented from being sited next to schools because obviously the Anglicans would sell dope to kids there. Check out the article; all those things or worse have happened to Tablighi Jamaat and its members. The claim that this connection is a coincidence due to a large sample population is either ill-informed to a degree unsuitable for a nominator or pure and unadulterated obfuscation. Anarchangel (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge into the Tablighi_Jamaat article after cutting this material down to what can be supported by reliable secondary sources. Fladrif (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete dubiously sourced POV-fork. Much of it is highly tendentious, ie the use of dubious primary sources such as from the military interogations trials and the subject is adequately covered in the main article. Doesn't even seem to be much worth merging.--Misarxist 10:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that, once this is cut down to size and limited to reliable secondary sources, there won't be much more to it than is already adequately covered in the main article. I concur that there won't be much left to merge, but there might be a sentence or two and a couple of sources to add as footnotes. This material definitely doesn't merit a separate article.Fladrif (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as per Misarxis, no objection to transfer credible information. IQinn (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to Tablighi Jamaat. Per Misarxist, there doesn't appear to be any good justification for this fork. --FormerIP (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.