Talk:FDD's Long War Journal

Speedy deletion

In regards to the speedy deletion. This page is currently a stub, which I intend to expand upon or have others do so. I assume that the current shortness of the article is why it was tagged. As for context and importance: PMI appears to be associated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and may act as an outlet for the advocacy of the group. Further, The Long War Journal has recently published a report on an incident involving piracy on an Iranian vessel in the Gulf of Aden that is getting some play in the internet rumor mill.

No, it was not tagged for being short, plenty of articles are valid stubs. I tagged this one because it does not indicate why the company is important or significant. Even if it survives speedy it will have to comply with WP:CORP and have references per WP:RS - it does neither at the moment. – ukexpat (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done my best to add third party sources and context. These may not be as reliable as would be hoped since all sources are blogs. However, I would argue that due to the nature of context, namely that the Long War Journal has made a minor splash in the blogosphere, this is appropriate. I do have to say that I have no dog in this fight, that is I am not affiliated with PMI or any of their critics. This article resulted from my own curiosity about the source of the Iranian vessel/hijacking story, which I came upon in a different source but lead me to PMI. I realize that there is not much material out there about PMI and so they may not be regarded by the Wikipedia community as significant. If this page is deemed non-significant then so be it, but I am of the philosophy that if a news company can make measurable impact on the web then it is worthy of mention. A Google search of "iranian ship sick pirates long war" received 68,700 hits, which suggests that the impact is not small. --Metatree (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the significance of this page; it is worrying in the case of the MV Iran Deyanat how stories which originally appeared on the Long War Journal - and nowhere else - ended up being quoted by reputable news services as factual. Salmanazar (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

deletion tag

Can't find any independent sources for "Public Multimedia" article, and most of it appears to be OR. There does however appear to be several sources talking about or citing "The Long War Journal", which redirects to this article. I'm not sure if there's enough to determine notability, but a rename to The Long War Journal may be an option rather than deletion.--Icerat (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Might also be worth merging in with Bill Roggio, who seems to be running it all and has a deal of coverage. --Icerat (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the best would be to merge it into Bill Roggio. Public Multimedia fails WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability issue

I have just completely rebuilt the article. I think the only issue with it now is the question of notability. I think the topic is notable enough to have its own article. I welcome additional input. If others agree, we can remove the notability tag. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be an article about the The Long War Journal. How about renaming it to that? IQinn (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No objection. Cla68 (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

LWJ is widely quoted by media of many countries across several continents. Bill Roggio is a notable, often quoted expert on counter terrorism issues related to AfPak. I dont see any notability issues at all. good work on LWJ article Cla68.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

What is the connection between Bill Roggio, The Long War Journal and the neoconservative think tank "Foundation for Defense of Democracies"? The Long war Journal website in big says that it is a project of the "Foundation for Defense of Democracies" IQinn (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it means that they are sponsored (i.e. at least partially funded) by that organization. Lacking a reliable, secondary, confirming source, however, I can't say for sure. Cla68 (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Foundation for Defense of Democracies is a non partisan think tank. even if we believe that they are neocons no policy on wp prohibits them being given WP:DUE weight even if you don't like what they say.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I included a sentence mentioning TLWJ's connection to that think tank and mentioned that The Nation called it "neoconservative". I don't think that is synthesis, because the article in The Nation specifically said that when discussing The Long War Journal. Cla68 (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does the lede does not mention that the "Long War Journal" is a project of the neoconservative "Foundation for Defense of Democracies" and why does it not mention that Bill Roggio is a senior fellow of the FDD? And how about Thomas Joscelyn another senior fellow of the FDD who is the senior editor of the LWJ. Why can't we find anything about that in the lede? IQinn (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the lede is a summary. I think that both current tags are unnecessary. wikipedia only requires that editors be neutral NOT organizations/sources we use ( of course we need to give DUE weight to everyone in proportion to their prominence) . that is why New York Times with its liberal leanings is a widely accepted & used source. the tags need to go. LWJ is a notable source widely quoted in media and who runs it and supports it is only of secondary importance not necessary to mention it in lede.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You did not address my points. IQinn (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

neither did you.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think i did. I started the discussion, i have stated the issue (my points) and i have told you that you did not address the issue (my points). IQinn (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No not at all. you started the discussion I raised some valid counter points and you are deliberately avoiding answering them perhaps because you do not have an answer.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your counter points do not address my points. These things are not disputed. IQinn (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn, you've stated your case for why you think the article isn't neutral (doesn't mention the "neoconservative" FDD in the lede), but you haven't stated why you feel the article isn't factually accurate. You need to justify why you placed that tag on the article. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I added mention of the FDD to the lede. Iqinn, do you have secondary sources about the LWJ staff being fellows for the FDD? If not, please justify why the NPOV tag should not be removed if you don't agree that it should now be removed. Cla68 (talk) 05:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 the tags can be remove when we have worked it out on the talk page. The article does not make clear that the LWJ is a project of the FDD and that it is written by FDD fellows and that has not changed. Why do we need secondary sources for this information while we do accept self published information from the LWJ website? We usually do accept self published information. [1]. What is the problem with that? IQinn (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Using the FDD website as a source and then putting that information in this article could be considered synthesis. Does the FDD website list Roggio and the others as fellows in the context of their work with the LWJ? Remember, this article is about the LWJ, not about Roggio himself. For example, I included the Columbia Journalism Review information about Roggio's support for conservative bloggers because that article does discuss the relationship in the context of Roggio's work for the LWJ. Cla68 (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Why could that be synthesis? Seems to be just the question if it is sufficient verified. Yes the FDD website states that very clearly "Bill is the editor of FDD’s The Long War Journal (LWJ)", "LWJ is an invaluable resource for military and intelligence officers and national security experts and is one of FDD’s many vital projects contributing to international security." We should clearly tell our readers who is behind the LWJ. IQinn (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Iquinn my counterpoints did adress your concerns about the lede. you have not addressed both my and Cla68's concerns about why you think this article is not NPOV or factually incorrect. In any case Cla68 has made some changes so I am removing the tags.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have clearly stated that and i suggest you stop addressing it instead of edit warring over a tag. There is no consensus to remove the tag at that point. IQinn (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Iquinn you are the one edit warring and placing unnecessary tags. consider this your final warning. Both me and Cla68 agree that the tags are unnecessary. you are the only one being disruptive and not willing to listen to sensible arguments.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@Wikireader41 you are edit warring by removing tags that are necessary and you refuse to engage in a civil debate and you have not addressed the given arguments that justify the tag and you are not willing to have a civil debate and instead you have repeatedly removed it in an edit war style. Please do not do that and instead engage in a civil debate.

I re-added the POV tag as per our rules:

When to remove:

1. No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.
2. Discussions about neutrality issues have stopped (for more than a few days).
3. The problems in the article have been resolved.
4. All editors involved in the article agree to remove it.

1) The debate was started 2) The discussion about neutrality issues has not been stopped for more than a few days. 3) The problems in the article have not been resolved. 4) Not all editors have agreed to remove it. 5) Not all relevant arguments have been addressed. Do you want me to repeat these arguments? There is nothing that would justify the removal of the tag. So please stop edit warring and engage in a civil debate about the content issue. Thank you IQinn (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is no further reply than i am going to fix the stated problems accordingly starting tomorrow. IQinn (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn, neither me nor Wikireader agree with your proposed changes to the article. Instead of edit warring, I suggest posting an RfC to invite expanded comment. Cla68 (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, to discuss on the talk page is not edit warring and adding sourced information to the article also not. Do i need to start an RFC to add sourced material to the article? You have not addressed my last arguments Wikireader41 refuses to take part in a civil debate at all and repeatedly removed the tag edit style instead. Seems to be the case that you two have taken WP:OWNERSHIP to keep a certain POV. You have either to address all the given arguments what has not been done with most them or you agree that i edit the article by adding sourced material. IQinn (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn, to make sure I understand correctly, your concern that the article isn't NPOV is because it doesn't mention that Bill Roggio and Paul Hanusz are fellows with the FDD? Is that your only concern? Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 the article is misleading, just to repeat me one more time. 1) The LWJ is a "project", "blog" of the FDD with their mission what has not been made clear in the lead sentences. 2) The LWJ is almost entirely written by FDD fellows. (just look at the last few years.) Most of the articles are either written by Bill Roggio or Thomas Joscelyn. 3) Why is Thomas Joscelyn (also FDD fellow) not mentioned at all? He is the senior editor he and his role should be described. There are only a few key people and he is one of them.

The article should clearly describe the key people and should clearly describe who is behind the website just to come back to the point where this discussion started. These points have not been fixed. IQinn (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn, the article reflects its sources. The Columbia Journalism Review which is one of the major sources used was a long, exhaustive article on LWJ, but doesn't mention the FDD. The FDD connection, in secondary sources, is only mentioned briefly in an article in The Nation. So, you appear to be proposing to place major emphasis in this article on an aspect that would require the use of primary sources. Do I have that right, are you proposing using primary sources to place significant emphasis in this article on the connection between the FDD and LWJ? Cla68 (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Cla68. That the articles are almost entirely based on one source in not a good thing. It is always bad. There is no contradiction with this source for the additional information that i have listed. To add this additional information is not a significant shift of anything. It is a good thing. The information is clearly stated in the LWJ and FDD website information backed up by secondary sources. Cherry picking all information from one source and ignoring additional information from other sources is the problem. Let's be clear the LWJ is a "project", "blog" of the FDD and not to mention that is misleading what brings us back to the problem we have to fix. You claim that all the information i have listed can not be sufficient verified? Yes we do use primary sources and here this information is backed up by two of them in addition to at least a secondary source with no contradiction. IQinn (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn, why don't you put the exact, cited text you want to add to the article here and we'll discuss it. Cla68 (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, if you get the time or anyone else go ahead and fix these problems by editing the article. If nobody does than i am going to edit the article as soon as i get the time. IQinn (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn, to put an NPOV tag on an article and then say you don't have time to work with other editors to fix it is not very helpful. I'm trying to work through the issue with you, but can't do so if are unable or unwilling to participate sufficiently. Cla68 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, i feel like you do not know what a NPOV tag is. The article is misleading. The problems have been clearly stated. Why don't you fix them? If nobody does than i am going to edit the article as soon as i get the time. Do you have further questions regarding the content issues? Then feel free to ask them. IQinn (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Since no one else has agreed with you over two months that the article is NPOV, I'm going to remove the tag. We can revisit it if someone objects anew. My reasoning for why the sources and information you want to include are inappropriate are listed above. Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removal of the NPOV tag. it was completely unnecessary in the 1st place IMO.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Huffington Post cite

[2] There are a couple of problems with this addition to the article. First, the Huffington Post is a blog site, although I haven't checked to see if it is generally considered to be a reliable source in Wikipedia. Second, it's from 2006, one year before The Long War Journal started, and comments on Roggio's blogging. So, I'm not sure the opinion is relevant for this article, perhaps instead for the Roggio article. Cla68 (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine to use as it has been dated and attributed to the author Stephen Kaus. The LWJ developed out of Roggio's former blogs. The LWJ was created by Roggio. Roggio also writes most of the content and Roggio is the editor of the LWJ. (means also that there is no editorial oversight for most of the content as we have in other RS). The LWJ is pretty much the one man show of Bill Roggio. It is always good to present both sites to achieve NPOV so that i do not see any problem here. IQinn (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I checked the Kaus blog post and found that the it was misrepresented in the article, so I fixed it. Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post piece is critical of Roggio before he started the LWJ, so I don't think it is relevant to this article. So, I am going to remove it. If there is a separate article for Roggio, that is where it would belong. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversies section

I removed the Controversies section after checking the sources, because it was a clear violation of WP:SYN. The sources did not say what the text was trying to make them say. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I Suggest you Read Both Roggio's Articles and the Synthesis Page Better Next Time

For example, Roggio titled one article Al Qaeda leader Ilyas Kashmiri spotted at Taliban meeting and claimed in it "A senior al Qaeda leader who is one of the terror group's most dangerous military commanders and strategists, and who was reportedly killed in a drone strike last June, has been spotted at a meeting with the leader of the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan." I most certainly did not violate the synthesis policy when I typed my claims If you read the synthesis article properly, you will also find it claims a statement like "Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references" is acceptable. By citing the author, and not just the news source, I also referenced the Huffington Post article in a way that complies with this policy too. I clearly wrote that Roggio made the claims and that Kaus criticized him. Wikipedia is not a Long War Journal fan page and I suggest you read the consensus policy.75.72.35.253 (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

IP, accusing other editors of being "fans" isn't very helpful. The section you restored appears to be synthesis, because it is your interpretation of what the sources are saying, not what they are actually saying. Also, the section on Roggio is from before the Long War Journal was started, so I don't think it belongs in this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for an outside opinion. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

My edits were not based from own personal opinion at all and were quite neutral. Again, I suggest you read both Roggio's own articles and the synthesis page better next time. Roggio also titled an earlier article on the website Al Qaeda Operative Rashid Rauf survived US strike. To also claim that I was accusing other editors of being fans when I stated that Wikipedia is not a fanpage is also uncalled for. It was just a simple warning not to violate the fanpage policy. Next time, I'll to remember more carefully to include this.75.72.35.253 (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC on "Controversies" section

Should the controversies section as currently written and sourced be included in this article, or modified in any way? Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Links to this RfC have been listed at the media, military history, and websites wikiprojects.

Comments

• In my opinion, the section has multiple issues. I will address it one bite at a time:
  • "Roggio has not reported reliable information on the website at times and his opinions have been quoted as well as criticized by various news outlets."
    • The first source doesn't even mention the Long War Journal.
    • The second source does not say anything about the Long War Journal being criticized for anything.
    • The third source doesn't actually link to an article, just to UPI's Arabic page's front page.
    • The next source does not actually criticize the Long War Journal.
    • The next source criticizes something that Roggio did one year before the Long War Journal was started. Also, this criticism is already included in the article under "History and mission"
    • The final source does not criticize the Long War Journal.
  • "After Baitullah Mehsud was killed in August 2009, Roggio claimed on August 6, 2009 that a US intelligence official told him US officials thought Mehsud was still alive. This was not accurate, as Pentagon spokesman Jeff Morrell and National Security Advisor James Jones claimed that US officials were 90% certain he was killed and they had yet to see any evidence to assume otherwise, and the Pakistan Taliban later confirmed he was killed."
    • These sentences are synthesis. None of the sources [3] [4] (dead link) [5] actually states that the Long War Journal got it wrong. Instead, it is attempting draw a conclusion and put it in Wikipedia's voice, contrary to WP:SYN which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
  • The second paragraph is also synthesis. None of these sources actually say that the Long War Journal got it wrong or even mention the journal [6] [7] [8] [9]
  • The third paragraph is synthesis. None of the supporting sources [10] [11] mention the Long War Journal, and the second source is a self-published blog. Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking through these, I'd agree with you: the sources don't seem to match up with what's being claimed in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Cla68 and Hchc2009. GregJackP Boomer! 11:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur. In my opinion, the Long War Journal is a pretty reliable source. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with all of above. I would recommend to close this RfC right away per WP:SNOW. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the opinions appear to be unanimous so far, I will go ahead and remove the section in question. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Information About the Website's Controversies Must Be Preserved

I'm afraid the opinions expressed here are inaccurate and the content in my edit was quite reliable and neutral. Read Roggio's articles for yourselves. For example, he titled one article Al Qaeda leader Ilyas Kashmiri spotted at Taliban meeting and claimed in it "A senior al Qaeda leader who is one of the terror group's most dangerous military commanders and strategists, and who was reportedly killed in a drone strike last June, has been spotted at a meeting with the leader of the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan."[12] He also titled another article Al Qaeda operative Rashid Rauf survived US strike and claimed in it "Rashid Rauf, an al Qaeda leader who is in charge of al Qaeda's external operations branch responsible for attacks in Europe, survived the November 2008 Predator strike in North Waziristan that was also thought to have killed Abu Zubair al Masri and two other al Qaeda operatives."[13] Both claims were contradicted by an Al Qaeda eulogy for Kashmiri[14] and reports in September 2009[15] and July 2010[16] that suggested Rauf was still believed to have killed.

In his article about Rashid Rauf, he could've demonstrated neutrality by titling it Al Qaeda operative Rashid Rauf reported to have survived US strike and claiming "Rashid Rauf, an al Qaeda leader who is in charge of al Qaeda's external operations branch responsible for attacks in Europe, is reported to have survived the November 2008 Predator strike in North Waziristan that was also thought to have killed Abu Zubair al Masri and two other al Qaeda operatives." In his report about Ilyas Kashmiri, he could've demonstrated neutrality by titling it Al Qaeda leader Ilyas Kashmiri reportedly spotted at Taliban meeting and claiming "A senior al Qaeda leader who is one of the terror group's most dangerous military commanders and strategists, and who was reportedly killed in a drone strike last June, is reported to have been spotted at a meeting with the leader of the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan." His reports about Baitullah Mehsud after his death were also controversial. He claimed US official confirmed to him "Baitullah is alive" after he was reported killed[17]. The authenticity of his was claim was questionable, as I could find no major news agency that repeated this claim and more than two weeks before the Taliban confirmed Mehsud's death, the Pentagon suggested US officials thought otherwise.[18] It needs to be known the website is not exactly 100% reliable and is arguably sensationalistic at times75.72.35.253 (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)