Talk:Transnational organization

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 July 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep/revert and selectively delete.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sociology

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Hijacked article

Concerns

I worry that this article is a bit unbalanced and strongly reflects a single user's point of view. Most of the citations come from Center for Security Policy, which is an advocacy group, and therefore not an unbiased source of information.

Objectivity

The page is properly sourced according to Wikipedia's guidelines. The Center for Security Policy may be what you would consider a "biased" source, but can you name a truly unbiased source? Most of the information in the page is from documents seized from the Muslim Brotherhood during a police operation which were then published by the Center for Security Policy. So much of the "biased" information is actually from documents that belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood itself.

Dagnytaggartmoxie (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC) dagnytaggartmoxie[reply]

I find this argument for deletion to be unconvincing. Wikipedia is a place where everyone makes edits and improves things. If whoever made this complaint, as it went unsigned, would like to offer alternative research they are welcome to, but just complaining about perceived bias is not grounds for deletion. The reality is that primary source documents by a secondary source does not mean the article itself is biased. It does mean that Center for Security Policy is a good area to get this information. An analogy would be complaining an article on the Ku Klux Klan is biased because it uses citations from the Southern Poverty Law Center which is anti-KKK. I say don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The citations are numerous and reasonably varied. Find proof that the information is faulty and then there would be a case but let's work together to improve an already meticulously sourced article rather than just delete it.

SignoreMachia (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments concern a different, now deleted, version of the article (see AfD) discussion for details. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]