Talk:Faith Freedom International/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP:WEB

How does this website meet WP:WEB? BhaiSaab ^talk 13:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:WEB web-specific content is notable if:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations, except for the following:
   1. Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
   2. Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
2. The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.(If I start lying against the religions, like Christianity, I can also get this award! This is a notable criminal website. They just lie. Just see the Zakir Naik's debate with William Cambell and this website is protecting the William. The say that the William arguments were GREAT, yet they dont have the video on their website!!!)
3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.(The people who crusified the Jesus may be more popular then this group of liers. Have you any popularity award for them?)

--TruthSpreader^Talk 13:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree -- not notable enough to merit this article. What do other people think? BYT 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Im still waiting for RS that establish N. --Striver 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

FFI has received some media attention, and that makes the organization notable. -- Karl Meier 17:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be "trivial coverage." See WP:WEB. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to criticism of Ali Sina not allowed due to undue weight.

I have removed the links (including a malformed one) that are focused on criticism of Ali Sina because as all have mentioned we are not focusing on Ali Sina - this is about FaithFreedom International and adding too many links critical of Ali Sina is an undue weight towards him. He is notable in his own right but that issue isn't the subject of this article. Criticism of him needs to be on his page. Oops hello thats right you got his page removed. That's a shame really so you can't deem him to be unworthy of a wikipedia page BUT then have the same people feel that it's worthy that many links are added back in that criticise him. Ttiotsw 09:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Faithfreedom is nothing without Ali Sina. Actually, faithfreedom is the Ali Sina. Criticising Ali Sina is equivalent to criticising faith freedom. How many lies you want to know that Ali Sina and faith freedom tell you? r u interested?

His own website,or website of his friends are not proof neither reflect his standing!!Quote authentic sites!!Outside critics have to be quoted..

Faithfreedom is mentioned as a site for people trying to escape from Islam in the list that Richard Dawkins provides in his book The God Delusion. We need not establish the notability of Dawkins here in this field of analysing the delusion of religion from his scientists point of view. Ali Sina is a contributor to the Faithfreedom site so general critisisms of Faithfreedom contributions could be accepted but simple nonsense apologetics raving on about Ali Sina add little to Wikipedia. Ali Sina is only notable within Wikipedia when the site is mentioned on that articles page, or where he has contributed to other notable content e.g. any other book contributions, or as an example of someone notable who is apostate of Islam (because of his contributions to a book in this field of apostacy). Like I say when he writes a book on Pokemon which gets critically received we can refer to him out side of this field of apostatic Muslims so right now he stays in the field of apostacy and Muslims. The question is he critically received ? I think the fact that there are so many people wanting to add links to sites that criticise him means a yes. The desire to add a link to a site that criticises Ali Sina is a self-defeating assertion that Ali Sina is notable. This is my logic of saying that you cannot claim he is not notable and yet want to add critical links which indicate a degree of notability. Therefore only critisism of Faithfreedom can be added as that is the only article in which we have a clear ground for notability.

Wikipedia isn't about truth and lies but simply reliable sources. For instance we have loads on the Quran and that's more or less a complete fairytale same as the Bible and of an unreliable source (an angel !). We have loads on the Bible and thats an inconsistent mishmash of fantasy which borrows from an older Jewish minor faith, and then there is the old Testament which is only matched nowadays by books like Lord of the Rings in its bloodthirsty tales of woe. Give us a break on the truth and lies angle. Ttiotsw 08:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should take this page, its AfD, etc. to RfC

I have noticed numerous instances among us of failing to be WP:CIVIL. Why don't we take a breather, Muslims, Kaffirs, Jews, and Christians, and reason it out? FFI is notable because it is a nexus of criticism of Islam, especially through its message board. Should it matter that various pro-Islam sites overshadow it? WP:WEB is a useful guide, but sometimes it fails to truly determine notability, especially if smaller groups with unique arguments are involved. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This article should be deleted(See this discussion please and give ur reponse)

Hey Guys i think this article should be deleted. it just shows a website and its motto. I think its not needed in wikipedia please lets discuss why its needed. if it is needed only because it was on alexa rankings in top 30000 website once in last yr. then please tell me, can i make articles on islamonline.net (which is in top 1000 ranking), islam-qa.com(top 10000),islamicity.com(top 10000) and many . I will start building article on this website organisation soon. Mak82hyd 18:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that update. I've updated the link to the new site ( now http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/ ) BTW: for a list of authors see, http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=4&page=1 so some work to backfill on who they are and get some summaries for the page. Ttiotsw 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"can i make articles on islamonline.net (which is in top 1000 ranking), islam-qa.com(top 10000),islamicity.com(top 10000) and many" Sure, please do that. The only thing is that I am afraid that you can't make a new article on IslamOnline, because we already got one. -- Karl Meier 11:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Faith Freedom" is an article which is not worthy to be rated as article. I think it is advertisement of a website. It should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1000only (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

I dont know if it should be remopved or not. But if it has to stay then it should not be an adevrtisement gimmick. I made edits and they all got deleted. WHY ? because i spoke about the truth which the website itself lists. Ex. Its members who wrote or commented on the site is 1200 only out of the 20,000,000 visitors. The number of emails read till date is like 6,000 only. People who read the articles published there are also in just thousands. If these facts are present in the article its balances the claim of being viewed by 400,000 people (which is possible by cross linking a marketing gimmick). A view is counted ust by clicking the site link and opening the website, while actually staying there and reading the pages is what matters. The facts on site meter and others state that a person on an average spends 5 seconds on a particular page and around 5 minutes on the entire site. I believe that all relevant facts should be up in the article and not only those that make the website look 'important'. talking about 20,000,000 visitors is one sided and advertises the site rather than give a true picture of how much the site is worth. Z2qc1 16:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I explained on your talk page WHY at least some of your edits were reverted. You are a new user, you did many edits in as many minutes and removed text without using a single edit summary. I explained if you do this on pages that are contentious then these changes will be reverted. Please use edit summaries and please use the review feature.

Personally couldn't care less about the page reads/clickthrough/site meters. The worth of the site is supported by the fact that it is listed in Dawkins' The God Delusion as one of the few sites for people who want to leave Islam. Ttiotsw 07:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki doesnt allow personal opinions. so what you think personally is not revelant. facts are relevant. Bias towards one particular fact while leaving out othrs is again not wiki policy. I told you why i had 15 edits in 19 minutes or viceversa. The tags were getting messed up. i had no idea about using preview. I corrected the error later when i learnt. See my talk page i did recognise my error and mistake. My edits were edited spicifically acording to what your and matts personal opinion was. what ever you and matt thought is against the goodwill of the website should be deleted, is that not correct? I mean not editing 20,000,000 visits comment but editing 'number of members' or 'time spent on the website' shows that you Ttiotsw and Matt are both onnly trying to create an advertisement for the website. Do you have a reference that the article is listed in Dawkins book. Just dont say you have but quote a reference. Thats all i wish for the article, that it be worthy of included in wiki. By worthy doesnot mean 20,000,000 hits or inclusion in Your book. Rather it be listed as a article and not as an advertisement. Z2qc1

Then you misunderstand what the article talk pages are for; what I think personally is relevant as that is how we arrive at a consensus view. Please do not conflate "Matt" and my edits but address what we may have done individually as we do not work together (I would compare that to say your edit here [1] where you are trying to gather some other editors interest). I work alone and come to my own personal opinion based on what I see as a balance of the guidelines and facts. The text for the Dawkins book entry is,

"Faith Freedom International is listed in the appendix of Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion as one of the few Islamic related "...Friendly address(es), for individuals needing support in escaping from religion" (page 379)."

but it got removed around late December 2006 and I never bothered to put it back. I will do that now though, thanks for reminding me. Ttiotsw 08:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Ttiotsw I did not misunderstand. My comment was about personal opinions on the wiki article page and not on its talk page. Deleting something which you personally thought is not good. Thats what i meant that your personal opinions have no place on wiki article. Consensus is not when you and matt both agree. Consensus is when you , an editor/contributor and me and editor/contributor and matt an editor/contributor and other editors/contributors all agree or disagree. Or consider something important or not important. Sometimes something can be listed without consensus if it is a true fact. Ex.There are people who follow one religion of the other and few Matt's and Ali Sina's. If all people who follow religion reach a consensus and say that Wiki should not have FFI article it would be against the sprit of having Wiki if FFI is not included in wiki inspite of standing the Wiki tests (which i am not sure of if FFI has.)

I tried to to activate other editors of the article, else you and matt will just keep deleting my edits as if you guys own the page and delete anything that you personally think is irrelevant for promoting the website. You dont have to spend time searching for what z2qc1 has done and what is he doing. Its strange and spooky to follow a user to look for his activites.

How do you see the article as a balance of guidelines? Its not. Wiki guidilines says there should be no bias. However potraying one piece of information and neglecting/deleting/hiding another piece is bias. 1) Bias towards potraying that the website is very notable and has been overflooded by people. Fact is that people who bother to write on the website is only 1200. thats like 0.003 percent of the visitors. These visitors have spent on an average 5 seconds on a page. This shows that the website is not flooded by visitors but rather click--- open---5 secs----close. Readers should be aware of that if readers are being told that the website is being flooded by millions.

2)Potraying the website as banned in 'SOME' muslim countries is false. SOME and countrie'S' is a generalized statement which may include many other muslim countries who dont ban the website. This is unjust towards those countries. Yes it is banned in Saudi Arabia and the article has a credible reference thats good. So we say it is banned in 1 country. Then the article should say it may be banned in Pakistan however no credible reference could be found. Saying its banned in Pakistan (still does not make it 'some' muslims countries) with a "credible" ('internet users' say so or Mr. Sina's says so is not credible reference)

3) Dawkins reference if present should be there, its good. I agree and dont mind at all. However the correct way of referencing would perhaps be to list it as "Friendly address(es), for individuals needing support in escaping from religion" Dawkins,(2006), appendix pg 376. It should not be like... Ali Sina has been reffered by Dawkins in his book "such and such" as a good website that explains why religion especially Islam is bad for your health etc etc. Note that the term Dr. is not used my me for Ali Sina. Because there is no credible evidence that he is a Doctor of anything. This is all how i want it to be. Credible. Not like how it is in the article now. Ex. Ali sina is a great man (ref). Faithfredom.org. Ali Sina has be called a God by millions (ref) Faithfrreedom.org. etc etc Honestly i find the website quite shady. Till three days ago there were no commnets since July or Aug 2006. I made some points in my edits regarding those. Guess what...all my edits were deleted by either Matt or someone else. I checked FFI and suddendly it has updates and comments as recent as 25 Feb 2007. I was dumbstruck. Is Matt Ali Sina himself or what Anyways, i care less. All i care is wiki should have a true article about anything it lists not just personal opinions of people who think wiki can be used for advertising.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Z2qc1 (talk • contribs)

You must be talking about the old web site. Have you checked [2] as that seems to be the new site. For instance the story, [3] was filed on the 15th Feb and has 55 comments. There seems to be stories op-ed or otherwise linked every day. Ttiotsw 10:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Somehow i find the entire site dubious. Many flaws. Anyways i checked through your link (a sub section) and followed it to find the section. This is what i got. http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=Sections&req=listarticles&secid=8

In one of the article i read that the proze money os only to attract people to debate. There is no real money as such. Then i also read that Mr. Sina's family is still a muslim in fact at the level of cleric's. I find it strange that he says muslims are bullies while he himself lives with them prayed with them, respects them. One of the article he says he read the bible when he "...was 13 years old and could not contain my laughter" http://www.iiop.org/Debate7.php. Then another place he says he read the Quran in 1994. A person living in Iran. Comming from a cleric family reads the bible at age 13 and the Quran in 1994. I mean i find it strange.Anyways, you take care. Just be sure that you dont fall in the trap of donating money eventually making him rich. Remember Osho Rajneesh and others like him. They all used God and inner peace. Mr. Sina is using hate muslims and golden rule. Both of the above references are as of 03 March 2007. Websites are not reliable references cuz inforamtion on them can change anytime.Z2qc1 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Op-ed Author list link (need researching to help the article)

The link, http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&catid=&topic=19 , has a number of op-ed authors. Ideally we need to take each, check article and name and other sources for that name and see if its just page scrapping (RSS etc) or actual op-ed stuff (e.g. first Cinnamon Stillwell op-ed I saw looked like page scrape). And then the link http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=4&page=1 has author names who have contributed articles. Need to do the same and ideally post back here into talk what you find. That should (or not!) allow up to build up a inbound link from other notables sites back to faithfreedom and thus establish notability of faithfreedom. There is a lot of noise in those author lists but something should crop up though I think its just Ali Sina that is mainly verifiable (due to his contribution to Ibn Warraq's book Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out). Remember it is the "truth" but verify who said what and when and where. Ttiotsw 21:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing unencyclopedic tag

This was added on the 18:02, 5 December 2006 by an user Truthspreader and then at 18:38, 5 December 2006 a since-banned (1 year) user BhaiSaab added the AfD nomination. This thus allowed just 36 minutes for anyone to get the article up to scratch. Given this was fallout from the article delete of related article for Ali Sina very soon before the flow of tags from unencyclopedic to AfD was not made in good faith. I have removed the unencyclopedic tag as it states, "An editor has expressed concern that this article may be unencyclopedic and ought to be deleted. This is a primarily a statement about the article's subject, not necessarily its quality or veracity. Please review what Wikipedia is not and try to resolve the objections on the talk page." ...and yet the subsequent AfD which proposed deletion and was rejected with "The result was no consensus to delete, reasonable argument that the site meets WP:WEB... but please improve referencing in article." means that the previous unencyclopedic tag that predates the AfD has been proven to not be valid as the admin says it satisfies WP:WEB. Ttiotsw 04:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

+++++++++++++ This entire article looks more of a advertisement. This is reflected by the number of links the article has (self links, other websites that have a link to Faith freedom. and other news papers links that have a link of FF embeded. If you check all the references the article has, have links back to the FF website.) This kind of cross links leads to the notability of a website. "Site popularity can be achieved through online and offline marketing and through link popularity..." Ref: http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/search-engine-optimisation/build-up-links-website.shtml

Another reference of this linking business this article has."Power Linking Is A Proven Targeted Traffic Generation System Guaranteed To Increase Targeted Traffic Each And Every Month!...". " How would you feel if you started drastically increasing your targeted traffic to your website over the next 3 months?" http://www.power-linking-profits.com/

The website is not a sales website. So people may only click on a link and visit the page without reading or spending not more than a few seconds on the site. So how can a website ranking prove the notibility of the website under these circumstances?

Removing notability tag

This tag was added by user Striver at 18:52, 5 December 2006 i.e. 14 minutes after the AfD and thus is related to the AfD. The admin closed the AfD with "The result was no consensus to delete, reasonable argument that the site meets WP:WEB... but please improve referencing in article." means that the previous notability tag that postdates the AfD and predates the conclusion has been proven to not be valid as the admin says it satisfies WP:WEB. Ttiotsw 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding web links. Please talk first then add after consensus.

An edit, [4] added a shedload of links to dodgy looking Islamic sites. Certainly not clear how they are notable. This adds undue weight to the opposing sites and less weight to what we are discussing which is Faith Freedom International and (indirectly the founder of that site Ali Sina). Ideally can we have a consensus that any link is first discussed here (each as a new subject) before it is added unless it is a reference used to add verifiability to the text. Ttiotsw 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Karl, when the article is about site whats wrong in giving its opposing sites as well. this is bias mate. when u wrote about ali sina in that article. these sites will become relevant and its opposing sites for FFI so they should stay there. I am reverting it. i hope u will understand. and please dont revert it Mak82hyd 01:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just looked at the site as it presently stands, and am suprised to find the external link from the notable independent online news site WorldNetDaily about FaithFreedom.org is gone. I would like to see it restored. Here is the address of the article entitled "TESTING THE FAITH: Ex-Muslim's site trashes Muhammad; Founder challenges: Prove me wrong and I'll take down page" http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 74.102.58.135 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This link was deleted by Mak82hyd - I'm not surprised. I dont feel like contributing until Wikipedia has policies that deal ruthlessly with this kind of POV vandalism. You could go ahead and add that link back in. Good luck everyone, with the revert wars. I really feel though something should be done about the phenomena of POV vandalism. This is common everywhere in Wikipedia on all controversial articles, not just on topics on Islam. My suggestion is that once a topic reaches a nice quality, editing should be locked and people should only be able to make suggestions and only a few people who are authorized to make the changes should change, based on consensus reached. This will prevent POV vandalism and the Edit Wars. --Matt57 02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a revert and the web address got deleted anyways, the site worldnetdaily is american conservative website which is bias against muslims. Mak82hyd 00:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Matt57. It looks like User:Sefringle handily accomplished the re-insertion needed. As for your suggestion, I hope you succeed in getting it put into policy. 74.102.58.135 06:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

From the old Ali Sina page

We should look at the old Ali Sina page. See here. Not everything is relevant to this new page, but some of this stuff is. That stuff should be moved here.--Sefringle 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should include the imformation about the debates on this article.--Sefringle 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, some information should be imported because te site is by its founder and we can have information on the founder. Looks like an anonymous IP imported a lot of that stuff. Lets see how much of that is filtered/censored out later. I hope you get the Mecca page into the article drive. It would be nice to see a page on that city which doesnt show that this is an exclusively Muslim/Islam related city. It should look like a normal any kind of city plus ofcourse it should include its importance to Islam but to be exclusively about Islam as it is right now, is not the best way. It would be interested to see what kind of changes can take place in that page to further this mission. --Matt57 19:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

matt, this not ali sina article, his views and himself are unnecessary and not notable thats why the page was deleted by admins. please respect their views and people who wants his views will go to his website from here which is shown. so le them decide to go and read if they think its something to read about. Mak82hyd 02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you first explain why you deleted the link to WorldnetDaily as I pointed out in the above section? --Matt57 03:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Now I've added the parts from the old website that I think are relevant.--Sefringle 09:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not add the Views and observations and Ali Sina's Challenge sections, but I think part of them is relevant, but it needs editing. --Sefringle 09:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was appropriate but we are back to the same old game Wikipedia is unable to handle. Edit wars and repeated POV vandalism; constant pulling of the article in either directions. This is just wrong, I mean Wikipedia's inability to handle this. Maybe it will help somewhat adding in materials little by little instead of in chunks to get past this constant censorship. --Matt57 13:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We have good external links for this article now

But we need more. Are there any more that can be found? This article is here to stay now. It was deleted in its prior Ali Sina form because of non-notability (no external links). I hope more links can be found to make this article comply even stronger to WP:WEB. If we had had those external links then, the article wouldnt have been deleted. I remember it was me who filled up somewhat this article with FFI's links - that was even pointed out by FayssalF. Now we need some more good links and references. --Matt57 13:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What external lilnks???They are all FFI links. Or links where FFI has a link. Thats not an external link.

FFI's mention in Ibn Warraq's book - potential reference

In Warraq's book Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out, Appendex B titled "Ex-Muslims of the world unite", page 433, there is a whole 3 page section on FFI. It mentions its website URL and mission statement. This is a valid mention of FFI, so I think this could be a reference for the article. The page range is 433-436. Although this is FFI's mission statement from its website quoted in full and is not a description by Ibn Warraq. This reference can atleast be added to the references. Ali Sina's own testimony of leaving Islam is in page 137-157 of this book. This can also be a reference. The title of his testimony is: Why I left Islam-My passage from faith to enlightenment.--Matt57 14:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

the part about FFI can be refrenced in this article, but the part about Ali Sina's testimony of leaving Islam is not relevant, as this article is not about Ali Sina, but about FFI.--Sefringle 06:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As Ali Sina is the founder of FFI Then he can be mentioned. Obviously he can't be mentioned in other articles unless it is specific to the subject. He is notable. An example for you would be like saying that Bahá'u'lláh cannot be mentioned in an article on Bahá'í as the subject is only about Bahá'í. That doesn't make sense as the ideals and background of the founder of 'x' are relevant to an article on 'x'. Obviously I chose Bahá'í as they too are hunted and killed for some weird reason. Ttiotsw 07:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"page 433, there is a whole 3 page section on FFI. It mentions its website URL and mission statement." so, just to confirm, these "whole three pages" are occupied by FFI's mission statement from its website and its website URL? that doesn't seem to be the non-trivial mention as specified by WP:WEB. ITAQALLAH 03:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

=

These are not good links but a tactful way of marketing the website. This is called power linking. What a fools world !!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.165.78.57 (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Why is this on wikipedia? - ...because Wikipedia is not censored

I just came across this article and was surprised to find it. This site is not even a real legal organization and the guy, Ali Sina, is not anyone famous. Wikipedia is supposed to educate people about real things, not just little organizations. If faithfreedom were to become a widespread debate in the world, then it would be something important. But honestly, if faithfreedom is on wikipedia, it also legitamizes a lot of websites to be on wikipedia, hurting the quality of this project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sartaj (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

This has already been discussed here.--Sefringle 06:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your plea presents a fallacy and proposes self-censorship. Quoting Paine, “Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.”, the core principe of Islam is submission. Submission is the antithesis to reason. Ttiotsw 08:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sartaj, it doesnt matter if Ali Sina exists or not. All you have to do is see whether the article meets the WP:WEB criteria.--Matt57 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that it doesnt matter if Ali Sina Exists or not. It does matter the revenues of the site go to him. Credibility is being obtained without references. Mass propoganda does not mean evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Created2 (talk • contribs)

Sign your talk messages. What revenues? Why do revenues matter here anyway? Like I said the standard to be used on this article is WP:WEB. The references are there to see. See the last section of that page (links about..). This is mass 'propaganda' according to you. You're not supposed to put in your own opinions and conclusions in an article. You're a beginner here. Please see the standards used on Wikipedia and read a bit. --Matt57 03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

New Development: Annual Awards

As announced yesterday on the FaithFreedom Forum in the Action section, Ali Sina and the directors of the site are instituting annual awards. Should this development be included in the Wikipedia article? 74.102.58.135 08:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I say lets at least wait until the awards have been announced. Whats needed the most right now is more links for FFI's notablity so no one dares to nominate this article for deletion again. --Matt57 23:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Another development:: Mr. Sina is now asking for donations. http://www.faithfreedom.org/#1. Showing a need for several thousands but asking for only a few 10's or 20's $. Guess what perhaps we should include this new development too. In 3 days he managed to amass 1,000$. We can include this money raising capacity point. Actually,,, . I am not surprised, i had made a comment about such donations in march 07 above. Cant we include this fact in the article??Z2qc1

Notability of Ali Sina and FFI

Now that the notability of FFI has been established (I hope more links will be brought in, the more the better), my question is: If FFI is notable, isnt Ali Sina too? If so, more information that existed on page should be brought here as Sefringle tried to do. Also actually under the new title, we can write more. Previously we could only include information on Ali Sina, but now we can also include other information on the website that may not be directly related to Ali Sina. I've also included a logo as you can see. The page looks better now. --Matt57 22:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

matt, why is Ali sina views and debates are being written in FFI page. its not his page its about website so just write about website not about the founder. how can i write about yusuf qaradawi who made the islamonline.net website on the website page, its wrong. just write about FFI on the article what his founder said or thinks does not matter.

• • ffi is notable according to admins but not ali sina, remember his article was deleted because of notability*

Thats why i am removing what ali sina said or thinks. i hope you can understand.Mak82hyd 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• point to note and remeber

In this article most if not all citations and references have been given from the same website but not from other neutral websites. websites which mentions ali sina or FFI are sister websites of ffi and one worldnetdaily is american conservative website(which is declared as anti islamic and biased, by many people). Mak82hyd 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The two sections I added from the old Ali Sina page are because they can easily be related to Faith Freedom as well. Ali Sina's views are the views of Faith Freedom, mainly because Faith Freedom is Ali Sina's website.--Sefringle 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

how is FFi ali sina website? how do you know that Ali sina is human or something else can be a group name? whats the proof? can you take whatever in the name of ali sina is said...no.Mak82hyd 22:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

FFI is Ali Sina's website because he says so. Do you have proof that the website belongs to someone other than Ali Sina? No you dont. The Debates are a PART of the website and should be included in the article. I have given you the example - should I go ahead and delete information on Muhammad on Islam's page because the article is to be about Islam and not Muhammad? No. Muhammad was the founder of Islam and therefore its important to talk about him in the Islam page. In the same way, FFI was founded by Ali Sina and an article on FFI will have a lot of information on Ali Sina, due to this same reason. Ali Sina and FFI are both notable now that we have the external 3rd party links there now. --Matt57 03:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has a new scope now

Previously we could only talk about Ali Sina. Now we can talk about anything else in the website so hopefully the article can be expanded now.--Matt57 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexa rankings

I don't care whether Alexa rankings are mentioned or not, but as long as they are not actually used to establish notability, there's nothing wrong with them. Even the article on Wikipedia mentions Alexa rankings. — coelacan talk — 16:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles about faithfreedom.org

Articles about faithfreedom.org that are not external links should be mentioned here instead of within the external links section of the artilce. For example, the mention of faithfreedom in Richard Dawkins' book should not be mentioned in the extenal links section of this page, considering it is not a link to any website. Specificly, I am talking about this:

Faith Freedom International is listed in the appendix of Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion as one of the few Islamic related "...Friendly address(es), for individuals needing support in escaping from religion" (page 379).

--Sefringle 03:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Using copyvio claim for speedy deletion tag is wrong.

The speedy deletion due to copyright violation tag has been added by an editor who has had a long history of controversial edits with this article. It was reverted as suspected vandalism by another editor. I agree with them. The article fails to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion on the ground of copyright violation, namely, was the material was copied from another website which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, or was there no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving or was the infringement was introduced at once by a single person rather than created organically on wiki and then copied by another website such as one of the many Wikipedia mirrors or was the uploader not asserting permission (for images: no assertion aside from tags) or fair use, or the assertion is questionable.

Given the history of the tagging editor with respect to this article I do not feel the tag was added correctly so I am reverting this edit.

Please explain exactly where the copyright violations have occured. Ttiotsw 10:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ali and Zakir Naik

Hello,

In the Debates Section Regarding Dr. Zakir Naik, I noticed the claim:

"Zakir Naik also replied to Ali Sina. But Ali Sina did not mention a reply, for unknown reasons."

Can whoever added this please clarify on these points:

1. How do you know that Dr. Naik himself replied to Ali?

2. That Ali did not reply?

These claims need to be sourced in order to remain in the article (I think). One would think that since Ali has been candid on all communicae regarding this so far; in the absence of evidence that either of these claims is true, one could surmise that Ali 'did not mention it' because it did not happen?

The Cited Source for this Claim (reference 12) makes absolutely no mention of Ali recieving a response from Dr. Naik himself; only that representatives of the web site replied to Ali Sina.

Just after some clarifcation on this sentence. Thanks in advance.

Jigsaw_Psyche 03:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree these claims are false. Zakir did not reply to Ali. Only the following is known:

-Ali Sina wrote to Zakir's website email address (he published this email communication in his site and this is the only record of what happened)

-Zakir's team replied saying he doesnt have time and does not do internet debates

Thats the only stuff we know. Everything else should be taken out.--Matt57 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This article need cleanup per the AfD discussions

I added the {{cleanup-afd}} template because (a) it is 100% true, and (b) most of the "references" in this article are just external links to the subject's website ... it is still lacking reliable 3rd-party coverage to meet WP:V for WP:N ... many should be deleted per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided - Links mainly intended to promote a website ... and the one for ranking.com requires registration to see the subject's PageRank, so that one's Right Out per the same ... because of the plethora of self-references, this article has the appearance of simply being a vehicle to draw traffic to the subject's website. —72.75.85.159 (talk · contribs) 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed in the Afd debate a month ago. The sites mentioned now are acceptable, and prove notability. --Sefringle 06:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding a cleanup template is NOT "vandalism", and surviving an AfD with No Consensus is certainly NOT the same as "now are acceptable, and prove notability" ... I am restoring the tag, and if you remove it again, we'll see what the closing administrator has to say about it. (They should have added the template in the first place.) --72.75.85.159 07:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

1) The decision was to keep the article, and there was no mentioning of any cleanup tag. 2) Please log into you main account so that we know who we are talking to. -- Karl Meier 12:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The external links present now are notable. They werent there before when the article was deleted. Notability has been established. --Matt57 13:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

Please don't remove sourced statements made by Sina on his website. If you believe that they lack context, then feel free to rpovide context, I am not sttopping you from that.

Also, please take a look at WP:RS#Extremist_sources. It says "...they [extremist sources] should only be used as sources about themselves and their activities...".

Thus whatever FFI says about the students of Javed Ghamidi, and letter to Dr. Zakir Naik is only an allegation. FFI is not a reliable source.Bless sins 19:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In his/her edit on 14:08, 1 February 2007, Mak82hyd accuses my edit of being "undiscussed versions". Yet on 19:53, 27 January 2007, I made my post above justifying my addition/removals. Since then no one has bothered to make any discussion. I am re-inserting my edits, and if there is a problem with them, please say so on talk page.Bless sins 17:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the content that Bless Sins want to add is that it mention some of the things that Muhammad/Islam has been accused of being, but not why Ali Sina has accused of him/it being these things. To include it out of it's context makes what he says seems like pointless attacks, and that is of course not acceptable. -- Karl Meier 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

SO what's wrong with including the "why Ali Sina has accused of him/it being these things". Please feel free to provide the context, if there is one.Bless sins 21:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I just mentioned to you, what is wrong with what you insist on including. Anyway, it is you and not me that want to add the disputed content, so it is up to you to make it acceptable and not out-of-context. -- Karl Meier 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Karl Meier, this is my argument: I see no context to these statements. If there is bring it forth and post it on the talk page (or on the article directly). How can you ask me to post something that doesn't exist?Bless sins 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference to an Ex-Muslim's site

This line 'ex-Muslim's site trashes Muhammad' is simply a direct abuse of wikipedian so called scholaristic artical. The civilized words could be used such as 'rebuttals' or 'refutes'. And even these words also would be used as refuting some concept or providing rebuttal to some allegation and it could not be used something like "trashing someone". VirtualEye 09:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy is just as important. Tha article is titled "ex-Muslim's site trasher Muhammad". "ex-Muslim's site trashes" is therefore an inaccurate title.--Sefringle 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think that this is "abusive", what about his comments that Muslims are "bullies"?Bless sins 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sina not notable as per previous AFD

Sina not notable according to last AFD so i am removing his stuff only FFI stuff can be there. what he said or think does not matter, if its on his site let ppl go and read there plz. and how can we write from the same source of which we are talking about.???? Mak82hyd 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

His website is about his views, so his views do matter. Instead of deleting, it might be better to rewrite this section trying to omit the words "Ali Sina."--Sefringle 04:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

this article seems to be about FFI in some areas, but then tries to mask content from the deleted article on Ali Sina as relevant here . i didn't know websites "believed" anything, and this may be an indication that content from Ali Sina has been replicated here, with his name simply substituted with FFI. the lead needs work too, as the lengthy quote describing itself is no more than self-adulatory. perhaps that block quote can be relocated elsewhere and we can concentrate on writing a brief and neutral lead about the website. ITAQALLAH 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The AfD regarding didn't say anything about the notability of Ali Sina. The article was deleted for other reasons, and the closing administrator mentioned that. -- Karl Meier 07:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This claim of notability is nonsense and you know that as others have repeatedly reverted. Please read the closing comments of the AfD [5] which specifically stated that the delete was due to lack of reliable sources and specifically,... "The issue is still reliable sources, and the project simply cannot ignore this fundamental requirement. If actual reliable sources can be found outside his own website which document his existence then by all means re-create." - the point was thus that if we had reliable sources that document his existence then we could re-create not that he was not notable. We have a number of articles that indicate his existence e.g. [6] as a transcript makes me presume he is human and not a "ghost" as detractors are want to propose. We have not re-created the article so as to focus efforts on just the FFI article so please give it a rest. Ttiotsw 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

er.. yes.. notability is established through independant reliable sources. it's clear what the closing admin meant, and admins Centrx and JzG among others understood it in exactly the same way at the deletion review: lack of reliable sources indicates non-notability, regardless of how many e-fans he has. as i said before: if you don't have enough independant sources assessing the individual (trivial mention is insufficient), then it suggests he is quite simply not notable enough a personality. when more 'reliable sources' do pop up, it may indicate that he has passed the threshold of notability. the above comments do not address my concern, this article should not be replicating material from the deleted Ali Sina article. you see, this is where the required reliable sources come in: we use them to build the article and provide relevant information about the subject. the discussion on "views on other faiths" is convoluted, confusing (the subject switches between the website and "he" i.e. Sina), and misleading: a number of FFI writers don't share the same views about other religions as Sina. the first two critiques actually apply to numerous sections in this articles. an easy solution to this would be to cease providing shelter for irrelevant material about Sina being presented as directly relevant to the FFI organisation. ITAQALLAH 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about Faith Freedom. Do you post to the forums? Arrow740 04:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

While some of Ali Sina's views on other faiths may not be the views of all the contributers to FFI, most of the contributers to FFI do agree with his views on Islam.--Sefringle 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Canadia 02:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)==Removed content per WP:BLP== I have removed some content per WP:BLP. Prior to my removal there were allegations against Safdar Nagori, and Haseeb ul-Hasan Siqqiqui, that were presented as fact. WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material states "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability,".

FFI is an extremist source, that can't be considered reliable source. Presenting what FFI says as FACT is a violation of WP:BLP. Also note, "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages."

Making any sort of allegation against any living person, anywhere on wikipedia is unacceptable.Bless sins 18:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually this time I agree. We should mention the death threat allegations and send interested parties to the website. However likely they are alleging an illegal act by someone is a serious libel and we should avoid it without substantial evidence. --BozMo talk 09:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes i agree too, In some fourmn FFI states that it received a death threat via email from such and such person from such and such email address. I had sent emails to those email addresses verify those threats. However i never received a reply. I belive that anythnig that cannot be subtantiated by others, apart from the interested parties shouldnot be included in an enclycopedia. In this current example. FFI says it received a death threat in an email and the information is posted on its own website. One cannot determine if this is true of false. The veracity of such allegations cant be determined, does exist any such threats or such people who sent the threats. Who these people are ? and if the threat is still valid and if it is a threat for which the legal enforcement agencies are aware of and providing concern and protection.

There is a lot in this article which is misleading and violates many rules. Most of it is for advertisement purposes. Some of the editors are biased and any edits keep reverting back to what they think is should potrayed. No where in the article does it mention that FFI owner Mr. Sina has a muslim family, that Mr. Sina says out of the billions of muslims only a few are bad & rest of them are good people. It advertises that FFI is baned in 'Some'muslims countries and cites only Saudi Arabia. However it fails to point out that the website is actually located in Iran ! and everyone knows what is Iran like. http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=faithfreedom&tld=org Z2qc1

Please provide below the exact phrase that suggests FFI is located in Iran.Bless sins 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless since; below is the exact phrase that suggests that FFI is located in Iran. Registrant Organization:Faith Freedom Foundation Registrant Street1:100 Kharabat Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Qom Registrant State/Province:Qom Registrant Postal Code:14226 Registrant Country:IR Registrant Phone:+98.1234567 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:ffisubmission@gmail.com Admin ID:10E04F9022EBA8BB Admin Name:Faith Freedom Admin Organization:Faith Freedom Foundation

Z2qc1, whois.net can be easily hooked. It's not a proof.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it ? well, i am always up for the idea that internet resources, for references are not reliable. If whois. net can be hooked (what ever that means) then FFI.org can be hooked too! I dont mind agreeing to both. If whois.net data is not reliable then how can we hold reliable 1. an unknown, invisible male/female or group, printing words on a page over the internet 2. claiming to receive death threats from muslims, 3. claiming that of the billions of muslims only few are bad, 4. claiming islam should be irradicated 5. claiming to have muslim parents and relatives, 6. claiming to have prayed behind a muslim whoom he respects, also respects his/her grandmother who was a very religious muslim who knew all of the Quran etc. 7. claiming that jesus existed but christianity is a fairy tale. 8. claiming etc etc etc

There are so many inconsistencies that one may say ........FFI and its promoters are hooked!!! but then we dont remove FFI from wiki on that basis. I am surprised that you guys had a problem with its location why so ?? Z2qc1

Views on Other Faiths

This section is totally anti-Christian. My assumption is that some moron must have tried to smear Christianity as a sort of vendetta because he/she thought Ali Sina was some kind of convert to Christianity. This section is a dastardly and unprovoked attack on Christianity itself (who cares if its sourced? Just look at the way the information is presented most of the section is attacking Christianity) Would anybody like to debate this? Canadia 02:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So edit. Arrow740 03:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Anti-Christian" is not grounds for exclusion. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Canadia, I wouldnt mind if this section was reduced. Ali's focus is on Islam, not Christianity. --Matt57 02:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand canadia, if a stub in the article is against christianity it bothers you, while the entire article is against islam does not. wiki is not running a project against islam or pro christianity nor vice versa. Its a shame that someone should feel happy if islam is being attacked and sad if christianity is attacked. Most of the editors here for this article are atheist or just against islam and are using wiki not as an encyclopedia but rather an a source for advertising their websites.199.180.17.10 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you know of websites that have been linked which match the Wikipedia criteria of Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided then please highlight them for us. I know that some websites that have nonsense try to get added now and then but these usually get reverted (e.g. www.faithfreedom.com is an example). Ttiotsw 09:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Faithfreeom's views on other religions is very notable. What do you mean by "reduced"? All of the imformation is sourced.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, less than 1% of the website's focus is on other religions. This article should reflect that. Perhaps you just want to be sure that this article talks about Islam as less as possible. Sorry, thats not going to happen.--Matt57 02:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Faithfreedom focuses on Islam, we need to give more of a focus of this article to the views on Islam, and less to other faiths. --Sefringle 02:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But Wikipedia is not a paper dictionary encyclopedia, so why not have both? Instead of making the "views on other faiths" section smaller, why not make the Islam sections bigger? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested to see you do that. Arrow740 03:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, yes please try to expand the Islam section, thats a good idea. I might look into that too. --Matt57 03:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try, but let's see what Canadia thinks about this proposal. I'll be editing it here. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many Faithfreedom links

This article is relying upon a very large number of http://www.faithfreedom.org/ citations themselves. This presents a problem for neutrality. I would strongly suggest that these be thinned out if this article is ever to be taken seriously. As things stand now with 31 links leading from this article to Faith Freedom's website the article is a virtual Faith Freedom link farm. (→Netscott) 19:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

indeed. if this website truly does pass WP:WEB, we should be able to report objectively about the subject using reliable secondary sources. i do not believe that is the case. ITAQALLAH 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course i agree. The entire article is structured more like an advertisement. 34!!! or more self links. links that take you to its own site or links that take you to some other site where it has its own debates are hosted. I am surprised why so many links of FFI. Notice that most take you to a debate which occured. Now you have to read and read and read the entire ramble between two people to find the quotation/citation in the article. Never seen such an article which has self links to prove it self. Z2qc1

i have tagged the article accordingly, as per the above comments on lack of secondary source usage. also, the external links provided at the bottom apparently establishing FFI's notability are not reliable sources, and in a number of instances the coverage is trivial. i am not convinced that this article meets WP:WEB standards. ITAQALLAH 00:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

NETSCOT; what makes you think this article is a serious article? This is only an advertisement to increase traffic. You were correct to point out the FF link farm. If you follow every ff page you will find at least one link of itself. If you find external links you will find those too have a link to FF ayee. check the frontpage ref. Namely an outside link, but then it has a link to FF. I had read on this talk page about such linking and found that links and links and especially cross links help increase traffic generated to a site. So the article is more of a traffic generator for FF ayee.Z2qc1

WP:WEB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links.....

"...our policy on attribution to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability.............content are deemed notable, based on the following critera..... includes reliable published works in all forms, .............except for the following: ...Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address.....brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site...." Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article WP:WEB

The current FFI article has 47 references, of which 35 refer to itself, i.e FFI.com, 7 refer to FFI rankings like alexa etc. 5 refer to other sources. 3 external links: The first link being FFI itself and the second link being the old FFI page. 6 links for notability of which 1 link has no mention of FFI or Mr. Sina.[(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_21251667.shtml] Another is a reference to a fourmn article again, cross linked with each other. What exactly is this?? and why is it still here ? If here, why does any atempt to clean it gets reverted? Why has deletion got no consensus. Z2qc1

The website is notable. See: Wikipedia:Notability (web) which says: "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." This has all been repeated 2 times already, when people tried to get it deleted. Removing the tag. Please continue debate on notability here before inserted the tag. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hacked

It's down now, the homepage now is simply the text "It works!" This seems to happen often. We should try to make note of that. Arrow740 01:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, unless that message changes to something like PWNZERD I don't think it has been hacked. This is a typical message one gets after doing a proper installation of certain kinds of software. (→Netscott) 02:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be. It's been down for about a day, and often is. Hacking is probably involved somehow. Arrow740 06:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse our housekeeping while we work on getting our sites and subdomains back online.

The FFI Staff

I cant believe the comments the PRO FFI can pass and then wish to include such audacious stuff. I am talking about this particluar piece above. Arrow creates a sub set by the title "HACKED" this implicitly states that the website has been hacked. IS IT ?? Then he states that this phenomena 'the homepage now is simply the text "It works!" This seems to happen often" and that "we should try to make a note of that". Now Wiki will carry a note saying that "according to FFI staff they are busy doing some "house keeping" on the site. the give a reference of FFI.com/housekeeping. WOW another reference hey look this site FFI is a great notable site it now has 32 references. I wont be surprised to see the housekeeping of FFI will eventually raise the number of members it has and the number of people actually reading stuff on the site. remember there were only around 1700 members and of the many visitors it had the average time spend reading a page was like less than 30 seconds. Z2qc1

This is the talk page, not the article itself. Arrow740 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

mind WP:NPA--Sefringle 00:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for saying things in the above manner. According to Wiki policy WP:NPA, i should have said Arrow you comment about hacking is wrong because FFI states that its doing some "housekeeping" on its systems.Thanks for notifying me Sefringle.Z2qc1

Seems to be back up.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 08:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

lead discussion

The FFI main page says:

We strive for the unity of Mankind through the elimination of Islam, the most insidious doctrine of hate. Islam can't be reformed, but it can be eradicated.

I'm merely using their own words. Matt, initially agreed with eradicate, but now you say it is a NPOV word? Fine, we'll just use eliminate then.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 06:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded the lead sentence to have only their stated goals. The rest is the usual polemic you get. I'm neutral here; all religions are more or less bad for humanity and Islam is no exception. Ttiotsw 08:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes thats a better goal, thats what they've said explictly. thanks --Matt57 11:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I dont get this POV of the site. Does it imply that if Islam is eradicated then the world will be a better place to live in? How can this be logical. Islam came into existence 1400 year ago. Does this mean that all the problem of humanity began after this time. FFI people are forgetting the long slavery of the jews under the Pharohs of Egypt, the persecution of christ himself and then the christians by the Jews and the Romans. Currently theplight of the African Nations, Saddam and his rule over his own people. The muslim country of Bangladesh is divided among itself and if you see (on Youtube)the merciless fighting that has taken place between them. FFI is just another cult i think like Benny hinn who gets millions donated or like the man who calls himself Jesus and gets millions donated.

Anyways, what i wished to bring here to discuss is that this article needs cleaning. One particular point is being said in verbose sentences. Take a look at the edit i did regarding the law suit and the threats. I was surprised that i summarized all the info in just two or three sentences. The other thing is , there was a sentence about some $25,000 reward. I looked up the reference and i had a hard time finding where exactly it was being said. My point is that its difficult when we have a reference of a particular debate that took place and then have the user go through the entire debate. We should rather give the page number or atleast a couple of quoted words so it can be found easily. If a comment or fact is stated usually a page number is given along with the books name etc to identify its source. If we could do it for this article i would think its good.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Z2qc1 (talk • contribs)

In rough summary what FFI says is that while the rest of the world has modernized and became more tolerant of other cultures and religons, Islam has prevented such action from occuring in the muslim world. Basicly, they are saying Islam has no place in the modern world, because it is backward. Does that clarify their message?--Sefringle 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats your understanding. Where in any article does FFI refer to mordernism .Then in that case what FFI says is false or naive. While the rest of the world has become mordernized??? WHAT PART f the world do you live. do make a check on stats as in what percentage of the world lives a mordernized life. Tolerant of each other: Mr. Sina cant tolerate a muslim and says that a muslim will go to hell.

In Ireland there are still fights between the protestants and the catholic. In India the Hindus have recent burned to death a christian missionary family and its belongings. Africa is under seige not by islam but by greed of money and power. Check these violent behaviour http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/01/04/beware-christian-vandals-on-the-loose/ http://www.christianpersecution.info/news/assam-pastor-beaten/ http://www.christianpersecution.info/news/india-state-closes-church-for-singing-loud-amid-violence-against-believers/ http://www.rickross.com/reference/jews_for_jesus/jews_for_jesus29.html

Islam has "prevented" something. That means for 1400 years something has been prevented by Islam. Is that a pro or con. What do you mean by backward???—Preceding unsigned comment added by Z2qc1 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:NOT#FORUM, where it says "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate." Your opinions of Ali Sina or what you think of what he stands for doesn't belong here if it doesn't impact the writing of the encyclopedia article.--Sefringle 21:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See here. These are not my words, they are FFI's. --Sefringle 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you are right. I just got in the wave and anyways. I get it this is not a fourmn. I mistook the above as your comment and not FFI's. So i went around to explain how you can think this way. I sincerely thought you feel this way and so it does affect how you will edit and revert so i had to makethe point. shall remember this is not a fourmn.Z2qc1

Death threats

I had edited the death threats sub section, it keeps getting reverted without any discussion from the reverter, i dont understand why? The earlier section had 183 words. the word Ali sina, FFI, website, threat being repeated over and over again. The following is my edit i wish to place. Please tell me if i have left out any revelant information. "FFI founder claims to have received death threats. One which includes a reward of 25,000 $ for killing him. It was also threatened with a law suit, however the law suit never took a factual form." Please idicate any important points i have left out.Z2qc1

The Infidel Guy has interviewed Ali Sina but the relevant program has a disturbing claim (taken from http://www.thedebatehour.com/list_of_shows.html ..."Tape 253 - The Psychological Profile of Muhammad (THIS PROGRAM REMOVED AS ALI SINA HAS BEEN RECEIVING DEATH THREATS.)" Ttiotsw 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats how a reference shoud be. Its an outside ref, it has been referenced correctly. Its easy to find and source. It no longer exists is a different matter. Imagine a reference of a book which has been burned and no one can acess it. YET i agree to this reference and its an improvement on this otherwise advertisement of FFI Z2qc1

Again i tried to find the specific quote where the prize of 20,000 $ is listed for the death threat. it seemd like an editor did some edit on the reference and so it may have become easy to source it.BUT ITS NOT Its like a 20's something pages of web page and a reader is expected to find out by reading through the rambles of arguments and counter arguments and counter counter arguments etc. Please be like Ttiotsw and have a correct reference. Z2qc1

Thankyou on that and I do like the challenge of digging stuff up. Found that Ali Sina's death threat issuer is the same one that issued one against Sania Mirza. Have updated that Wikipedia article to reflect the name of the "scholar" (I understand it from the reference [7] to be a certain Syed Yousaf Bin, the chief patron of the Ulema Board, in Hyderabad). Still have to do more as the link between the two is from [8] and that is simply an email published on that site with no editorial input. Really need a picture of that article in the "Muslim Jagaran" that says 10,00,000 rupees (i.e. Ten lakhs). Ttiotsw 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Titsow: The ref you gave does not say Sania Mirza received a death threat. Plus we should have a ref of the publication who published the threat andnot Mr. Sina's statement that he heard something via sound waves.Z2qc1

Search the word "million" on that page. --Matt57 20:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool!! You guys are improving now. However remember it is still not a reference. Because Ali Sina says Ali sina was threatened. A reference would be where a third party says based upon a resource other than Ali Sina, that Ali Sina was threatened. Else, it becomes more of a negative publicity. Have you guys ever back checked if there does exist such a threat? or should readers be expected to believe what Ali Sina says with regards to himself. by the way Mr. Titsow you made a valid point. "that is simply an email published on that site with no editorial input" Most of FFI articles are only emails published on the site. There is no actual editorial input.Z2qc1

I am sorry to say that this is not acceptable. I just checked the reference which Editor Matt indicated and there i found that it is Ali Sina who alleges that he received a death threat. HOW can a person claim something which is not proven and that 'claim' itself becomes a reference??? this is only negative publicity.in fact the ref cited actually says 'I have received words that according to a Hyderabad (India) local news magazine' So the correct reference should be the page number on the magazine where the threat is published and the year of publication. NOT JUST MR. SINA's statement which he heard from a third person. Just to remind you Mr.Sina gives a reference of the verse in the quran when he tries to refute it. He gives a ref to some hadith about Prophet Muhammed. He doesnt state something about Prophet Muhammed and gives a ref to his own website. Shouldnt this article follow the same referencing style(if not Havard APA referencing) Z2qc1

Members

I had found that in Feb 2007, the website had 1200 members "The site has 1280 members as of february 23, 2007.[9]since its inception a few years ago." Recently the website went though "housekeeping" and the member list has now increased to around 8,000.as on April 07. [10]. Could this be used as a notability factor or can we say that its being doctored and its beguiling readers and users. Can i include this fact in the main article ??? May be i am wrong now or was wrong earlier. Z2qc1 Signed after being notified Z2qc1

Sign your posts. FFI doesnt have a "membership". A forum member is not a member of the website or organization. --Matt57 13:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Membership is understood to be registering with the website in order to be able to contribute in its forumn. So members are those who have registered with the site in order to contribut or comment on the forumn.The site (old and new both) required users to register with them in order to enable contributing or commenting on the forumn. Membership does not mean that a person pays a fee and gets a membership card. Rather membership here is meant registerd users with the site. As i had said earlier that internet references cant be held reliabe. Especially such overwhelming self adressed internet ref's like the current article (34 - 38 out of 47), because information can change eaily and if desired tamperd with easiy. Similarly the old reference which states the member being 1200 is no longer acessible now (after the said "housekeeping" by the FFI staff. Z2qc1

No, like I've told you many times, membership does not mean registering with the forum. Tell me now: If a spammer registers in the forum, is he a member of FFI? FFI does not have a membership. Is that so hard to understand? Um, if I register on CNN.com to comment on their website, am I a member of CNN now? --Matt57 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are bing too hard on me. My bad, i should have said registered users and not members. I thought i made it clear who a member is. so if a spammer registers to the site he becomes a person who can contribute to the site by writting in forumns etc. You can call him a member/registerd user/regular user. So when he enters his user name he is counted as one user/registered user/member/registered member etc. FFI is not a website rather more of a fourmn.. Yes if CNN was a fourmn you will become a member of the forumn. If you registerd with CNN for a poll they will count you as one. and say one man (matt) voted. Similarly FII, when you register with it says we have 1200 members/registered people/ in feb, 07 and 8,000 in March 07. Anyways, i am Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hope this is clear now. I cant explain any better. so the point is how come Feb 07 there were 1200 users who contributed/commented etc whil now in april 07 there are 8,000 such people. Z2qc1

This is also the reason why FFI never spoke about its members or registered users before rather only of visitors which it can increase phenomenally by cross linking, power linking etc. You will find such comments in this talk page itself.

Challenge

the challenge section has been removed as there is nothing to suggest this comical 'challenge' is remotely notable. it is through secondary sources that we ascertain what about this topic merits mention - we only report what others have reported on the subject. ITAQALLAH 02:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If the challenge is not notable, lets take out the Debates too. They too arent notable. Also not notable are Ali Sina's views on Islam and all the rest of the information in the article. Right? Or wrong? We could just delete the whole thing saying that none of the content is notable. What do you think? --Matt57 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

absolutely. we use secondary sources to write articles and determine what merits mention, not primary. whatever the secondary sources report, is what we report. we don't report about the Qur'an using the Qur'an itself. ITAQALLAH 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So why arent you deleting most of the article? Its all Primary source, right? Why are you holding back?--Matt57 16:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the proponderance and reliance upon links to FFI (34 out of a total of 41?) for this article, much like the Ali Sina article, article deletion shouldn't be out of the question. (→Netscott) 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt, there's no point engaging in warring where half the article will be constantly removed and restored. i have removed one section accordingly, and if there are no objections brought forward by the article contributors on talk, then we can proceed further. ITAQALLAH 16:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Give the exact Wikipedia policy according to which you deleted the content. --Matt57 17:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

see WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", or WP:ATT: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" we write articles using independent reliable sources, and should certainly never rely so heavily on primary sources as has been done here. in what way are sections such as 'Death threats' or 'The Website's Challenge' worthy of mention? as said previously, we report about topics in the way other reliable, third-party sources have reported about them, and "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." also see WP:RS, and the explanatory essay WP:IS. ITAQALLAH 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If there has to be a cencus for removal then i shall give my preference for removal of the article. Till then i shall try to have it structured such that it does comply to wiki's policies etc.Z2qc1

Agreed. But we can simply delete it now, and then have it at a user's subpage to clean it up, and then when it respects Wikipedia's policies, the article can be recreated in the main namespace.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

references

Currently 28 of the 46 references (60%) use faithfreedom.org. Compare this to other articles about websites:

• Google#References (26%)
• MySpace#References (4%)
• YouTube#References (4%)

Where are the secondary sources that are used to claim that this site passes WP:WEB standards? --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 06:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense; you present the sites of two listed "media" companies (Google owns Google and Youtube, and MySpace ultimately owned by News Corporation) which happen to be some of the worlds largest "media" companies (News Corp is USD 25 billion and Google USD 10 Billion revenues for last reported years). (Did I mention "media" enough: if media companies can't get other notable mentions then they are not in the right business). What exactly are you trying to prove ?. By Google and News Corp standards just about every other web site in the world is an insignificant blip. Please show common sense and do not compare these multi-billion dollar funded sites with a small community effort. Ttiotsw 19:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

apparently, these. most of the links seem to be extremely trivial in mention, while none quite seem to be reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 18:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no problem with these. They are not trivial; what are you expecting ? NBC coverage of a Superbowl advert for FFI ?. Let's have a look at something smaller e.g. Wikipedia article on Islamonline.net. This organisation claims 200 employees work full-time and the website also has more than 1500 writers and yet in our article it has 6 references, 4 to own site, 1 to Guardian paper and 1 to Alexa !. Now that is trivial. Ttiotsw 19:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

the Guardian article, a reliable source, mentions the website and its activities in full detail, over several thorough paragraphs. i believe i brought up other reliable sources in the article's AfD. trivial mention would be briefly mentioning the website or summarising its content, see WP:WEB for further information. we should be able to write the article based upon third party reliable sources, and i am not convinced that any such sources exist. if they do, i invite you to rewrite the article accordingly. ITAQALLAH 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw, just because other crap exists doesn't mean that this article should stay. IslamOnline, if it doesn't meet WP:WEB, ought to be deleted too.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A good analogy. Look at the Islamonline.net article. Does it look like its an advertisement? No its just plain info about a site It has 6 ref and 4 of its own. Its a bad idea but then one can excuse that because those references are being used not for an advertisement. Any sane individual can understand that 4 own ref's on a wiki article dont become a power linking tool. HOWEVER having 34 and more self (FFayee)links as ref's and the rest of the refs have embedded links within the links shows that wiki is being used as a power linking tool, advertisement tool.Z2qc1

A Better analogy for editors to compare. Everyone knows Robert Spencer. In terms of notability himself and his site. Where doe Mr. Sina stand ??? I assume far below in terms of notability. Now forget Islamonline or google etc. Though to the point, a few of the editors did not understand editor Kirby's or editor ITAQALLAH's argument. Here is how i compare look at wiki article on Robert Spencer and Jihad watch. Robert Spencer's has 20 or more refs and only 5 are his own site. and Jihad watch article hardly looks like an advertisement it looks just like an enclycopedia article.Z2qc1

That more secondary references would improve the article is a reason to do just that: Improving the references that is used in the article. However, it is not a reason to delete important information or to delete an entire article that is clearly discussing a notable subject. Other articles such as the one on Slashdot only use primary sources, and it is obvious that it would benefit from some attention, but like this one, there is no way that valid information should be removed form it, or that it should be deleted. -- Karl Meier 09:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

removing such sections is in accordance with WP:ATT:"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." in principle, we may use primary sources to a certain extent. it is unacceptable for the article to base itself upon them substantially. what's to say absurd sections like the website's "challenge" and "death threats" against the (proven) non-notable founder deserve coverage on Wikipedia? we require those independent third party reliable sources to be able to write this article. ITAQALLAH 15:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mis-using WP:ATT. Read that policy which you picked out one sentence and forgot the ones either side of it (I love quote-mines !),

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." etc etc etc

Thus I would argue that paragraph is primarily concerned with WP:OR. Nothing of this article is original research. Original research is, oh I don't know, lets try saying that Shia allows sodomy, allegedly. Now that is WP:OR and my source isn't very reliable. What is in this article clearly is not WP:OR unless you could claim one of us also writes for FFI: I don't, haven't joined the forum in any way and am not interested in the site. Now reading that policy closely it is asking if the material is attributed to a reliable published source and thus what we are arguing is if FFI is a WP:RS but as we are writing about FFI it really is a matter of using primary sources. This is allowed though the preference is obviously with secondary sources. The thing is though saying that "x says y" and linking to 'x' isn't intrinsically a problem as long as you stick in "claims..." or similar wording. What I can't say is "x says y" and provide NO link at all; that is what WP:ATT and WP:OR is about. Ttiotsw 17:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT is a merger of OR, V and RS, and i think the lead reflects that. the sentence with or without the surrounding passages, implies that we include material if we can report on it using secondary reliable sources. see also the above quote from WP:V. as said before, i think removing such sections which are clearly not relevant to FFI's notability (hence the argument for its use of primary sources is weakened), and it is perhaps the only remedy to what has become an article spammed with primary sources. the wisdom behind requiring secondary reliable sources as per WP:WEB guidelines is that we can then use these sources to construct the article accordingly, else you get a primary-source-spammed article which is inherently unencyclopedic (take a look at the state of the Zakir Naik article a few months ago). for us as editors to determine what aspects of the website merit mention incorporates a large dose of subjective judgement. nothing stops an individual stating up a section about the FFI forum or some other obscure aspect about the website or its founder. Ttiotsw, please find some independent third party reliable sources with which we can rewrite this article and rectify this inappropriate reliance on the website itself. ITAQALLAH 17:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

just want to know where we're at in this discussion, do we agree that those links apparently establishing notability are a) trivial in coverage, or; b) not reliable; or both? ITAQALLAH 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I dont agree the coverage is trivial or not reliable. We've gone through 2 AfD's already. I dont think we want a repeat of that again. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, please explain why you don't agree, and how the article sources establishing notability are reliable and not trivial in coverage. else, please provide the reliable, third-party sources establishing notability. ITAQALLAH 00:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

just looking at one of the EL, [11], this whole coverage is about FFI and Ali Sina. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

please look at it again. FFI is mentioned once only, and as an example. that is known as trivial coverage. WP:WEB states: "Examples of trivial coverage include newspaper articles that simply report the internet address of a website, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, a magazine's brief summary of the nature of the online content, and content descriptions in internet directories or online stores". the sources must be discuss the website extensively, not another topic while just mentioning the site briefly or in passing. ITAQALLAH 00:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Its also mentioned in the end. The article starts with Ali, mentioning him and FFI a couple of times and ends with Ali. Thats not trivial coverage. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

let's not conflate faithfreedom with Ali Sina. the latter has been proven to be non notable. Faithfreedom is mentioned in that article once only, in one sentence. ITAQALLAH 03:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina is redirected to FFI. Its the same topic in this case. If there was no FFI, there would no mention of Ali Sina in the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina is not notable. the singular, passing mention of FFI by atimes constitutes trivial coverage. if you're not willing to accept that, there is little point in discussing with you. ITAQALLAH 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina is notable since his website is notable and vice versa. We dont have redirects on Wikipedia for non-notable entities. Also as the article says here, Ali Sina redirects here becuase he is the founder. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that they both are notable. I agree they are not notable. a single mention of the site as an introduction on a trival news resource is not notability. The entire artcile is no different than the FF ayee web fourmn itself. Its only space given by the agency to Mr. Seena. Thats not notable. Compare this to a single mention in the Dawkins book that too in the appendix. slight notablity. AS something like "site for people to quit religion". Even that according to me is not notable but little. If he or the forumn was notable publishers would have rushed to publish his book, rather Mr. Seena is begging its 2 thousand members to ask for a copy to prove to publishers that its in high demand. The same is happening here.Z2qc1

• Ali Sina's article was deleted as per lack of notability and reliable sources, and this decision was upheld by deletion review. therefore, he does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. the subject of this article is the FFI website/organisation, not "Ali Sina and FFI". the article survived the previous AfD apparently because of reliable third party sources establishing notability, but it seems that the coverage is actually rather trivial (and trivial coverage has been defined above). you seem determined not to accept that, attempting to conflate Sina with FFI. i will re-iterate: please provide the reliable, third-party sources establishing the notability of this article per WP:WEB. ITAQALLAH 03:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivial notability is enough for wikipedia. I am not going to even go mention the numerous muslim converts whose articles were kept because of very trivial notability through previous Afd's.- clear proof that it is being used as propaganda. If the problem is citations used, notability is not the right tag to place. Stick to the issue. The issue is percentage of material being used as secondary sources, not notability.--Sefringle 05:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the notability is an issue. because the last time this notability factor was raised some one concluded that there was no concensus. May be we can reach a consensus now. About the primary refs can be begin to clean it up now? Z2qc1

<reset>Sefringle, trivial coverage is not enough to establish notability. see WP:WEB. ITAQALLAH 00:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted only one link and I showed you it has multiple references to Ali Sina and FFI. This is not trivial coverage. Here's [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 another], also not trivial coverage. Just see the external links section.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

let's look at that atimes link again. faithfreedom is mentioned once. you know the mention is trivial, which is you cannot argue otherwise except by conflating Ali Sina with faithfreedom. WP:WEB applies to the latter, which is the topic of this article. ITAQALLAH 22:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina could not be mentioned without Faith Freedom. Thats his website. Thats all where he exhibits his knowledge about Islam. You must take the mentions together. Thats why the article mentions FFI in the beginning once. That makes 5 mentions together. The whole artile is about him. It begins with him and ends with him. If Ali Sina was something seperate from FFI, why does it redirect here? Also see the other EL in the section.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina is not notable, and has been proven to be not notable. Faith Freedom International must be a notable topic in and of itself to merit its own article. if its notability depends on something which we agree is non-notable, then it doesn't seem that the website itself meets the required standards of notability. ITAQALLAH 23:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If Ali Sina is not notable, why does it have a redirect? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina is not notable, and he thus has no article. it really is that simple. ITAQALLAH 01:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just an attempt to disrupt editing on Wikipedia. To people who think this article is not notable, have you not read the previous AfD's? What do you think will be different in a 3rd AfD? We're going to see a repeat of the same. As i have said, the notability is established in the 3rd party El's.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

the first AfD resulted in the article's deletion. the second AfD apparently achieved no consensus, as Karl Meier claimed to have discovered reliable, independent external links establishing notability. it seems that this claim was inaccurate, because the mention of FFI therein is so meagre that we cannot even use them to construct this article, instead we have had to rely almost entirely on primary-sources, which is not how we write on this encyclopedia. it is also of great concern that much of the material here is a recreation of the material from the deleted Ali Sina page. this article must not act as a safe house for irrelevant and unencyclopedic material from other deleted articles. ITAQALLAH 01:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Debates

The articles does not cite its reference about having a debate with Dr. Abu Saleh, Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi & Dr. Alireza Assar. Dr. Palazzi is a renowned person (believing wiki's article on him)Wiki cant allege about something and not refer it.

How much can we include about what happened in the debates ?? Like on the debate with Mr.Reza we have allowed views of both parties to be included in a couple of sentences. What about views of others and how many sentences should we allow to include?Z2qc1 01:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why I removed the WP:ORG tag.

I removed the WP:ORG tag as the editor who has added it already has shown an unclear grasp of the relative sizes of organisations and feels that unless a web site is as large as Google/Youtube or a News Corporation site then it is not worthy (i.e. turnover must be in Billions to count). Read the WP:ORG policy and it says that,

"Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations."

I call comparing this site to Google/Youtube or other to be an "arbitrary standards". Ttiotsw 18:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What? That's not the purpose of the tag. The tag is to show that there exists debate on the issue. And please don't be so condescending. I'm putting it back.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have 300 or more pages in my watchlist so go broad rather than deep on most; I remembered you as referring to Google/Youtube etc a few days ago in the context of this article. I had replied that was a rather lopsided comparison. A week later you tag the article on notability without using any talk entry. Put together I reverted and said why on the talk. If you used talk then I'd quite simply would have let it ride as I have no problems with your edits.

I still do not believe that the tag accurately describes the debate; we are not arguing notability but want to turn more of the primary sources into secondary sources. We have enough secondary sources for notability (we know the route to fix that bugbear). The problem is that most Muslim or other commentator sites for or against FFI or Ali Sina are utter rubbish sites (and there are 1000s of hits to troll through) and so this messes up Google searches. In the end it's a matter of time. Ttiotsw 12:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think thats the problem sometimes going broad. Its allows you to evade issues which may be relevant. What or how many according to policy is 'enough' as external sources to be notable?? This references topic has come up so many times and hase been evaded by most of the editors. Evaded because eg. 40 or more self/primary references are being allowed in a list of 45 ref's.The article begins with the section debates. I raised an issue with that section and its sources and non of the editors have botherd to reply. But were i to add or delete anything editors who are inclined to advertise FF ayee jump and revert any addition or eidts. Notability is an issue of course. Using wiki to advertise FF ayee is an issue too. Using self referencing is an issue. Having 40 and growing number of links to ones own website is an issue. Having misleading data and biased information without giving a balanced view on encyclopedia is an issue.Z2qc1

..I'm selective on what I dig; e.g. with Walrus a few weeks ago I found nonsense that was added in October last year that took me an hour to track down. Like I said, it is a matter of time to slowly turn primary references into secondary ones. This article is a low-importance Islamic related article so there is no need to spin out of control. WP:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources feels that,

"...research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

It then goes on to say that,

"...Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."

So in conclusion if we do use primary sources then we need to make sure that we follow the (1) and (2) guidelines above. The claimed issue of "advertising" isn't the issue that the spirit of the policy on advertising on Wikipedia was intended to prevent. This article clearly doesn't trip up on WP:ADVERT in any obvious way. Ttiotsw 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"from published primary and secondary sources"

This of course does not mean 40 primary and 1 secondary. Or 40 links to primary website and 3 links for secondary sources. FF ayee Fails this test.

Articles should rely on "predominantly on secondary sources" Then it says on "rare occasions" it can be primary RARE is explained as "current events or legal cases" FFI is nither a current event nor a legal case. down again.

"article ............... the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." The views on Islam /views on other faiths clearly fall short of this rule. FF aiii fails on these accounts.

"make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". The article includes all such things correct?? So FF fails here too. In conclusion we should not see that out of a total 47 references we should not have 43 references of FF ayee.

The article does trip wp advert. "When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view". All efforts to add critisements of Ali sina have been reverted. The article gives a biased agianst islam point of view and not a neutral point of view. The article is one sided and is only speaking about what ali said and not what people told him.

Also may be wiki needs to make a policy to count how many links of a website are being included in the article. come one people its not so difficult to see a total of 47 links out of wihich 43 are FF ayee. Z2qc1

So in essence the policies say primary and secondary are OK but you feel there should be a guideline on a percentage figure for each. This talk page isn't the forum for that. Again this is a low-importance article so the time that can be spent on the article is limited as there are many other article to look at so it's inevitable that it takes time for primary sources to get turned to secondary in time. Ttiotsw 13:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

NO in essence the percentage is kind of suggested not by me but by the wiki policy by stating words like "predominantly" and "rare". 3 secondary references as agains 45 primary is not PREDOMINANTLY secondary rather opposite. The word rare is also explained.FF ayee and its views dont come under the term "RARE CASES" . I pray and hope you understand.I can explain any further.Z2qc1

No; "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases).". I have highlighted the relevant words; "should" does not mandate (the word "must" would make something mandatory). The word "entirely" means just that so that any single WP:RS cite nulls that part altogether. The wording looks slippery but my guess is that this is what is intended: there is no one-size-fits-all hurdle for all articles to leap over. I'm perfectly happy to admit that the article needs more secondary sources but equally happy to state that it is a low-importance article. You spend a lot of time (all your Wikipedia edit time ?) on this one article so you are in a position to look at tracking down those secondary references for us because FFI gets quite a few hits in rather dodgy looking Islamic sites (e.g. 19.org) which I can't really judge if they are reliable or not (see Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy ?). I'm aware of the fear of using primary sources as it is with those that we create "original research" and we do not establish notability. Again please highlight were there is WP:OR and where notability has failed to be established for this site. On balance though - other more important articles e.g. for instance in say Origin_and_development_of_the_Qur'an this article needs more secondary sources and uses many primary sources (Sura and Hadith are inline so they do not appear in the references). By all means focus all your time on this one low-importance article but you are going to have to be clearer on what is actually wrong and not just use arbitrary benchmarks. Ttiotsw 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On aspects of words and english. If you look at a single word you stand correct. If you look at the context and compare it with the article i feel i stand correct. "entirely" is correctly cited by you but its ironical that you miss examples as in rare....legal....curent events. The examples tell us what kinds of things can (not must)rely on predominantly primary source. Overall I understand your point. But i ironically say we are not understanding each other. The article is very very ambigous just as it is with the website. Edits get reverted if they dont conform to a postive view of Mr. Seena. Edits negative of islam conform quick. The bias should be on Mr. Seena's site and thats alright BUT bias on an enclycopedia is unreasonable. I tried to raise a point asking , if what happened in the debates can be listed in the article? since what happened between phalavi and naik is listed. No response from any one.

Anyways, again the hits you mentioned dont make it notable to me as i saw it can be very very very misleading like 4 billion hits and 100 users is strange. I gave examples earlier. Compare Dr. Naik, Robert Spencer etc to FFi article.I think spencer and naik are more notable than seena. Yet their article looks like an enclycopedia article while ffyee article looks like cross linked, advertisement. I have no clue what aspects of wiki notability it conforms to. Apart from singling out words or out of context explanation for the same.

The origin and development of Quran if not included in wiki is of least botheration to me. what has been preserved for 1400 years and has been said without any difference in it will always be the same with or without the inclusion in wiki. and i cant dveluve in this argument as its a lengthy subject. However to make a point, origin or the quran is something which does come in a rare case of allowing primary sources. I think.Z2qc1

Z2, I see your attempt to mislead the search engines by mispelling Seena and FF ayee, lol funny. ZZ, you're still insisting that an advertisment bot that registers on the forum is a memeber, when I've told you there's no such thing as member of FFI. That means also that CNN.com has 0 members because they dont have a forum. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction. Hope you understand. I am not misleading anyone. What i am doing is "not utilizing wiki as an advertisement booklet". Good you brought the point. as i was trying to say that approxx 43 out 47 references of the site, of many others means, is to get attention of a serch engine.

Of course CNN does not have members but it has veiwers and its notability is determined by how many veiwers it has. But a fourmn is run due to its users/members/registered users/writers/account holders/subscribers/active readers/writers. So its notability should be determined by how many such peopele it has. (eg hotmail has accounts). This is my last attempt to help you understand.Z2qc1

Ok so answer this: if a spammer registers in the FFI forum, is it a member of FFI? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WHAT ??? you mean spammers can register on the site ? Well then spammers can also visit the site and create 4 hundred thousand hits. Emm.. so is that what it is ? I never thought site hits can be created in such a way.!!!Z2qc1

Expansion

Hello. I've expanded the article a bit based on one of Sina's letters. I hope that you all find my edits suitable. Also, the letter is under external links? Should it be removed now that it has been used as a reference? Thanks. The Behnam 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the writing seems kind of clunky in retrospect, so please feel free to tweak it. The Behnam 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability tag

The tag says "An editor has expressed concern"... 1. It doesn't matter whether or not the article has established notability. What matters is how editors feel. And myself, along with a few others, question the notability "established" in the article. Seeing how the latest afd was a no consensus, I don't see how it can be concluded that the notability has been established. Please do not remove the template until the issue is resolved.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:N#Notability is not subjective--Sefringle 03:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This article relies too heavily upon the actual website for its material. Notable websites do not have this problem. (→Netscott) 03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep the tag up while the issue is resolved. It is only proper. Thanks. The Behnam 03:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The more appropiate tag then is {{primarysources}}, not notability. Notability means there is no proof of notability, not that there is a lack of primary sources.--Sefringle 03:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, you need to study the {{notability}} tag a little more closely. it doesn't say the article topic is not notable, it says that its notability is under dispute. i, and a number of editors here, feel that per the lack of non-trivial coverage by third party reliable sources, the article fails to conform to WP:WEB, as has been discussed substantially above. ITAQALLAH 13:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The article has non-trivial coverage. Did you see the external links section?--Sefringle 00:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

we have been arguing that the coverage provided by these links is actually rather trivial, or the sources are not reliable enough to meet WP:WEB, which is a stipulated condition. as this dispute concerning its notability is still present, i would recommend reinsertion of the tag which recognises this. ITAQALLAH 15:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we're gonna have to file an RfC becuase many of us dont agree that the coverage is trivial. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

i'll tell you what, we can start a new section and go through each link one by one first. ITAQALLAH 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, make a list of all mentions of FFI and Ali Sina and prove each one of them as trivial coverage. You should also read the previous AfD's, where people commented affirmed that FFI/Ali Sina are notable. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina isn't notable, as community consensus had shown in the previous AfD, which was re-affirmed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. FFI's notability is also disputed, one AfD resulted in deletion, the other resulted in no consensus. so i don't know what you're talking about. ITAQALLAH 09:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with ITAQALLAH suggestion. Meatspace (and the article is low-importance anyway) being what it is I don't have as much time to spend on this article as others so I'm not going to drive this though will respond as I see fit. I would have thought that there are many other articles in Wikipedia that need a lot more TLC than what ends up on this one but hey whatever. Ttiotsw 03:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Objections to Karl's removals

• [12] My inclusion was not a misrepresentation of the source. See the source:

"This is a communist lie. Khomeini was not dumped on us by any Western government. He was dumped on us by the Islamists and the communists. This very woman who is now accusing the West of dumping Khomeini on us marched in the streets shouting anti American slogans and hailed Khomeini. Her hero, Mansoosr Hekmat, backed the Islamic Revolution. Of course BBC had a great role in this. It incited people and volunteered to be the mouthpiece of the Islamists the way Al Jazeerah is the mouthpiece of Al Qaida today.

But BBC is under the control of the leftists. It was the political Left and the communism International that went to bed with the Islamists to bring Khomeini to power."

The paragraph is talking about the Islamic Revolution's causes. It says "of course the BBC had a great role in this. It incited people and volunteered to be the mouthpiece of the Islamists." This is saying that the BBC had a role in the Islamic Revolution. Whether or not this is correct or Ali Sina was correct in saying it does not matter. He said it, and thus it can be attributed to him.

And of course there isn't even anything to argue about the part about leftists. Sina explicitly says "but the BBC is under the control of the leftists." How can you call putting that in "misrepresentation?"

The problem with your edits is that sometimes I do not believe that you represent the opinions of Ali Sina in a way that is fair. One example is that when discussing the criticism he has voiced against Azar Majedi, you simply list all the words that he has called her, and do not mention anything about the actual criticism that he has raised against her opinions. To me it appear to be a biased attempt to misrepresent Sinas opinions and make him look like a raving idiot, that is essentially attacking her and her opinions for no good reason. As for the BBC part, perhaps some of that could be restored with a little more context around it. I don't think it needs it own section though. -- Karl Meier 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• [13]. I see no need to "keep it concise." The section is short as it is. The information cannot be contested as it is mostly quotes. I did this specifically so that people would not complain I took a free hand with this addition. Also there is no good justification for removing his praise of Fallaci and mention of cloning her. He said it, and we are in no place to judge it as invalid while keeping his other praises for Fallaci. To me, it seems clownish, but again I am not in place to say it is not to be included here, as it is perfectly fit for a section about his view of Oriana Fallaci.

I don't see why it should be relevant to have 5 quotes in that section and repeat every word he has used praising her, when we can simply sum it up and say that "Ali Sina has praised her"? Why do you believe that all the more specific words that he uses, is so important that they must be included? -- Karl Meier 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• [14]. "Add context" here means adding your own free hand. I again am perplexed by your removal of his actual words and introduction of your own controversial paraphrase. The section is about his views of "multiculturalism" and so his explicit mentions of "multiculturalism" will be used. He may seem to contradict himself but we are not to whitewash that out of the article.

What I added was from the article: "Who said all cultures are equal? How can a “culture” that condones wife beating, honor killing, stoning, child rape, eye gauging, hand chopping, polygamy and other barbarities be equal to a culture that supports equality, freedom of expression and democracy?". The part that I removed need, as I mentioned in my edit summary, need more context if it is to be included. In the article Sina says that multiculturalism can be useful and acceptable in the context of some specific places and cultures living together. Your version of the section only mention the quote "It is not that I am against multiculturalism" and seemed to me like a OR attempt to "prove" that Sina is somehow contradicting himself. -- Karl Meier 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• [15]. I don't object to this removal so much. I added it because it was relating to Iran and it was a view where he differed significantly from actual scholarly opinion of that emblem. However, I commented it out because another editor restored junk sources to that emblem's article at almost the exact same time that also consider the emblem 2500 years old (absurd), and so it would no longer seem to show any remarkably different opinion held by Sina as the opinion is also held by Shapour Suren-Pahlav. It isn't the most important issue but it isn't nonsense either. But for now I do not contest this removal.

I must admit that I don't know anything about the issue, or how old the emblem might be. However, FFI is an organisation for ex-Muslims and is about Islam, and Sinas personal opinions on archaeological issues doesn't seems relevant to include here. -- Karl Meier 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• [16]. Don't remove tags unless the issue has been resolved with the other editors. You don't own the article; this is a collaborative encyclopedia.

A tag can be added, and I and other editors can remove them if we believe they are absurd and irrelevant given the content of the article. I am not the only one that oppose the inclusion of that tag, and I don't see why WP:OWN should be relevant in this context. -- Karl Meier 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I was disappointed with the free hand you took in destroying my additions as the proper justifications weren't set out. Please discuss the points here as I have and we will see what sort of agreement we can reach. Thanks. The Behnam 02:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a bit harsh to say that I "destroyed" your edits. Most of the content that you added is actually still there, with some adjustments. -- Karl Meier 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

notability again

as proposed above, i have decided that we can go through each link one by one to see how and where notability has been established. here is the relevant extract from WP:WEB from criteria 1 (criteria 2 and 3 are inapplicable here):

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

• This criterion includes4 reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. except for the following:
  • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
  • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.

• [17] - no mention of FFI by Hugh Fitzgerald at all.
• [18] - one mention, trivial (see trivial coverage criteria #1 and #3)
• [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473] - WorldNetDaily cannot be considered a reliable source
• [19] mention of the website once, thus trivial and passing (#1).
• [20] unreliable website, passing mention, see #1
• [21] a message board post by Ali Sina, how does this establish notability?? (in any case, #3)
• [22] one mention, trivial and passing. (#1)
• [23] no mention of FFI at all.
• [24] again, trivial mention (#1)
• Ttiotsw's attribution to Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' which again appears to be #3 in the trivial coverage definition.
• Matt's attribution to Ibn Warraq's book, which is apparently a URL and a copy/paste of their mission statement, which does not fulfill neither the non-trivial requirement nor the requirement that the 'content itself has been the subject of... ...works whose source is independent of the site itself', as stipulated above.

as we can see, almost all of the links provided constitute trivial mention (as defined above) or do not mention it at all, and the one which is about the website is unreliable. if anyone has any resources establishing notability, please provide them. ITAQALLAH 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're making the mistake of seperating Ali Sina from FFI. Ali Sina is the FOUNDER of FFI. Go back and reevaluate please. Second, the mentions are not trivial so you're wrong. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly with Matt57's above comments. I believe that Itaqallah's endless and continued revert-warring against consensus in order to place his tag amounts to disruption. -- Karl Meier 17:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt57: as you can see, this article is about a website - not about a person (nor a person and a website). i wonder if the rest of the community will agree with your conflation. you say the mentions of the website are not trivial- but can you argue why, bearing in mind the above extract? Karl Meier: per your own history of 'endless and continued revert-warring', which you continue even now, i can only perceive your comments as rather shallow. i'm not quite sure what you feel needs clarification about the {{notability}} tag ("An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline ..."). in fact, there have been numerous editors suggesting lack of notability, so there is no consensus in that regard, and as such your tag removal to conceal the presence of a dispute is what is disruptive. ITAQALLAH 19:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

ItaqAllah, its not a "conflation". The article starts with the sentence "Ali Sina redirects here, as it is the name the founder of Faith Freedom International uses.". This was put in by the admins when the redirect was made. Ali Sina and FFI are the same. According to an adminstrator's comments in a previous AfD "this site has clearly been the subject of multiple non-trivial references in reliable secondary sources, several of which are already linked.", so I dont know what you're trying to do. This is plain disruption. If you try for another AfD, its going to be a keep. I can go back and make a list like yours, proving that these are not trivial mentions. I might do that sometime. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

you can see the fate of the Ali Sina article here, which obtained community consensus as non notable. the only reason for the redirect, is that those searching for Ali Sina will be redirected to the next best result. it doesn't mean Ali Sina == FFI, and i don't believe any sort of sound logic can bring one to that conclusion. as for the admin who said that, what links is he talking about? i don't see any reliable, non-trivial mention here. ITAQALLAH 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

also, plrease do address my above comments. show me where there is non-trivial coverage (as defined by WP:WEB) of the website. if you cannot do that without conflating the website with Ali Sina, you demonstrate that the website itself is not notable enough. ITAQALLAH 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, your whole evaluation is invalid as you are seperating Ali Sina from FFI. Both exist only because of the other. Ali is the founder of FFI. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

on the basis of that premise of mutual dependancy, which i don't agree with, can we conclude that because Ali Sina is not notable, then neither is FFI? ITAQALLAH 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse not. The mentions are not trivial and they are multiple in number therefore satisfying "multiple non-trivial published works". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Apostasy from Islam is a serious issue in Islamic countries. Any mention or support for apostasy is not considered to be trivial. In that respect I question how you can consider how Dawkins' mention supporting FFI to be trivia. If apostasy is in fact more of a trivial matter than that in which we are led to believe then fine, Dawkins is trivial but I suspect that the paucity of Islamic related cites supporting apostasy is due to the seriousness of the condition of the believers and the threat in which the apostate presents to the Islamic states. In a liberal Western view (I must mention I had roast pork tonight with a stuffing of sage and 18 month old cheese and I have drunk the best part of 1.5 litres of beer and at least 1 litre of wine whilst blasting out music videos from one of the laptops to the amp trying to stop the dog from jumping on the table) the mention is trivial but in the Muslim view it is not. As an Atheist I must thank the Mozilla project for giving me this spellchecker that allows me to correct words. You tell me how long I would last in an Islamic country ?. Wikipedia represents not a Western view but a world-view and this is inclusive of Islamic countries. In those countries any coverage of FFI would be non-trivial. Ttiotsw 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're equivocating on the word "trivial".--Kirby♥time 22:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• What we have here is a kind of compromise. We had articles on Ali Sina and FFI. Ali Sina, as an individual, is essentially unverifiable. He is also not notable (not least because he's not identifiable) for anything else. So: one concept, one article. Most of the sources address Ali Sina or FFI in some level of detail. If you really want to go through them one by one and assert lack of notability, you'll need to do that via AfD, but I predict a rapid and resounding rejection of deletion since at this time the concept does appear to have sufficient documentaiton in reliable sources to justify inclusion. Issues of weight, content, level of detail, and interpretation of sources, can be hacked out here, but the fundamental basis for the article looks, even to an arch-deletionist like me, to be valid. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guy, thank you for the confirmation. This will help close this needless debate that has been going on for some time now. The external links establish notability and I was about to go through the links and show how each of them fulfilled the criteria. We have coverage in Asia Times and many other places, which is definitely not trivial as some editors imply. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, you're putting the tag back in repeatedly without discussion. FFI/Ali Sina have multiple non-trivial mentions in various places including Asia Times. Please do not tag this article again without discussion. I understand that as a Muslim the content of this article may be offensive to you but you can put the tag in only if you have explained a good rationale for why its not notable. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability x3

Ok, here is the tag. It says "An editor has expressed concern". Matt57 and Sefringle seem to believe that such editors don't exist. So this will decide it once and for all. Please sign here if you are "an editor" which "has expressed concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy notability guidelines..."

• Kirby♥time
• ITAQALLAH

Comments

Note it is "an" editor; singular. If multiple people sign this, it would be overkill and justify the inclusion of the tag.--Kirby♥time 02:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an unfair straw poll, because the opposition cannot vote. Second, wikipedia is not a democracy.--Sefringle 03:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, each of those users including you will have to explain why its not notable and why each link qualifies as trivial coverage. Please evaluate the links now. Explain why the coverage in Asia Times is trivial. If you want to revert without discussion, you will likely get blocked again like you were yesterday. I hope from now on you learn to discuss and justify your edits. By the way, giving a link to WP:SOAP does not count.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, I put our votes there. It looks like Kirbytime wants to spend time over something which will not go the way he wants it to go. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a straw poll. This is just to affirm that there exist users which question the notability of FFI, and the existence of such users merits the inclusion of the notability tag. Saying "oppose" is meaningless. What exactly are you opposing?--Kirby♥time 03:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, technically you dont even have to get multiple editors. The template (if you read it) says "an editor". So why are you looking for multiple people to join in? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Should I tag every muslim whom I think is not notable, even after notability has allegedly been established through an Afd? According to that arguement, I should. Just because one or two people think someone or something isn't notable doesn't mean it is. This discussion seems like WP:POINT.--Sefringle 03:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you seriously think that they are not notable, why aren't you tagging them?--Kirby♥time 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So now you know that it takes only one editor to raise the notability issue. Again, you cannot put the tag in without discussing it why. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been discussed ad nauseam. Read the comments by everybody. What are you trying to accomplish by pretending that discussion doesn't exist? Just because you're a member of FFI doesn't mean that you have to violate Wikipedia policy to support that site.--Kirby♥time 04:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I didnt see you discussing the tag anywhere or explain why its trivial coverage. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the tag says "A user", not "Kirbytime". I can place the tag on behalf of other users, like Netscott and Itaqallah. Second, I have discussed it, please see here, which, after writing that, I subsequently placed the tag. It has been reverted ever since.--Kirby♥time 04:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot place the tag unless it is you who discusses it. If ItaqAllah wants to put in the tag, he'll do it himself. Thats why we have our own logins. Your references section did not deal with the coverage in Asia Times. Like I said, explain how that is trivial coverage. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's hogwash beyond belief. Do you have ANY WP policy or guidelines proclaiming that the person who places the tag must be the same person with the digression?--Kirby♥time 04:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Explain why Asia Times is not notable. Bottomline again: If you put in the tag without discussion, it will be reverted. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So does this count as a discussion or no? Also, I ask again: Do you have ANY WP policy or guidelines proclaiming that the person who places the tag must be the same person with the digression?--Kirby♥time 04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're failing to explain why the Asia Times article is trivial coverage. Have you seen that link? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

the asiatimes ref mentions faithfreedom once last time i checked, and it describes nothing about the website in any sort of detail. it is trivial mention, please see the quote above. ITAQALLAH 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As the admin editor said above, FFI is notable, but alright since you're finding this so hard to believe, I'll go through the list for each link and prove the notability. Just remember no matter how times you AfD this, it will never be deleted. Past AfD discussions have proved that. With time, any topic gets only more notable so I dont understand your desire to suggest that this isnt notable. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

the admin says it is notable, but i don't see how he came to that conclusion. i do say, rather pre-emptively: please don't conflate Ali Sina with FFI. we are trying to ascertain the notability of a website exclusively - in the same way that Islamonline.net's notability is distinct from that of Yusuf al-Qardawi. ITAQALLAH 17:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

i have removed the support/oppose !votes. this is not a straw poll as to whether the article is notable. it is to establish whether there are editors disputing notability or not. ITAQALLAH 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You dont need multiple people to put a tag in. The tag says "an editor". I've put the Oppose back in. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

what exactly are they opposing? if it's use of the tag, then whether or not they oppose it doesn't matter in the slightest. ITAQALLAH 18:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Itaq, while I'm going over the links, why dont you talk to the admin above? Ask them why they think the subject is notable. Did you respond to their comment above? No you did not. Please do.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

nah.. thanks for the offer though. ITAQALLAH 18:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So does this count as a discussion or no? Also, I ask again: Do you have ANY WP policy or guidelines proclaiming that the person who places the tag must be the same person with the digression?--Kirby♥time 04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Commonsense suggests that the person putting the tag in would be the one who would defend the tag. If you expect ItaqAllah to defend the tag, he'll put it there himself.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Proof of notability

First of all, Ali Sina and FFI are the same. An example of an organization having a redirect even though they could have their own article as Itaqallah suggested:

• yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!

Similarly, Ali Sina is a redirect to Faith Freedom International, because Ali is the founder of the website. Without Ali, the website would not be there. Without the website, Ali would not be known. It goes hand in hand, like the admin said.

Now here's the proof according to WP:WEB, where I go over each link for FFI. This has all basically been discussed in the previous AfD.

• Criteria 1: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - satisfied:
  • [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 WorldNetDaily- Ex-Muslim's site trashes Muhammad] - Article speaks for itself; multiple non-trivial mentions of Ali Sina and website.
  • Islam: Religion or political ideology? - Asia Times -- See article; non-trivial coverage.

By these two above links, you have already satisfied "multiple non-trivial mentions" and proven Notability. But just in case here are the rest of the mentions:

• Frontpagemag.com: Symposium: Gender Apartheid and Islam: Symposium has 4 people including Ali Sina and Robert Spencer
• Coverage of Faith Freedom by Jim Ball of Sydney's radio station 2GB
• Fitzgerald: Mr. Bush, meet Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina: This is the title of the article. To have something in the title is not trivial coverage.
• Sherlock Holmes and me - Barbara J. Stock Comments on Ali Sina and Yamin Zakaria's Debate

Mentions on Islamic websites:

• Edip Yuksel v Ali Sina - 19.org, website by Edip Yüksel
• A Debate between Yamin Zakaria and Ali Sina - International Institute of Peace

Other non-trivial mentions:

• Site is blocked by Saudi Arabia. The fact that the website has been blocked in the whole country, is not trivial.

Criteria 3 of WP:WEB fulfilled as well:

• http://humanists.net/alisina/ - FFI's former website, hosted on Humanists.net, owned by Institute for Humanist Studies. Please read the previous AfD for detail on this.

Note that "Notability is generally permanent" i.e. "if a topic once satisfied the general notability guidelines, it continues to satisfy it over time."

--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

yep.. as i thought.. your whole argument is based upon the logically absurd premise that Ali Sina is a website. most people know that a website doesn't have arms or legs, or a brain. most people know that an article about a website would be subject to WP:WEB and not WP:BIO. without this premise, the wheels of the above argument fall off. as for being blocked in SA: so are a lot of websites. not all of them have articles on Wikipedia. i wouldn't say the humanists.net point fits criteria three as it isn't genuinely independent, especially if the website was previously hosted there as opposed to independently distributing its contents. ITAQALLAH 19:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

as for where you have asserted nontrivial coverage, please substantiate this by writing out for each individual link what exactly we learn about the FFI website itself therefrom. ITAQALLAH 19:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok so, why does yahoo.com redirect to Yahoo!? Shouldnt these two have separate articles according to your logic? Second, did you read the previous AfD? "What matters is that the Institute for Humanist Studies are republishing his FFI work, and that fulfills criterion 3, which says "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". It doesn't ask for the content to be rewritten in someone else's words. " --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And ummm - if you want, we could rename this whole article to Ali Sina and then it would satisfy notability, according to your so-called "Ali Sina is separate from FFI" statement. The article will remain the same. What do you think? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Pleasing that User:Itaqallah finally realises that Ali Sina is a single person. I think User:Matt57 has established that the article is notable enough on balance for WP:WEB though there probably isn't enough for a notable WP:BIO. FFI and Ali Sina are linked enough that the redirect stays. I support removing the tag. ps: I wouldn't put much weight on Saudi Arabia banning a web site; that country is basically pre-enlightenment when it comes to human rights. Ttiotsw 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Matt57: yahoo.com is the URL of the organisation. as for humanists.net: i elaborated that the website was previously hosted on humanists.net, so it wasn't independantly distributing any content at all. does humanists.net still distribute the latest articles available on FFI post-seperation? seeing as the latest updates were in '02, i wouldn't count on it.

Ttiotsw: i don't quite understand your first comment. please do clarify. you support removing what tag? {{notability}}? does the tag say that the article is not notable? or does it say editors dispute its notability? ITAQALLAH 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Itaq, so do you think the article should be renamed to Ali Sina? I wont support that though. Why did you not respond to the admin above who said these two terms are the same? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

i think community consensus has already been reached that Ali Sina, the person, is not notable. as such, we don't have an article about him. i suppose if you renamed the article to Ali Sina, the article would be deleted instantaneously per CSD G4 ^_^. when we're talking about a website, whether that be FFI or Islamonline.net (where you !voted 'Delete' even though you would agree that Qardawi is notable), we look at whether it's own notability has been established, and no attention is given to its owners or contributors. i think that Guy was saying that having an article on one of the two appears to be a compromise, and one or the other seems to generally have decent mention in each link (not that i agree with that rationale and conclusion). i don't think he was saying that Ali Sina is a website. ITAQALLAH 20:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina was then deleted (after which it was restored), because notability hadnt been established. Now there is. So its irrelevant if an article has been deleted before. Criticism of Islam has been deleted before a number of times too (in the good old days). I'll ask you one question: Is (present tense) Ali Sina notable, considering the defense I put up above?--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

the notability of Ali Sina is not connected to that of its website, in the same way as Islamonline.net's notability remains unconnected to al-Qardawi. as for your question: your defense is supposed to be of the website's notability. WP:WEB doesn't apply to Ali Sina, and i haven't taken the time to assess his notability because it's irrelevant here. ITAQALLAH 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well please take the time to find out the notability of Ali Sina, because he most definitely IS notable (according to your technical "Ali Sina not = FFI" argument). Then all we'd need to do is rename this to Ali Sina. You know that Ali Sina is notable, and you hesitate to say so. Thats why I asked you this question and thats why you took so much time to respond to it and in the end avoiding admitting that Ali Sina is notable. So um yea- next time anyone raises this issue, I'll ask them if they can prove that Ali Sina is not notable. If you think FFI is not notable, then we can rename it to Ali Sina. Please do take out some time to find out if Ali Sina is notable or not becuase this IS a relevant question. Obviously, they are closely related, as Sina is the founder of FFI. The only thing that you can do, if you keep applying the technical "Ali is not FFI" argument, then the resolution of that will be a rename to Ali Sina. But the article and its content will stay.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiIslam merger proposal

See Wikiislam and Talk:Wikiislam.--Mike18xx 22:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikiislam--Kirby♥time 02:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is wiki islam a wikipedia page or sister or brother. I dont find it so. Please enlighten me. Its importnat because till now i was driving the point that Mr. Al Cina is using wiki to promote his website and using wiki as an advertisement tool rather than as an enclycopedia article to inform people about its self. Of course they are two different things. For example. Hilary Clinton's article on wiki compared to Mr.Ceena's article on wiki. Hilary has 114 links and one which links to her own web site. while mr Sina has 48 links and 45 of them link to his own website.

Point two, What surprised me is that FFI has now begun to use Wiki and its format and create a disambugation, leading people to believe that wiki islam is a wikipedia sister site operated by the noble inventors of the original wiki(etc). This is a shame. Imagine Hitler in the clothes of the Pope and Hitler's wife wearing the clothes of Mother teresa and asking people to kill jews. I would call it the ultimate cowardly act and a very disturbing ideology on part of such people who attempt to do that. It is disturbing to know Hitler but more than that its disturbing to know Hitler now imitates the Pope and is trying to look like him.

So please tell me what is this wikiIslam. I hope its not a sister project of wikipedia and Mr Ceena is now incharge of such a sister project. If FFI is using wiki and its name format and all other stuff i am surprised why its not copyrighted or patented. How could Al Cina organisation drop down to such a level and claim that they wish to guide people. I real shame. I have been saying that the Al Cina article is defying all the principles of wiki and its noble cause. I believe this will at least establish the notability factor apart from establishing the shamefull and lowly ideology in beguiling people.Z2qc1

Err this article is about Faith Freedom International. I think you're losing us on these new people (Al Cina, Ceena, Hitler, Mother Teresa, Pope). The MediaWiki software is Open Source. Anyone can download and run that. It doesn't automatically imply some relationship to Wikipedia.

The original wiki is called WikiWikiWeb and is located here. It was many years later that Wikipedia used a fork of that called UseModWiki and now Wikipedia uses MediaWiki. Only the uninformed would see a Wiki site on the Internet and say "thats Wikipedia !" Ttiotsw 06:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Content from Wikiislam

Image:Wikiislam_logo.png-Logo of WikiIslam

WikiIslam is a website utilizing the Mediawiki interface hosted by Faith Freedom International in which contibutors "...can safely state opinions critical of Islam without fear of censorship." IP addresses are not collected (as they are on Wikipedia) due to security concerns, nor are articles required to adhere to Wikipedia standards of NPOV.

WikiIslam's public launch was in September 2006, and it has become a repository for information and images critical of Islam and of use to those in need of stable reference links for their own articles.

Should we add any of this content here?--Sefringle 03:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Links

I am very concerned about the growing number of self links this article has. The method of referencing should be that when multiple citations are made from a single source then the reference is stated at the end of the paragraph. For subsequent citations of the same source in a given paragraph the word 'ibid' should be used to indicate any references following the first one. Which indicates that the second reference is from the same source from where the first reference was quoted. The wikiislam stub in the article itself has 3 refs and 3 links to another self link. Does this mass linking to self site not bother anyone ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z2qc1 (talk • contribs)

Well you can fix the ibid if you want. I have trimmed the WikiIslam to only have two links to self i.e. the main statement and that it requires logons. The references lists 46 line entries, 21 lines of which are to artefacts that are not the FFI URL. That seems fairly OK so I guess,no, we are not bothered. Ttiotsw 07:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool thanks for the oppourtunity. Yes i agree the links have reduced drastically. I didnot bother to count cuz they never changed for such a long time. However it seems it is not like what it used to be 45 out of 47 selflinks. Oh by the way on who's behalf are you speaking the term 'We'?Z2qc1

It's like the royal we only speaking for a unique population of one. Me. Ttiotsw 10:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a feeling that you did not intended that (royal we) but nevertheless did turn it around to prove it. I like that trait. Anyways its just a feeling. So how come this article aroused your interest again?Z2qc1

I have no idea - the page is on my watchlist (along with 320 or so other pages) and it's a good proxy for how people react to apostasy from Islam. Actually I think Ali Sina is a little bit of a sycophant with some of his kind sentiments towards Christianity; personally I wouldn't consider Christianity the lesser of two evils but a flip-side to the same coin: humanity can do better. Obviously I'm in the Richard Dawkins camp on the subject of religion and the God Delusion. Ttiotsw 18:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Even as a full-blown atheist, I hold that to be utter nonsense. I challenge anybody anywhere to yank a single quotation of Jesus Christ out of the Second Testament (the basis of Christianity, *not* the First Testament) and with a straight face declare that it authorizes any of the outrages of the European medieval and colonial states. Such outrages were committed contrary to Christ's teachings; Islam's outrages are committed in accordance with Muhammad's teachings to convert, subjugate or slay the infidel.--Mike18xx 18:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You want me to quote a text which is of dubious providence describing the sayings of someone of whom there is little contemporaneous record of their existence as evidence that one religion is better than the other ?. It doesn't matter if "What Jesus Said" or "what the Quran says" is true or false; it is how the religions have been implemented. Comparing one foundation myth with another isn't a valid proxy for comparing the implementations. Both religions have failed to provide humanity with a framework of human rights for all. It has only been the very recent European and UN Human Rights Conventions which have pushed us into the right direction. Religions with their divinely inspired texts have been very poor council to date. Ali Sina should understand this better. Ttiotsw 22:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Whaddya mean "It doesn't matter"? It certainly does matter if a Christ was a fine, upstanding fellow while Muhammad was a murdering pillager -- it matters because bazillions of people consider them role-models. (And the UN Human Rights commission? What is this? Comedy-hour? That thing is a festering dump of Orwellian newspeak totalitarianism.)--Mike18xx 04:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Who mentioned the commission ? I said "UN Human Rights Conventions" note the last word is "Conventions" not "commission". Please carefully read what people say first before going off at a tangent. As that web link mentioned it refers to violations of "Human rights" but what I was saying is that the modern conventions we have which even you use, define these rights. In the same way that the US Constitution defines US Citizen rights is a separate issue from how the law is effected today or how people view the founding Fathers or the White House.

As you have highlighted, people use these historical figures as role models and that is where I am saying that how these religions are implemented is wrong. We cannot rely on either peoples' personal implementation of how they view these people, nor religious leaders, nor organised religions but secular ethical frameworks. Ali Sina should be promoting the ECHR and to a degree these other conventions rather than comparing two religions to find a lesser evil. Ttiotsw 06:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

KUDOS Titsow !!! Please read a few paragraphs above on 17 May . You went on to remind me that t his page was about Ali Sina and not about the various examples i gave and thet i am loosing something. Then in a few days and few paragraphs below you begin discussing Christ, christianity, Human rights, Athesiem etc etc... only proves we are only human, falliable. So logically there should be someone who is infalliable emm you think ?. (idea from :the movie Unbreakable)``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z2qc1 (talk • contribs)

I like to write for the enemy and reflect on and reflect back what others have written. So expect the unexpected. On the subject of "infallible" surely you are not thinking of some kind of creator ! - for instance the creator that has given us... the Guinea worm, or the screwfly or the bot fly. Actually those parasites do prove to be quite in fallible once they have got stuck in. I love evolution - now that *is* infallible. Ttiotsw 18:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

views section

the article isn't a repository for every musing of Ali Sina. there is excessive and unnecessary quoting, his views can be covered in a single paragraph of good prose. ITAQALLAH 19:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

<chuckle> You say that half a day after I removed half of them. Ali Sina's views would be covered even better should he have his own Wikipedia page....but I'm sure you'd highly disapprove of that, wouldn't you? Rest assured that there are, by now, way more than enough notable references to sustain such a page over a bad-faith AfD.--Mike18xx 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"You say that half a day after I removed half of them" i don't see how that is relevant to my comment. while you're here, you could at least attempt to explain why you have given WikiIslam primacy in this article, or why you have removed scholarly evaluation of the WikiIslam website. ITAQALLAH 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What I removed was your selective quoting of the evalution. WikiIslam isn't given "primacy" in the article; it's merely listed first because, not only is it aesthetically convenient to have its picture occupy otherwise blank white-space, but because it's a sister web-site, and the first and main descriptive qualifications of FFI and WikiIslam is that they are websites. Therefore, here's website #1 and website #2. You, otoh, are a muslim who regards WikiIslam as an offensive anathema, and you're just doing your damnedest to dredge up any excuse at all to shove it as far down the page as you can get away with so that "click by browsers" don't see it at a glance.--Mike18xx 21:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

the first thing a reader wants to know when he reads an article is about the topic, and what is directly relevant to it. WikiIslam is a sister website, so its mention comes after having discussed the primary website. i don't know what white space you're talking about, as your changes only institute one. secondly, i don't see how i am selectively quoting the journal. the journal is discussing Islamophobia on the internet, and analysing WikiIslam specifically in that regard. it concludes that WikiIslam is biased, tolerates only one set of opinions, and that most of its material is nothing other than Islamophobic. as for the amusing personal remarks, they are not worthy of a response. ITAQALLAH 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you know very well what white space I was talking about, provided you bother reading other editors' commentaries. It is important to at least mention the main characteristics of a sister website high in an article if both websites are going to share the same Wikipedia page. Regards the now deleted reference, you should attend yourself to the question mark in its title, and also re-read the article for its actual conclusions rather than cherry-picking a sentence and conflating it to be the summation. In any event, there's a criticism section farther down on the page, and you can reintroduce it there if you like, and I'll then pick it apart. Regards the amusing personal remarks, if you thought they weren't worthy of a response, then you shouldn't have made one.--Mike18xx 23:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

myself and Matt both happen to be aware that the only white space is in the version you keep reverting to. you may wish to refamiliarise yourself with the article topic, which is Faith Freedom International and not Faith Freedom International and WikiIslam, both websites are certainly not 'sharing' this page. i notice you're not actually explaining what's specifically wrong with my attributions. yes: the title asks a question, and the conclusions and other observations provide the answers, which the author makes rather obvious. ITAQALLAH 23:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah is making the most sense here. WikiIslam is misplaced at the top; the article is about FFI, it should discuss FFI before veering off into side projects. The "View of Ali Sina" is about 300% too large; there is more material about him here than about FFI. If you think it's notable, create an Ali Sina article (although I think it failed an AfD recently). - Merzbow 02:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil and not rude towards each other. I was reminded about this a while ago and honestely it helps resolving issues.Z2qc1

"Merge" does not mean "bury", Merzbow. And if you don't like all of Sina's quotes here, I suggest YOU re-create the Ali Sina page which the usual suspects conspired so fervently to vote down in flames regardless of notability; then you can put EVERY incendiary thing he's ever said in it, and then add a massively bloated "criticism" section. Since the usual suspects would have massive fun playing in that mud-puddle, it should be a cinch to approve.--Mike18xx 04:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality on the WikiIslam description.

I have reverted and edited stuff for the following reasons. If you read the article it never concludes that the site is Islamophobic. It seems to skirt around this quite well. In fact the conclusion seems to be simply asking for more money further investigation. The article says "should" you use the set of criteria from the Runnymede Trust but this is not an authoritative definition (i.e. "established") so we should highlight that the claims of Islamophobia are only if (corresponding to the article's use of the word "should") these criteria are used (as "suggested"). Using the example of MEMRI as an example of links that are not clearly Islamophobic misses the nuance that the article itself states that "it becomes much more difficult to argue that all information posted on WikiIslam is Islamophobic by nature." as the MEMRI link comparison was in a section on links not the core content. My use of that previous quoted section I feel balances out the uncontested quote of "it should be quite easy to label most of the material published on WikiIslam as expressions of Islamophobia." quite fairly i.e. it is neutral. The article was in fact trying to identify a pool of critical web links and was establishing if WikiIslam was critical of Islam enough to have a representative pool. The article is not a specific study of WikiIslam but preparation work for a metastudy of the links it provided. I think they are clearly suggesting it is critical and negative of Islam (I think none of us have any doubts here), though not as far out as Islamophobic. This is an important distinction I think they were trying to make as I would suggest that if the site was considered Islamophobic they would probably not propose further study. I think we would find it hard to make WikiIslam Islamophobic stick using that article. Ttiotsw 01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A certain other editor is going through great pains to present that source as saying something other than what it actually says. I will support any edits you make to keep the POV out.--Mike18xx 04:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw, it does frequently and implicitly accuse WikiIslam of selective bias for suppressing alternative opinions, but here it is said quite explicitly:

• "Compared to “Muslim homepages,” i.e. those set up by believing Muslims, WikiIslam contains only negative and critical examples. This bias is clearly represented in the section called “laughing with the prophet”, which presents stories and reports from the life of prophet Muhammad (i.e. hadith reports)." ['this bias'] refers to ['WikiIslam contains only negative and critical examples']

secondly, i suspsect that the Runnymede Trust does possess some authority in the field if its standards are being implemented by an academic paper. the paper refrains from calling WikiIslam a 'purely' Islamophobic site, because some of the websites linked to are not so. thus, the sites WI links to is clearly related to its own status:

• "It is also difficult to see all the sites linked to WikiIslam as expressions of Islamophobia, for example, the link to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). This homepage is rather a portal that contains news from the Middle East and the Arabic-speaking world, and the content covers all kinds of news, as well as theological discussions within the wider Middle East.24 Therefore, in order to call WikiIslam a “purely” Islamophobic site, it would be necessary to scrutinise all web pages linked to this site thoroughly, which I have not done for this article"

because of this use of material from external websites which itself may not be originally be Islamophobic. the paper states:

• "This is an illustration of the fact that any information posted on the Internet can easily pop up in new environments and that the content of a specific homepage can be put to a number of different purposes. Thus, when information is made public on the Internet, the “owner” often loses his or her control over the posted data, especially since a homepage, or any information posted on the Internet for that matter, can be linked to an immense number of homepages, forums and portals, including WikiIslam. From this point of view, it becomes much more difficult to argue that all information posted on WikiIslam is Islamophobic by nature."

so how i'm seeing it, the paper is arguing that most of the material on WikiIslam is Islamophobic, but it stops short of calling it a purely Islamophobic website, because the lending of non-Islamophobic material it does from non-Islamophobic websites (like MEMRI), even if it may use that information for a different agenda. also, when the paper uses the term 'linked' it appears to be referring to association as opposed to external linking. ITAQALLAH 12:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the text of the article is as neutral as it'll ever be given that one reference. It says it is Islamophobic if certain criteria are used but not fully Islamophobic (The same on-the-fence point-of-view could be aimed at the Vatican). We can't really expand that any more unless we can get more references i.e. it is giving undue weight to just one reference. When more references come in then we can elaborate. Ttiotsw 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

it says that most of the material is Islamophobic, yet the second quote provided in your version is in the context of material obtained from non-Islamophobic websites, which the article currently fails to express. at the moment, it's currently presenting the two quotes as contradictory when that is clearly not the case. i don't intend to see the passage expanded as opposed to reworded to faithfully represent the main points this academic paper raises about the topic. ITAQALLAH 11:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The title of the work is "Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam". The article thus is asking a question but not concluding the question. The question should thus remain open here. The best way is to present the two core claims regarding Islamophobic content (even if they are contradictory) and leave it for another reference about WikiIslam to help the reader decide. If the reference title did not have that "?" question mark symbol in it I would agree with you. Ttiotsw 13:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

i think we should concentrate on the substance of the article, instead of speculating over the title. i am aware of plenty of academic papers which pose questions in their titles and introductions as the topic of investigation, and then provide conclusive answers. i don't believe the two quotes contradict, i believe they must be read in their context, in which what the paper is asserting becomes quite clear. ITAQALLAH 17:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH, if you are going to persist in removing the clause I've entered about Islamophobia being a controversial term, at least, when you do so, please have the courtesy of ensuring a wikilink is maintained to the wiki article about "islamophobia" (where it is stated that the word is controversial). ITAQALLAH, you may not believe that fear of Islam may be rational, but plenty of non-Muslims do; they fear for their lives because Islamic beliefs often lead to killing people, especially non-believers, and therefore I recommend that you stop trying to remove the clause, which I see as one that is necessary to put forward in order to prevent POV (in Wikipedian terms) or whitewash (censorship) (in more colloquial terms). 74.103.60.55 13:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

this amusing attempt to cast doubt over the concept, when academics generally accept the word, is not acceptable. you provide neither an academic citation nor sound rationale to justify this tendentious insertion. the academic journal cited certainly doesn't believe the concept to be controversial. if you want a wikilink to the article maintained, i believe we can cater for that. as i have stated previously, we can simply quote the article, without adopting a stance on the issue. ITAQALLAH 13:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH, I think your attempt to legitimize the term "islamophobia" by cutting out the clause I included is unacceptable. My rationale was sound, even though you did not accept it. All phobias are referring to "irrational fears". That is common knowledge. There are many good reasons for people to fear Islam (e.g. today's exposure of the jihadist plot to blow up New York's JFK airport) but proponents of the term generally seem to be in denial about that. You are right that I did not produce academic citation, however, at the moment I am preoccupied with matters of self preservation that take priority over service to others, so will either leave the production of such sources and reintroduction of the clause you oppose or will attend to that matter myself another day. Thank you for the courtesy of including a wikilink to the article about "islamophobia" which, if I'm not mistaken, continues to incorporate my understanding of the truth about that contentious word without my involvement (i.e. precedent set to back up my argument). 74.103.60.55 16:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

please understand that original research and your own personal opinions are of no relevance here. also see WP:V. citing an article which is currently in quite a poor state as a precedent isn't really appropriate. i don't need to "legitimize" it, academic opinion does that for me. as i stated previously, the simple resolution is to adopt no stance on it at all, which is why the word has been used only within the confines of the quote. ITAQALLAH 17:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no "controversy" surrounding the use of the word "islamophobia". Indeed notable news organisations around the world do not add provisos when using it in articles: BBC, Independent, Fox News, etc.

Malik's views are refuted by the Muslim Council of Britain as:

Kenan Malik (Islamophobia Myth, Issue 107) surreptitiously redefines Islamophobia to mean violent and overt hostility towards Muslims on our streets by racists and the police.

But this conception of Islamophobia is at odds with virtually every source cited in his article. Ever since the term "Islamophobia" entered mainstream discourse following the Runnymede Trust's 1997 report on Islamophobia in 1997, it has been understood to entail a fear of and prejudice against Muslims. Such prejudice may manifest itself in ways other than physical attacks by racists or disproportionate arrests by the police, and the semantic edifice erected by Malik makes a mockery of victims of prejudice by pretending they have not been discriminated against.

However, in the article about Islamophobia, it is valid to discuss criticisms and alternate viewpoints. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

URL's

There seems to be some edit warring as to what url's should be put in the template. My personal opinion is only the one to FFI's main page (http://www.faithfreedom.org). The others are inappropiate for the template, and belong in the external links section.--Sefringle 01:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. - Merzbow 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FFI-logo.png

Image:FFI-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if this "bot" will next jump all over the CBS "eyeball", which has exactly the same fair-use tag and complete lack of "specific explanation" (unless "Summary: CBS logo" completely fulfills that requirement).--Mike18xx 08:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. In any case I did the needful, i.e. I put in the fair use rationale now.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina's Book

Now that Ali Sina's book, Understanding Muhammad: The Psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet, has been published (as mentioned on the landing page at the external link, FaithFreedom.org), things are very different and appropriate changes should be made. His book should have a Wikipedia article written about it, but whether one is written here or not, it should be mentioned in the article about FaithFreedom.org the first time Ali Sina's name is mentioned - even if it appears in red letters rather than blue. Also, Ali Sina should have an article here at Wikipedia that is just about him. I took editing action toward both these ends but Itaqallah reversed my efforts, which led me to feel frustrated. 74.103.60.55 00:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The book was just released yesterday, and hasn't even made it to Amazon.com yet. If the book becomes more notable, more popular, or a bestseller, all of which will take time, an article about Ali Sina will become necessary. But for now, be patient and wait and see if his popularity/notability grows.--Sefringle 00:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Sefringle. Thank you for your words of wisdom. I'm still frustrated, but I am also realistic. 74.103.60.55 01:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that a prolific website with evidence of plenty of great effort and influence amongst scholars and debaters has to have its founder's book displayed at Amazon.com before it's considered worthy of mention here. Anyone can get a book listed at Amazon.com. It's listed at Lulu.com which is an established book site. Does that matter? Does the results of a book's marketing department determine it's worthiness to be mentioned here? --71.243.71.244 18:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not only listed at Lulu.com but is listed as being, at last weekly count, the 19th best seller for the book company. 70.49.97.169 00:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction: 16th top seller at Lulu. Pretty impressive! Not notable? I don't think so! 70.49.97.169 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability is complex. Book rankings can be listed. This has been done with other books(e.g. The God Delusion. On the up tick you can update it as you see fit and on the down tick you simply say "Reached 'x' in 'date" etc etc (same as song hit chart rankings). You are right that anyone with an ISBN (easy to buy just one) can get a book listed on amazon.com, so it is rankings on best-seller lists or within the sites that is encyclopaedic.

Notability though really comes from other sources also saying it is a best seller. Thus non-Lulu.com best seller lists.Ttiotsw 07:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To all the unknown writes like 70.49 or 74.103 etc. its better for other readers if your signin and use your name. About your comment on data, with regards to faith freedum i wont be too sure about the data and its veracity. I would suggest that you keep a track of these trends about ffi. you will see that it has a strange trend. every onece in a while it spikes up and then its flat. in the trend you posted it spiked up in 07 and was flat all the while. So i dont think data is good enough a evidence. i tracked the trend once and lost. sometimes its indonesia and at others its USA. some other times it was Iran and kuwait. and the trend was the same. A vertical spike and then a fall and then flat. The book is no longer available, and of course i dont think that because they sold out.Z2qc1

Motion to switch names (rename this article back to Ali Sina)

All 3rd party sources talk about Ali Sina, not FFI, so technically notability is established for Ali Sina, not FFI. The content will remain the same. We can still have the FFI logo and website box because all that belongs to Ali. There are some advantages to this. A number of people have complained that 'Ali Sina is not notable because he doesnt have his own article'. Well now he will. This will clear any doubt of him being included in List of former Muslims and him being able to be quoted on Islam related articles. The notability is established then and then we can use the 3rd party sources to quote Ali Sina directly in Islam-related articles and use Ref links like this one. As Ali Sina is now the disambiguation page, we can have something like Ali Sina (Iranian ex-muslim) or something of the sort. Although the FFI title on this article looks good but there are advantages if we rename this to Ali Sina, plus technically it is more justified with regards to notability. Any opposing thoughts? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It still looks to me like the sources better establish FFI's notability (like the Dawkins cite). - Merzbow 05:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's too early to switch this given the opposition to the FFI article in the first place. Lets face it - Ali Sina will inevitably get an article given the nature of the subject and he's not publicity adverse but it's easier to leave it until we get good quality reviews of his new, somewhat self-published, book. Then the article is easy to create and won't get AfD. It would get a request to merge back into FFI or FFI merge back into Ali Sina but the Asian Times article is typical and says 'x' of FFI. It doesn't say 'x' who runs the 'FFI'. Thus we could have enough for two articles. The Ali Sina article would then have reviews of any material he has written plus those funny debates he has with the Muslims. Ttiotsw 06:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkin's mention of FFI could be termed as trivial. You have to admit, there's just one non-trivial mention of FFI as an organization ([http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 here]), but there are a couple for Ali Sina. See this edit (and this). People are complaining he doesnt have his own article. Ali Sina's own title page will also help in including his opinions on Islam in Islam related pages; something which has not been done before. We could take his opinions from some 3rd party sources like the Asia Times article. You can either have the increased ability to use Ali Sina as a source, or have the "FFI" in bold font as the heading of this page; the former is more desireable in my opinion. I'm not seeing any advantage to having FFI as the title of this page, but I'm seeing some of having 'Ali Sina' as the title. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't be able to reference him in any article anyway. He has no qualifications or credentials to speak of. It seems to me that policy/consensus has deemed him non-notable two times in a deletion, and a second time in a deletion review. Ibn Shah 15:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

First thing he's notable. Look. Notability is defined by non-trivial 3rd party coverage. Dont refer me to the old AfD's, we didnt have as many 3rd party mentions as we have now. See the above debate which was closed by the admin. As to whether he can be used as a source, why are other people in Criticism of Islam being used as sources? Do they have PhD's in Islam or something? No they dont. All you need to be mentioned in an article is notability wrt to the subject at hand and relevance. Sorry, it will eventually happen. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability is defined by the community's consensus as to whether someone has received non-trivial 3rd party coverage, not just whether you, a single person on this encyclopedia, have deemed it so. The only place where FFI and Ali Sina have received non-trivial coverage is that worldnetdaily article. In all other places, they are passing mentions. Ibn Shah 16:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

actually, there is a requirement that sources used be reliable (see WP:V#Sources). ITAQALLAH 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WND is reliable. Its also the Asia Times article. Did you see the sources properly? And now Ali Sina has a book out (see his site) so we'll soon be seeing some of his material in Islam related articles. And I would bet you that there are many articles here where consensus would be delete them e.g. Criticism of Islam, or Robert Spencer etc. As you can see, if there's no consensus, it doesnt mean the article shouldnt be there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition, another mention is his testimonial in Ib nWarraq's book "Leaving Islam". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually we won't be seeing his material in articles, at least if you intend to follow policy. And there is and was a consensus - that's why his article was deleted. Ibn Shah 16:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, there wasnt any consensus. You and your friends obviously wanted the article deleted while everyone else wanted to keep it. Now whats the difference between a self-published book and one that is not? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Me and my friends? That article was deleted in December of last year. I joined this encyclopedia more than four months later. Fortunately the difference is one you'll have to debate with people who made the policy (community leaders I assume), and as long as that policy is there, Sina's book won't be cited on Wikipedia. Ibn Shah 16:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There are other ways if that doesnt work. His book will be cited by 3rd parties and then it will find its way into Wikipedia. If you look back at how this website has been, you'll see that topics relating to Criticism of Islam have expanded a lot inspite of opposing efforts (even Criticism of Islam was AfD's a couple of times)and will continue doing so. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem quite intent on finding ways to circumvent policy to push this "POV." The only place these 3rd party citations would be appropriate are the book's own article page, or Ali Sina's article page, if either of them should ever merit an article that is. Ibn Shah 16:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

it's strange how you suddenly declare that FFI is not notable, stating quite plainly that the sources do not cover the topic in any substantial depth (and are thus trivial) - despite this point having been expressed to you numerous times over the previous months. the sources you present regarding Sina are not new, they've been around for some time. there was - and is - consensus that Sina isn't notable. the AfD and subsequent deletion review made that quite clear. if you know of some new sources that haven't yet been shown, please do provide them. lastly, on what basis do you believe WND is reliable? who considers it reliable? ITAQALLAH 19:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats easy to respond to. You always said that Ali Sina OR FFI are not notable. You never said that Ali is notable but FFI is not and when I asked you this before, you often used to avoid the question, just like now you avoided my mentioning that Ali has a whole testimonial of why he left Islam in Ibn Warraq's book. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

you must be mistaken, i don't recall stating that either Sina or FFI aren't notable: they both aren't. you had previously claimed that FFI was notable despite the trivial mention in the sources provided (through employing a far-fetched Sina/FFI unionism theory- claiming that an individual and a website were one in the same), yet - apparently convinced that Sina is now notable and as such silly symbiosis arguments aren't needed - now you make a complete reversal on your previous position. i believe i already addressed the issue of the testimonial in my discussions with Ttiotsw: there are plenty of pseudonymous individuals giving their 'testimonies' in the book, including "Qayyum", "Sophia", "Irfan Khawaja", and so on. on that rationale, these people would also be considered notable. as they are not, and correctly so, we cannot conclude that such a testimony establishes notability. ITAQALLAH 20:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Those other people in the book, if they had any notability outside the book, they would have an article here. Anwar Sheikh's testimonial is also included in the book (in which he also pointed out that a man in Islam is "legally allowed to beat his wife if she annoys him"). You know Itaqallah, I know that if you just thought on the subject a little more, there might have been reason to mention you in this book too. Anyway so this is definitely a RS mention for Ali Sina. I'm not going to discuss anything on this topic in this section now, unless you're talking about the switch of the titles, for which I made the section.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

the point i'm trying to make is that the presence of one's testimonial in the book alone cannot establish (or contribute to) notability. your other comment made me laugh ^_^. ITAQALLAH 13:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you don't get it: You're supposed to waste huge gobs of the one and only life you'll ever live trying to get the "reliable" ball through Itaqallah's moving goalposts.--Mike18xx 20:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving goal posts???? I think its matt who is moving them and not Itaqallah, whos stand is clear about notability. While Matts is now saying FFI is not notable. by the way matt you said "People are complaining he doesnt have his own article." PEOPLE ??? who exactly do you mean? How come i an editor do not receive such complains? Did any other editor receive any such complains? About the book !! its no longer avaiable. Dont you see it the book was a hot seller and was being awaited then crazy sinea would not have to beg people to promote it.Z2qc1

I see no problem with having a FFI and a Ali Sina article. Both has received more than enough media attention to be notable. We have to keep in mind that all the closing admin requested was that a new Ali Sina article should use more secondary sources. -- Karl Meier 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only are both getting notable amounts of media attention, ali sina as a keyword search and faithfreedom as a keyword search are both statistically significant according to Google Trends.

See http://www.google.com/trends?q=ali+sina&ctab=0 and http://www.google.com/trends?q=faithfreedom&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

you said "notable amounts of media attention", i think it is a very broad, subjective statement. If you are talking about trends(google trends) then please explain why is the spike occuring once. FFi claims it received noteriety after the daanish cartoon and its readership spiked. however data for any other month on google trends is not avaiable. and strangely we see a flat and then a sudden spike and a sudden fall and again a flat. and you saying these 'data' are worthy to prove notablity??? i dont think so .

What conclusions I draw when looking at these trends is that the interest in Ali Sina is highest in his country of origin, Iran, while interest in faithfreedom is highest in Indonesia. I am inclined to surmise from these results that the author himself has some special significance as a "saviour" type in his home country, while in other countries that are overburdened by too much Islam, the concept of FaithFreedom has caught on as a vehicle of escape from what many nominal muslims consider to be the overgrown death cult they are trapped in. Looking closer at the data, however, one can see some overlapping of both trends. 74.103.60.55 16:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You should look carefully and be cautious before you believe. The trends are something today and something different tomorrow. so 'saviour' is not exactly what it could depict. 'Other countries overburdened by islam' is a statement you make without substantiation, but somehow you create FFi as the 'vehicle of escape'. the words you use have to be substantiated in order to prove the subject of the article to be notable. Its Islam which is notable and there are hundreds and more who are riding it. Their riding does not make them notable. Z2qc1

Citation 43 is broken

I clicked on it, and nothing loaded. Does anyone know where the article has been moved to? That sentence may have to be deleted if no new citation can be found. Epa101 11:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)