Talk:Muslim Brotherhood activities in the United States

Specific suggestions on how to improve this article?

Egypt Project and Politics Project editors, you both rated this article C-Class. Would you please provide specific organizational and/or content-related suggestions for improving this article? Thanks. Twells1208 (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operations

The title is incomprehensible. It needs to be changed however that can be done. Anything but the current title. It needs articles, connectors, conjunctions (less preferred). Something to alleviate the strain of a mouthful of 4 words with 2-4 syllables each, unrelieved by anything else that might help the reader understand the title. Never mind that you will explain the title later in the article. Titles should be self-explanatory.

If you want this to be read by people who are not surprised when the topic is different from what they thought it would be. "Hits" may only be for a few seconds.

How about "Influence of the Muslim Brotherhood"? or (I don't really like this) "Muslim Brotherhood Influence."

Yes, there are other titles that are similarly misguided and confusing. I'm thinking the insertion of the word "operations" is misguided style. It's a word English speakers don't expect to see coupled together with the others. And it's too long.

Is it about "influence" or about "operations?" It seems to promise too much. It seems gobbledegook. Student7 (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I must respectfully agree. Big words are hard! SignoreMachia (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Influence operations is a political science term that simply means activities to change others opinions and behaviors. Every political entity attempts influence operations. I respect that if you have never studied political science, this term may be unfamiliar to you, but at least previous versions of this page explained the term and why it is appropriate. Cbales212 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

How about the non POV term "Criticism of the Muslim Brotherhood". One could also use "The Threat of the Muslim Brotherhood". After all conspiracy theories see a threat. So this title would have the same meaning in a sense. However, this title would be a POV in the opposite direction. That's why I suggest "Criticism ...". There are many pages like this and it makes no claim in the title as to the validity of the criticisms. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Move to "Criticism of the Muslim Brotherhood." This is the best idea I've heard yet! Better even than the two titles I've changed it to and got reverted! It is understandable by everyone and doesn't require a college degree nor a dictionary. Student7 (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Title is good if you know anything about influence operations and/or the Muslim Brotherhood

The title of this page is clear. The Muslim Brotherhood is an organization with a particular point of view, and like all organizations, it tries to influence people to its point of view. This is accomplished through influence operations. Influence operations is a political science term that clearly states its meaning--activities to influence. There is nothing inherently bad or negative about influence operations--every political entity on the planet tries to do it. It is fine if you have a different point of view, but please accept that others may disagree with you and respect other views.Cbales212 (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I find this option POV. It suggests criticism of the Brotherhood's operations is absurd. There is a vast difference of opinion, across the political spectrum, and this title doesn't reflect that. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't POV it's discussing operations that are designed to influence. That isn't a positive or negative statement. It makes no discussion about the ethics of the action either. There are plenty of influence groups in the country (K Street is home to influence groups.) This is just an article about a specific organization and their engagement in these operations. SignoreMachia (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is silly. Just because certain people don't understand the term, or attach an irrelevant emotional value to influence operations does not mean there is a systemic bias in the article. The content is verifiable the definition is accurate. The complaints have been vague and rely entirely on self-explanatory labeling. Unless someone is going to provide a specific, reputable, sourced example that demonstrates their complaint I must object to the changes. Wikipedia deserves nothing less. SignoreMachia (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of quantum physics material is quite self-explanatory as well. If you happen to be a nuclear physicist. We try to avoid these titles, where possible, so that they can be read by people with an ordinary education. They don't have to be "insiders." See WP:COMMONNAME. The name should be understandable. It isn't now. Yet the material is not nuclear physics, but something easily understandable by most Wikipedia readers. The current title confuses potential readers. Student7 (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nor do we name the otherwise easily understood article, platypus, meroblastic oviparous monotremes just to prove how smart we are! And how easily we can confuse others. Student7 (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is true, we do not refer to the platypus by its Latin genus, this is because there are clearer ways to describe it without sacrificing the accuracy of the term. However, it is unacceptable to sacrifice accuracy in an effort to make something "understandable." Wikipedia is fundamentally about providing accurate knowledge. Furthermore, no one is asking for insider knowledge or technical discussions. If someone has difficulty understanding a literal phrase the article links to a page that explains it in detail. No alternative title suggested has been as accurate and some are downright offensive. (titling it as conspiracy theories) Wikipedia exists to provide knowledge. Please demonstrate clear examples as to what you are referring to or provide a better title in the talk page to be discussed. If the page is linked to specific explanatory pages and the title is accurate then I don't see what the problem is. SignoreMachia (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that "Influence operations", as a phrase, means nothing to anybody outside a small cadre of insiders. We try to title articles so potential readers understand them.

There are probably dozens if not hundreds of understandable titles that could be substituted including: "Operations of the Muslim Brotherhood," and "Influence of the Muslim Brotherhood." They are simpler titles and readily understood. Student7 (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there are not hundreds of understandable titles. Both examples you have given will only muddy the discussion. Operations is a broad word meaning "an active functions, a discharge of function." An article on Muslim Brotherhood Operations would entail everything that they are doing from Accounting to Covert Action. Similarly Influence is a broad concept meaning, "The capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself."(Both definitions were taken from Google) Together however they narrow to one possible meaning." The term Influence Operation literally means what the two words convey, "An active function to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something." As previously stated, an explanation is provided by the numerous links to the page. The statement means literally what the two words describe. This cannot get any clearer. Saying there must be hundreds but offering two, is not being helpful. The people who understand (who are being described as experts/insiders though we aren't) are telling you there isn't a better title. If you want an explanation of influence operations then perhaps there needs to be a separate page for it; but the fact is that two simple Google searches clear it if the other Wiki links don't. Asking someone to understand two basic words is not unreasonable. I would put the definition I came up with into the page, but it would technically be original research. SignoreMachia (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The Muslim Brotherhood is on no one's Top Ten list of group's to invite to your Homeowner's Association Meeting. The controversy they have garnered is warranted and self-inflicted. Keep the title in the pejorative. "Influence Operations of the Muslim Brotherhood" is not conspiracy minded, but properly pejorative given the group's actions. 10stone5 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

This article is filed with unreliable sources (http://counterjihadreport.com "counterjihadreport"] and FrontPageMag). There are also primary sources (MEMRI). In short, much of the content needs to be cleaned up. That which is sourced properly, will likely need to be attributed back to the author.VR _talk 13:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Renamed

Based on the discussions above, and my own feelings about it, I've renamed this article to Muslim Brotherhood activities in the United States. The previous title 'Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operations' - was arguably inaccurate, as influence operations are what one state does to another. The Muslim Brotherhood is not a state, but an international organisation. I added 'in the United States' to the title, as that's what the article mostly focuses on. (I also think much of the content of this article is partial and based on unreliable sources, but that's a different issue.) Robofish (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)