Jump to content

Talk:Faith Freedom International/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Criticisms of Barack Obama

Recently, Mr.Sina has included several articles on his site denouncing U.S. President elect Barack Obama. In them he does a little more thean critisize, he accuses Mr.Obama of narcissistic personality disorder. Makes comparisons to Hitler and Mohammed[or their rise anyhow} and to Communist powers. Amongst other challegnes. There is alot of fear-mongering in the articles, which in my personal opinion are not rationally or obejctively based but seem to be partisan or as if he has an agenda of his own. I myself have been critical of Obama and of those also whom treat him like some kind of Messiah, but I have done so rationally and fairly, and yet shown some support simultaneosuly. I sent an email to Mr.Sina about his articles and it has erupted into a war of words on his message forum{and via email}. He has so much as accused me of beeing a brainwashed cult member,etc. of this Obama cult. Well, LoL!, hardly, given ym own criticisms of Obama and some of his supporters. Anyways, he seems unwilling to debate the Obama issue rationally or objectivelly. We'll see where it goes. In the meantime I figured it important to include herein info for people to go and read Mr.Sinas articles on Obama on his site, and also to read[and perhaps participate} in the several debates going on in the faithfreedom forums{particuarly the one I am arguing with him in- which can be found in the forum "comments on the main site and forum", thread- "you should remove all political links"- direct link to where our debate begins= http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1159465#1159465 }. Mr. Sinas assertions about Barack Obama need to be challenged I think--Iconoclastithon (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Primarysources tag

Templates such as {{Primarysources}}, {{Unreferenced}} go at the top if the tag applies to the whole article or in the section it applies to. Moving the the {{Primarysources}} tag to the References section is illogical. I also could find no discussions in the archive where this was discussed. → AA (talk) — 00:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

i concur, {{Primarysources}} does not appear to stipulate placement in the ref section. the rationale behind placing it at the top was to bring more attention to it, as it's an issue that: a) is systemic; b) has been ignored thus far. ITAQALLAH 01:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a waste of space at the top, and it makes the article look worse. This tag is to alert editors, not readers. Especially since this issue is as disputed as it is.--SefringleTalk 02:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The 'untidyness' of its usage can be said for all the templates that produce big banners (e.g. {{Unreferenced}}, {{Cleanup}}, etc.) It has been used in other articles also at the top of the page (e.g.Ecologyfund.com, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Anarchy Online) and various other articles in the relevant sections. In terms of alerting only editors, I would argue it is also the case of alerting the reader to note only primary sources have been used. Additionally, all readers of Wikipedia are potential editors too since they may have come across secondary sources and may feel inclined to add it when seeing the notice. I therefore think it needs to be at the top of the article and have moved it back there. Cheers. → AA (talk) — 09:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No. Those templates are there as much to warn unediting readers that the information they read may not be reliable. Primary sources on FFI do not necessarily mean the content is unreliable information about FFI, but rather that the content is mainly from the FFI writers themselves. Not all readers are potential editors. The vast majority of the people who read wikipedia will never edit a single article; this is evident by comparing the number of editors on wikipedia to the number of viewers, which is clearly much larger considering wikipedia is one of the top 20 websites. So for the purpose of this article, the tag belongs in the references section. I think this is a fair compromise, since I'd prefer it be removed.--SefringleTalk 20:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
placing the tag in the 'References' section shouldn't be seen as compromise between placing it in a more clearer location (i.e. where it is less likely to be ignored) or removing it altogether (which cannot be justified considering the current state of the article). ITAQALLAH 22:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
And why is that?--SefringleTalk 04:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably because it really doesn't belong in the reference section either, and putting it there seems designed to downplay the problem being pointed out. The Behnam 04:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur - all "article" level tags are placed at the top. → AA (talk) — 06:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[1] Sefringle, I'd appreciate it if you would not act without regard for this discussion. Your argument supporting hiding the tag at the bottom is "It is a waste of space at the top, and it makes the article look worse. This tag is to alert editors, not readers."

"It is a waste of space at the top" - How does this at all support hiding it at the bottom? Does it not waste space there as well? Is it really justified to call the tag a "waste" of space when it is designed to alert the reader to potential unreliability/lack of notability of claims made in the article? It is our obligation to alert the reader of possible unreliability.

"it makes the article look worse" - That's purely subjective and uninformative. While I don't disagree (aesthetically), it is unfortunately an issue that must be pointed out until the problem is resolved. In order to point out something that needs to be pointed out, the tag must be located in a highly visible location seen by reader before doing any actual reading. As this discussion has shown, I and others are concerned that placing it in the references section itself is not visible and appears designed to downplay the problem being pointed out.

"This tag is to alert editors, not readers" - This is just wrong - it alerts both as it should. The text of the template itself says that an articles resting too much upon primary sources "are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article." As such, this is a potential accuracy issue - you wouldn't actually try to hide something like that from the reader, would you Sefringle? The Behnam 05:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How does this at all support hiding it at the bottom? Does it not waste space there as well? Is it really justified to call the tag a "waste" of space when it is designed to alert the reader to potential unreliability/lack of notability of claims made in the article? OK, now we are getting into the real issue here. It isn't reliability; it is notability, which has already been discussed. The site is notable, for wikipedia standards, and if you disagree, you can try another Afd, but expect it to result in keep. This has already been discussed many times. It is our obligation to alert the reader of possible unreliability. Exactly. However primary sources in itself does not mean unreliability.
In order to point out something that needs to be pointed out, the tag must be located in a highly visible location seen by reader before doing any actual reading. However, this isn't really something that needs to be pointed out. It is more of a minor issue.
this is a potential accuracy issue No. It is not an accuracy issue. Primary sources alone do not equate to accuracy problems alone. It is more of a notability issue, but I already explained this above.--SefringleTalk 06:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The tag appears to suggest all three possibilities (unreliable, nonnotable, inaccurate), though accuracy is really the only one mentioned by name. As this article has a heavy primary source issue, according to this tag there is a possibility of compromised accuracy, and this, of course, must be noted to the reader. Don't you agree? The Behnam 06:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, come to think of it, accuracy and RS are the only potential problems pointed out directly by the tag, so neither of us should dwell upon notability, which isn't mentioned by the tag. My bad for bringing it up - I suppose that I often question notability when reliability and accuracy are both in question. The Behnam 06:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"However, this isn't really something that needs to be pointed out. It is more of a minor issue." - articles largely failing to comply with WP:V is a pretty major issue. "This tag is to alert editors, not readers" - if i recall correctly, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. all readers are potential editors, and are invited to help resolve the sourcing issues. heavy reliance on primary sources raises neutrality issues and brings into question the relevance of a lot of its material (who, for example, cares about this "$50,000 challenge"? it is clearly a ruse). ITAQALLAH 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Edip Yuksel, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, Dr. Zakir Naik[11] and Reza Pahlavi are all alive and well. WP:BLP:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles.

I am being very kind by discussing this. FFI is not a reliable source. Also the three-revert rule does not apply to the removal of such content.Bless sins 06:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The key word is contentious. Sina did clearly state that he at least claimed to have debated them, it isn't really a violation, which is stated within the article. Nowhere does it state that he actually debated them, only that he claims to have stated that. No vio here. Besides, the part about Edip Yuksel is even sourced to his own website, nothing contentious about his claim.--SefringleTalk 08:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Though I can't speak for Bless, my understanding of the BLP argument is that faithfreedom is not an RS, and so cannot be used to project the claimed debates as 'facts' about FFI. Earlier I addressed a specific case, that of Montazeri, which at the time I adjusted to attribute the claim to Sina. Whether or not that is a solution suitable for the rest of the claims, or if the Montazeri note should also be removed, is worth discussion. For now, perhaps you should adjust the statements under discussion to attribute them properly and then we can see what we should do from there? The Behnam 03:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been brought up to WP:AN/I#WP:BLP_and_Faith_Freedom_International--SefringleTalk 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


The problem I'm having is that while we oughtn't use FFI as a source for the claims, it is hard to write good substitutes that do not commit OR by modifying that which is expressed in the source. The thing is, none of the FFI pages say that "Sina says that he debated with X." While it is better to attribute to Sina than to present the claimed debate as a fact, it is 'original' to change something like "Sina debates with X" to "Sina says he debated with X." FFI presents its own claims as facts, but we cannot do the same not only because it is non-RS but also because it is the subject of the article (hence the primarysources tag), and yet we cannot properly cover the information without committing OR by making an original evaluation of the statement as it appears in the source (by adding "Sina says" and whatnot).

If the current setup is not appropriate because FFI can't be relied upon to state such claims as facts, and the solution (explicit attribution) is also not appropriate (slight OR), then the situation is unworkable. This is probably just another example of why its not good to rely upon the primary source so much (esp. a non-RS primary source). What do you all think should be done? The Behnam 04:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.


As I expect is clear to regular editors here, this article is very much in violation of this policy. For starters, we should only mention those aspects that are noted by RS - to act upon this criterion alone should cut out much of the article. The debates and similar claims are to be removed in accordance with the 2nd and 4th points. There is certainly more to address along these lines - any statement kept must not violate any of these criteria.

Maybe I'm a tad optimistic, but I feel that if we bring the article into compliance with policy, it may be more acceptable and see less disputes. The removal of the primarysources tag may also be warranted. Let's work, note/discuss, and see how this goes. The Behnam 14:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"it does not involve claims about third parties". Thus even if FFI does say something about Zakir Naik writing to him (or some scholar debating with him), we shouldn't be publishing that on wikipedia.Bless sins 03:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The debates are affected, as well as much else in the article at this time. Very little appears to satisfy these criteria. I'd act but I'll give some more time for discussion before fixing the problem. When I do act, I'll leave a note for each change here on the talk page. The Behnam 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Lets start with how the content is contentious and how it is making claims about third parties. Prehaps you can explain this? SefringleTalk 02:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually, "so long as" followed by the list of criteria suggests that any bit of content must satisfy all criteria, so we shouldn't dwell on just a few of them. WP:V asks that we not include content unless all criteria are satisfied. The Behnam 03:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a fine reference to a policy but "Self-publish" is when we have claims by Ali Sina in the Ali Sina article. Such an article does not exist because that wasn't deemed notable enough for its own article. What we have here instead is claims by Ali Sina on the FFI web site and within the FFI article. I don't think it exactly matches the criteria for purely self-publish and it is really related to WP:RS. Reliable sources are very much relative rather than absolute: in some articles only references from top-of-the-range sources will be allowed whereas with others blogs, partisan sources and primary sources are fine.
Now if we had an Ali Sina article then we could cull out what Ali Sina is supposed to have said on the grounds of self-publish, but we don't. This article called "Faith Freedom International".Ttiotsw 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Ali Sina is the founder of FFI, and is publishing his opinions on FFI. There is no way to genuinely look at them as 'separate' - in fact that is pretty much the definition of "self-published." Sina used the web organization he started to publish his opinions online. We can't use anyone who is a part of FFI either (such as the other contributors). To treat them separately would be akin to, in an article about a company, treating individual employees and the director as 'separate' so that their spam and promotional claims could be projected into the article. As for RS, they aren't anyway. What we need to do is cut out most of the FFI-based or FFI-affiliated publications from the article and stick to sources that comply with WP:RS and WP:V. The Behnam 14:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Seperate page for the founder?

Right now the founders page redirects to this page. But the founder is important enough to spedn a page on; particulairly about the person behind this. Who is the founder, peronal life, development and origines of these beleifs? 201.237.112.206 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see a reliable source that discusses the founder. Just like Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four) we don't know if he exists or is an imagination of a group of people.Bless sins 01:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
No please do not confuse other editors with your own content disputes but answer the question clearly: the reason is on "notability" not views on reliable sources. Ali Sina is notable only with respect primarily to Faith Freedom International and secondarily to Apostacy from Islam and so until Sina is notable in his own right away from those areas his content should stay here. That is what we do on Wikipedia i.e. add the text to the notable article page rather than creating new articles and that is why Sina redirects here and not in his own article.
It also works the other way in that sometimes someone is notable but not everything they write is notable for its own article. For example the article on Faith-sufferer, a concept attributed to an essay by Richard Dawkins was merged and redirected [2] to Viruses of the Mind even though Dawkins is a very well known author but the notability of "Faith-sufferer" as a concept wasn't high enough for its own article.
On the other hand, as Bless sins has mentioned, Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four), *is* sufficiently notable as a concept separate from the book or author.
It doesn't matter if it is a concept that is real or imaginary - is it notable ? If not then merge (and redirect) to the related article or delete if there is no related article. Ali Sina was merged and redirected here. Ttiotsw 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Your right. If someone is sufficiently notable + there exist reliable sources on him/her, then we can have an article. But are there any reliable sources on Ali Sina at all?Bless sins 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
As you know, yes there are (books plus other articles) BUT insufficient for an own article to survive against demands for AfD/prod separate from this one on FFI: we've been through that loop. Ttiotsw 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes we should have a seperate page for Ali Sina , he is quite notable , as an author and founder of FFI . He is also mentioned in many books and is one of the most notable ex-muslims voices in the internet.User:CltFnCltFn 18:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I seriously doubt if an Ali Sina article would survive an AfD without a result of merge content to this FFI page as Ali Sina is only really notable with respect to FFI. We've already been through this loop and he hasn't published much new stuff to change our stance. I too would also propose merge. Ttiotsw 18:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Confused

[3] - This battle with Bless sins is confusing me and hasn't yet been explained. Sefringle, can you explain the BLP issue? The Behnam 23:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source states that self published material can only be used if:

  • it is relevant to the subject's notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This material is obviously contentious and unduly self-serving, as it is libalrous material about Ali Sina. It is clearly negative and selective to promote a certian view of Sina. Not to mention it is self-published, so it is selective quoting meant to promote a view. SefringleTalk 02:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I believe I pointed out this very thing in an above section: Talk:Faith Freedom International#From WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. WP:V has the same standard. You don't mind if I clear out the article of violating statements then, do you? I never got any responses on the above section - I think all of us may benefit from a bit more communication. Regards, The Behnam 02:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, what about the quote is "obviously contentious" (do you dispute Sina wrote it?) or "libalrous" ("Ali Sina" is a pseudonym and these are his own words)? you have, until now, had no problem with pushing Sina's views on particular subjects. the change of hats is quite spectacular. in any case, all sentences based on primary sources should be excised, the usage is far too excessive. ITAQALLAH 11:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you explain how that section violates Wikipedia's BLP policies. Radical controversial statements meant to defame Ali Sina and make him look like a hate monger are obviously BLP violations. His views, however are not radical controversial statements meant to defame Ali Sina, thus they are not libalrous. SefringleTalk 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
So we can only include his words if they make him look good? Wouldn't that be "unduly self-serving"? That's just another reason we shouldn't rely so heavily upon the primary sources. In any case, WP:V has the same criteria and forbids much of this material from inclusion. For starters, much of it is not relevant to his notability - he isn't known primarily for his views on communism, faiths aside from Islam, non-religious views, etc. The Behnam 02:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that. What I said is it is a clear violation of policy to selectively quote controversial statements from Sina, good or bad if they make him look bad. Including his views in general doesn't violate BLP. I have no opinion on the removial on his views on communism and other faiths. Non-religous views is relevant, however, as non-religion is a clear part of what he is known for, so that section shouldn't be removed. SefringleTalk 21:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll then remove communism and the like, since you (seem to) agree that he is notable for "trashing Islam" or whatever one of the few third-party sources said. Are you sure about "non-religious views" being pertinent to his notability? I don't notice any of the few third-party sources caring at all about, for example, his view of "America's role in the world." Perhaps you mistakenly thought that "non-religious views" referred to his views of "non-religion" meaning atheism? The actual section on the page is simply talking about his views that aren't directly related to spirituality. These non-religious views seem just as inappropriate to include as his views on communism (which actually is something of a non-religious view, were it not for the fact that he happens to hold the fringe belief that communism is an atheist religion or something weird like that). The Behnam 03:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"Why don't you explain how that section violates Wikipedia's BLP policies" - it doesn't (and neither does the extract you are intent on removing for that matter), it violates content policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:RS. i assume that you have actually looked at the tag you have been continually relocating.[4] ITAQALLAH 10:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That is where you are wrong. The quote I removed did violate WP:BLP, as it was libalorus, contentious, and unduely self-serving, unlike the other parts. SefringleTalk 03:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you perhaps explain? What you said is essentially a repetition of your original vague claims.
  • Is he libeling himself?
  • Isn't pretty much anything Sina says "contentious", "involving or likely to cause controversy"? I don't understand why you have singled out the passage that you have.
  • "Unduly self-serving"? We are talking about "self-published sources" - the "self-serving" refers to Sina serving himself. How does this passage serve Sina any more than anything else here?
Not to say I support the passage. Rather, I think we should remove it and the rest of the quote farm. I don't think any bit of it passes all of the WP:V criteria. If anything Sina said is notable, one of the third parties will note it, and we can use the third parties as the sources. I've started on this with some recent edits (including better referencing), so hopefully we can work from there so as to eliminate the primary sources problem. The Behnam 04:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, have you reconsidered the inclusion of the "non-religious" views? I stress again that these are not his views of "non-religion" but rather his views of things not very related to religion at all (American foreign policy, etc), and I think it is safe to say that his views on those things are not relevant to FFI's notability. The Behnam 03:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


No longer indexed by google =)

try it.--71.141.118.69 11:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's quite interesting, but how is this to affect the article? Notability was established based upon a few fairly trivial references, but the Google index is not among them. The Behnam 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
it's back. Yahel Guhan 06:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Kind of shows the importance of FFI in the eyes of the public at least though this hasn't yet got as far into the mainstream press. If we consider that the site had gone down for whatever technical reason and for the vast majority of web sites no one would normally notice BUT we actually get people posting here not only that it has gone down but that Google has aged out the cache. Truthfully I wouldn't have noticed and wouldn't care less.
We also have people watching other web sites and noting how FFI is viewed on those web sites and posting that here. I think this shows that though we have enough references for notability it certainly is supported in reality by the fact that other people watch the site so closely and go out of their way to advise others. This certainly shows strong grassroots support for notability and it is a pity that other articles don't get such dedicated followers to help clean up stuff. I guess they only have time to focus on what is important to them. Thanks in order I think. Ttiotsw 06:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

views on islam

His views on Islam are what he is notable for. These shouldn't be censored or removed. Yahel Guhan 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

His views on Muslims are notable too. These shouldn't be censored or removed.Bless sins 02:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
We are talking about different material here. I am including material which isn't contentious, unlike your addition. Yahel Guhan 03:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
How is the material I add "contentious" but what you add isn't? Bless sins 03:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Where in the material I added is he making contentious statements? It is obvious how the material you added is, as it is clearly an attack on sina using self-published sources. What is the name of the person the material I added is attacking?Yahel Guhan 03:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You added "Ali Sina"'s views in this edit.[5]
And in a later edit ([6]) I added some views regarding Muslims. For some reason you think that you have the right to add content, by I don't. Both content has to do with the views of "Ali Sina". Both content have been published by "Ali Sina" himself.Bless sins 03:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, both content might be the views of Sina, and both content is self published, however both content is not contentious. If it was sourced to reliable secondary sources, I would not have removed it. But as it is now, it is a BLP violation. Yahel Guhan 03:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Isn't pretty much anything Sina says "contentious", "involving or likely to cause controversy"? I don't understand why you have singled out the passage that you have. The Behnam 03:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sina's contentious views on muslims is what he is notable for. Therefore, it is not a BLP violation to include self-published material on himself. → AA (talk) — 04:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Sina attacking himself? Is he violating himself? How are we libeling him? Are these not his words? I don't see why it should be treated different from any other of these quotes that aren't directly related to the specific ideas for which he is noted (Muhammad-bashing, etc). Still, I think that it should be removed again, along with the stuff you restored. I tried to keep the quotes that directly touched the reasons he is noted. Nobody (meaning the third parties worth looking at) cares about his views of the Balkans, or Muslim immigrants, or scapegoating of America. Just look at the sources:

  • Asia Times - challenges his claim that Islam is a political movement disguised as a religion -> In my version, I kept "The founder of Faith Freedom International, Ali Sina, believes that Islam is not a religion but a political movement,[23]"
  • [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 WND] - Notes Mohammad-bashing, roots of terrorism in Islam, Islamic miracles, the unwillingness of Muslims to accept defeat -> In my version, I included the rest "that among other things allow the Muslims to wage war against the non-Muslims.[2] He describes Islam as "unflinchingly violent, extremist, reactionary, intolerant, anti-Western and misogynistic" and "as the disease of mankind, and the source of all these wars, terror attacks and human miseries".[24] ... He believes that Islamic holy war, Jihad, is never done by Muslims when they are poor, as "they have instruction" to wait until they are rich enough to win.[25] ... Muhammad: Sina describes Muhammad as a "rapist", a "pedophile",a "monster",[26] and mass murderer".[1]"
  • FrontPageMag - the only thing FPM itself actually offers is a description of FFI which I used in the lead to define FFI. Doesn't give us any topics for the quote farm.

Anyway, it should be clear that I chose position statements to keep based upon what the third parties actually noted about FFI/Ali Sina. In the current version (your version), we now have all sorts of primary-sourced position statements that don't seem to reflect that which is relevant to his notability, since the third parties don't note his view of the Balkans or scapegoating or Europe immigrants or any of the other stuff you restored.

Can you please make a clear defense of the inclusions, along the lines I've just made for mine? The Behnam 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Behnam. If we don't use Behnam's criteria for inclusion (namely that the view must be documented by a third party), we might as well copy and paste FFI onto this, because the entire website constitutes the view of "Ali Sina"/FFI.Bless sins 17:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
A slippery slope argument; we should at least have some primary sources which present what Ali Sina claims regarding various relevant topics and Sina's claims regarding the Muhammad as a rapist/pedophile etc are topical as claims about Muhammad are core to Islam whereas Sina's views on modern politics are less relevant. Ttiotsw 18:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I kept the Muhammad and Islam views quite plainly because third parties noted his views on those subjects. I don't know about these new additions (BBC, etc) - while interesting, I think that they need to defended as I defended mine above. Whoever added them, can you please show the third parties that care about his views of immigrants, BBC, and Muslims specifically? The Behnam 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It depends on if you consider Viva Oriana! as a third party source.Bless sins 19:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Support

Oppose

Comments

Clearly consensus is against you, Mr. Guhan.--Mostargue 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, lets make some more corrections before you turn this into a vote. First of all, The Bahman retired, second, you forgot to include Prester John. Third, as a sock, you are not supposed to be editing this page, so your vote doesn't count. And forth, wikipedia is not a vote. Yahel Guhan 23:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yahel Guhan read WP:NPA. Your allegations, clearly to stifle discussion, are disgusting. Don't make allegations without evidence. If you have evidence, report the user. Secondly, Prester hasn't participated in the discussion.Bless sins 05:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, follow your own advice, and stop making personal attacks, like you just did. Yahel Guhan 06:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Did I call you a sockpuppet? Did I refer to you as a banned editor?Bless sins 06:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"Your allegations, clearly to stifle discussion, are disgusting." constitutes a personal attack. Yahel Guhan 06:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
First, let me note that you should really post a summary of the topic being voted on here. It's a little unclear as to what this "consensus" is even about. In any case, considering the above discussion, I'm currently in opposition to Bless sin's own addition of overly contentious quotes from Ali Sina, which seems to violate WP:SELFPUB/WP:BLP in a few ways (correct me if I'm wrong). Of course, this means that existing quotes within the article may need to be assessed as well against these standards.--C.Logan 06:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why are my addition's violations of WP:SELFPUB/WP:BLP? Please quote parts of both policies that suggest this. Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of the explicit double standards and censorship here.Bless sins 19:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I said "correct me if I'm wrong". Secondly, it depends on whether Iranian is a "questionable source", or whether Sina's contributions there could be considered "self-published". Note that if either is applicable, then the statements would appear to be contentious and involving claims about a third party, which are 2 prohibitions on WP:SELFPUB. It's interesting the note that the e-mail link in Sina's name leads to Ardeshir Mehrdad's email address. Presumably, this is for the sake of personal anonymity; any messages would be forwarded by Mehrdad to Sina. You never know, of course- this could be a Jekyll and Hyde scenario (joking, though stranger things have happened).--C.Logan 19:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
C. Logan, pretty much most of what Sina says (especially about Islam and Muslims) is "contentious". Would you not agree that calling Islam "as the disease of mankind, and the source of all these wars, terror attacks and human miseries" is contentious?Bless sins 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
As I'd said above, "Of course, this means that existing quotes within the article may need to be assessed as well against these standards." Therefore, these quotes must also be assessed in light of this policy, and if this means that proper judgment shows that they should be removed, then I would support this. Additionally, the quotes that can be used must be from reliable sources. If the reliability of a source can be proven, then it would seem that contentious quotes can remain from that particular source.--C.Logan 20:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning this voting process, I believe you should keep this in mind. Additionally, according to WP:PRACTICAL (official policy): "So in summary, wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se" (sic).--C.Logan 07:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


There is no consensus to remove, therefore it stays.--Mostargue 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent removal of content

This is copied and pasted from Yahel Guhan's talk page, after he/she removed it from there

Regarding this edit. He does say this. Also, most of his other views are also self-published, so I don't understand why Yahel Guhan removes this but not the other views.Bless sins 04:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a cherry-picked, unencyclopedic quote. - Merzbow (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
i don't agree with the insertion of the quote. at the same time, i don't agree with the presence of the parts of the section which are primary sourced. if we are going to keep a limit on which views of Ali Sina we are to represent (and i'm not certain that 'palatability' is a criteria here), then the limit should be decided by what is mentioned in third-party independent sources. ITAQALLAH 19:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess so, since that seems like a fair compromise.Bless sins (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. - Merzbow (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems that some editors here want to remove valid information from Iranian.com and add biased claims about what Sina "wrongly" believes. That is not acceptable. -- Karl Meier (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
the article on Iranian.com (a generally unremarkable website) is written by Ali Sina and is, like his material on his own website, a primary source. we are not to decide which of his views are noteworthy, whether it be his rantings about Islam or some of his more extreme views (all of which fit the vague notion of 'valid information'). the agreement here has been to stick to what third party sources have said about him/his views, so your straw-man about adding biased claims can be dismissed. ITAQALLAH 19:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The "rantings" as you call them have in this case been published by a notable secondary source. Please accept that fact and don't waste our time with your personal opinions about Ali Sina or the opinions he express. -- Karl Meier (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
iranian.com does not count as a secondary source here, because they aren't describing what Sina believes. in fact, the link is an article by Sina himself and his comments, and is thus a primary source for his views. so this isn't a "notable secondary" source as you claim. please refer to WP:PSTS. ITAQALLAH 14:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
can you also clarify what you what "biased claims" you are removing in this edit? ITAQALLAH 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I also want to know why my content was removed even if i gave a strong reference and source? I said that Osama Abdellah from the website answering-christianity.com refuted all the points made by Ali Sina but he still did not take his website down. Here is the wepage of the whole refutation: I gave an external link to a page where Ali Sina was refuted but was taken off, please explain why. This not professional. Here is the website: [[7]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.40.103 (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Apparently some users haven't read the following paragraph:

WikiIslam is the subject of an article in the 7/2007 issue of the journal Contemporary Islam, entitled "Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam",[17] which argues that the website commits selection bias by collecting only negative or critical material.[17][18] The article states that "In relation to the criteria set up by the Runnymede Trust... ...it should be quite easy to label most of the material published on WikiIslam as expressions of Islamophobia."[19][17] Because of the presence of material obtained from other websites, such as MEMRI, the article notes that "it becomes much more difficult to argue that all information posted on WikiIslam is Islamophobic by nature."[17]

Clearly there is discussion of Islamophobia. No one is saying that FFI is Islamophobic. We are only saying that discussion of FFI sometimes falls into the discourse on Islamophobia.Bless sins (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me why the category was originally nominated for deletion. You seem to have ignored the following: ""it becomes much more difficult to argue that all information posted on WikiIslam is Islamophobic by nature." Therefore, it isn't completely islamophobic, and thus the category becomes a POV label that doesn't belong. Yahel Guhan 03:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ofcourse the topic is not Islamophobic. But it relates to Islamophobia. That is why it is categorized that way. Many topics in Category:Antisemitism are not antisemitic, but only relate to antisemitism.Bless sins (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The top of the category concerned says "This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is opposed to Islam or Muslims."Bless sins (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It most certianly is intended to imply it is islamophobic. What other connection does this website have to this topic. It isn't like Runnymede Trust, who coined the term. The clear and obvious intent of adding the cat is because you don't like the websites message, and want to label it as a bigotic website, when that is not the purpose of it. Criticism of islam is not islamophobia. Yahel Guhan 03:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you read what I wrote? The anti-Islam sentiment category says "This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is opposed to Islam or Muslims."(emphasis added) Do you understand now?Bless sins (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A mention of a category does not make it relevant. Especially a category like this one. Look at what is in categories like this; stuff that is generally considered to be bigotic, something this website is not (although you may feel it is). See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic

In general, categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life, such as his or her career, origin and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have may be considered trivial. Such things may be interesting information for an article, but not useful for categorization. If something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely not a defining characteristic.

Yahel Guhan 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We have major reliable sources discussing the topic of Islamophobia. The fact that there are multiple reliable sources makes it quite notable (that's how notability is defined).Bless sins (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The website is not notable for being "islamophobic." It is notable for being critical of islam. There is a big difference. Yahel Guhan 04:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly the above comment applies to a person's life. Secondly FFI is notable for a lot of things. Who said that something could only be notable for one thing? Its notable because reliable sources have discussed it.Bless sins (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It is notable because multiple reliable sources have discussed it. Not just one. One single source does not make it notable, nor does it make him notable for islamophobia. In fact, the source implys just the opposite. Yahel Guhan 05:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad is in [[Category:Antisemitism]]. Does this mean that all of the Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad are related to antisemitism? --Be happy!! (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but enough are. And he clearly is notable for his antisemitism, among other things. Yahel Guhan 05:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Outside Iran he is known for his comment about Israel and that is indeed one of the controversies. But there are a lot of controversies and conflicts between him and the Iranian congress regarding his economic etc etc policies. He is a president after all.
The author of the article has mentioned "Cyber-Islamophobia" in the title of his article.--Be happy!! (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Note how most of the original material from WikiIslam is declared Islamophobia. It is the material obtained from other mediums like MEMRI which the source doesn't class as Islamophobic, on which basis it says not everything on WikiIslam can be classed as Islamophobic (precisely due to this foreign material). ITAQALLAH 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Does the source specificly say "wikiislam is an islamophobic website" or something with the same meaning? The answer is no. So to label it as such would be to push your personal POV. Yahel Guhan 02:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This is my last attempt to explain the issue to Yahel guhan. The category says (near the top) "Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is opposed to Islam or Muslims." What don't you understand about that? The category doesn't imply the subject is Islamophobic but only that the subject is related to Islamophobia.Bless sins (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying quite clear. There is no relation to islamophobia and the website. It is not an islamophobic website. The only reason to add the categry is to push that POV. Yahel Guhan 04:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Do reliable sources mention "Islamophobia"? Yes or no. If they mention it then the website is in some way connected. "It is not an islamophobic website." It shows you still don't understand the simple English sentence I keep on repeating.Bless sins (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The answer is no. One source mentions Islamophobia. I understand exactly what you are saying. It is just wrong. Yahel Guhan 04:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Honestly Yahel Guhan, you make me really frustrated. There are two sources that mention Islamophobia:
  • Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All, p. 5, Runnymede Trust (1997).
  • Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam, Journal: Contemporary Islam, publisher Springer Netherlands, ISSN 1872-0218 (Print) 1872-0226
Can you not see those sources? Should I call for an RfC to clarify this matter?Bless sins (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You use the title arguement again. The sources don't call it islamophobic. Yahel Guhan 05:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What about bringing this to a broader audience for comment (e.g. requesting for comment (RfC)?)--Be happy!! (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. Yahel Guhan 05:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you won't agree that this is anti-Islam sentiment, will you atleast agree that this website is prejudiced towards Muslims. This is also mentioned in the sources.Bless sins (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't agree with that. And that is not in any source mentioned in this article. As I have stated already. Criticism of Islam is not prejudice against muslims. Are you deliberately trying to be disruptive with your editing because you passed the 3rr[8]? Yahel Guhan 06:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess this will have to be solved at an RfC. I have repeated again and again my position. I've even tried to use a compromise category. It appears all you want to do is make silly and false accusations against me (e.g that I've violated 3rr).Bless sins (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you think you are a comedian with your idea of a compromise? Purposefully choosing categories that label the website as bigotic?Yahel Guhan 07:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yahel, you're well of the mark here. Are the Runnymede Trust, EUMC, Islamic Human Rights Commission, or other articles being called "Islamophobic" due to the presence either of the Islamophobia link or Category:Anti-Islam sentiment? Please think about whether your presumptions are sound and consistent before setting up such baseless non-sequiturs.
We have a scholarly journal talking about a FFI proxy comprehensively with regards to Islamophobia. It doesn't need to say that "WikiIslam is an Islamophobic website" - it explores the relationship between Islamophobia and WikiIslam and concludes that most of the material is easily labeled Islamophobia. So the relevant categories/links are appropriate.
And there is no such word as "bigotic." ITAQALLAH 09:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The article Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad is in [[Category:Antisemitism]] while it is not true that all of the Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad are about anti-Jewish sentiment nor does the person in question himself admits the validity of the relation. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"Do you think you are a comedian with your idea of a compromise?" I don't appreciate you calling me names and/or making fun of me. If you continue this, I don't see how this discussion could continue. Bless sins (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you make disruptive edits, they will likely be pointed out. Yahel Guhan 07:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
O RLY? thestick (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC

The proposal is to place the article in Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, which recently was nominated for deletion , for which the result of the [[9]] was: keep. Please note the following "disclaimer" in that category, which parallels a disclaimer at Category:Antisemitism:

This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is opposed to Islam or Muslims.

No consensus could be reached on this proposal.

Current count, since 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC):
Support: 5
Oppose: 2
Note: this also includes editors who have expressed a clear position in the preceding discussion.

Support

Note: Amongst the involved parties, User:thestick, User:Bless_sins, User:Aminz and User:Itaqallah have supported the inclusion.
  • Yes. For one thing, the article states, in the section on Wikiislam: 'WikiIslam is the subject of an article in the 7/2007 issue of the journal Contemporary Islam, entitled "Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam', which argues that the website commits selection bias by collecting only negative or critical material." (My underlining for emphasis. L.) This by itself should already be conclusive (the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment). Furthermore, here are some quotations lifted from the page "About Faith Freedom International" on the FFI website, signed "Ali Sina": All Muslims, to the extent that they follow [the Prophet], are terrorists • Islam induces hate backed by lies • Islam is indeed a satanic cult • Muhammad was a terrorist • Umma [the Muslim world] is fascism.[10] If this is not Anti-Islam sentiment, then what is it? A "neutral point of view summary" of the objective facts?  --Lambiam 14:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes thestick (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Note: Amongst the involved parties, User:Yahel Guhan has opposed the inclusion.
  • I oppose this category here too. Just because a sub site or associated site of FFI is 'Islamophobic' (and even then you have to name of the author who is claiming the site as Islamophobic because this is a controversial neologism as we all know), it doesnt mean that FFI is Islamophobic. When you put a category in an article, it applies to the subject of the article (FFI), not a small sub-section of the site or one of its associated sites (wikiislam). For example if Quran talks about wife beating which it does according to many reliable sources, you wouldn't want me to put a "Wife beating" category on the Quran article, would you? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Various comments and other discussion

Just because it's "Oh so innocently" critical of islam doesn't mean it isn't islamophobic too, please remember your personal opinion is absolutely worthless to the article so don't remove the relevant cats and "See also" links, more than enough sources indicate that it warrants inclusion by wikipedia policies in those cats, whether it's islamophobic or not - it is connected to this topic thestick (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you state here what the issue is for which the comment is requested?  --Lambiam 12:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please add "Islamophobia" in the See Also hotlinks, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. thestick (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

 Not done - seems to be part of the edit war; admins aren't supposed to decide which side's version should be used - whichever one happens to be there when the page is protected remains unless it can be shown that consensus is against it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The 'edit war' is about the category, the poor "See also" link is just caught in the 'crossfire'. thestick (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • From RfC: Both views are valid here. I see that Yahel has a valid point in that seeing the category tends to imply that the organisation is considered Islamophobic by RSes. I see what Bless Sins is trying to say, in that the cat specifically says "issues etc." There isn't any direct solution because the cat is named poorly. Create a cat for "Islamophobia-related issues", place it in a subset of cat:Islamophobia, and we're done. (Incidentally, I think that's a solution that works for many such problems of categorisation.) Relata refero (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    • May I draw your attention to category:antisemitism. The category says "This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. It does not imply that the subjects of any biographical articles are antisemitic." A similar statement can be found at category:anti-Islam sentiment. While both categories maybe in the wrong, (or maybe both are right), we have to recognize ensure that we are consistent in our approach.Bless sins (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the evidence that "Ali Sina" is an ex-Muslim?

The lead states, without source citation, that Ali Sina is the pseudonym of an ex-Muslim. Is there any reliable evidence for this?  --Lambiam 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ali Sina" wrote an article in a book called "Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out.". I feel it is clear what "Apostate" means here. Not every word in Wikipedia need be tagged with a reference unless the claim is contentious. For example all the lead paragraphs of Adolf Hitler have no references. The claims are all derived from the other text. I don't think this claim is contentious unless "Apostate" has some other nuance. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The correct way of putting it is then: "Ali Sina is the pseudonym of a person who says he is an ex-Muslim"--Be happy!! (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Right. How do we know Ali Sina is not Bob Smith, raised a Christian, who happened to become very familar with Iran and Islam, an uses that to pose as an ex-Muslim in order to give more weight to his attacks on Islam? How do we even know Ali Sina is a single person?  --Lambiam 08:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong, as we already use pseudonym in the text and we have 3rd parties that report the apostasy therefore it is cumbersome to add the weasel word "who says he is an...". Ttiotsw (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you point out which third parties report the apostasy, and where that is documented? I don't see this mentioned in the article.  --Lambiam 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"Ali Sina" wrote an article in a book called "Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out." is a good start. OK it doesn't explicitly say "ex-Muslim" but it isn't clearly synthesis to associate apostasy with meaning ex-Muslim because it is common to stick in "ex-" in front of 'x' when it is clear that someone isn't 'x' any more. Then there is the rather low-brow WorldNetDaily.com says "Ex-Muslim's site trashes Muhammad...". Ttiotsw (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
He is a self-claimed apostate. Is there anything more to it? --Be happy!! (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess not. He says he's apostate and we have 3rd parties that call him "ex-muslim". The text should thus stay as it is and it addresses the original poster. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The WorldNetDaily.com article just parrots the information from the FaithFreedom.org website. This is not in any way an independent confirmation. When JT LeRoy published Sarah, the reviews dutifully copied information from the blurb that the author was a 20-year old male who grew up in rural West Virginia and later on the streets of San Francisco, and started publishing at 16.[11] We now know that all of that is false. When someone is hiding behind a pseudonym, they can basically claim anything, like that they were abused by the Pope, locked up in a convent but miraculously escaped, with no way for us of verifying or falsifying such stories. In this case we do not even know whether there is a real person behind the pseudonym. It could be an organization intent on spreading misinformation to be parroted by gullible listeners. So no, it isn't "over yet", and we cannot yet "move on".  --Lambiam 18:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Your example isn't related to this article but another far removed and just shows that the press gets stuff wrong: so tell us something new !. It make no difference if it's a real name or a pseudonym. A name is just a key we use to reference a particular human. "Ali Sina" is a unique key especially when combined with "ex-muslim".
We're arguing if it should say "ex-muslim" or that he "claims to be ex-muslim". This same weasel wording could be used with many articles and it would appear right but it dilutes the message. Islam has very little process for both becoming a Muslim and for dropping it. There is no clear process of baptism or communion nor a central body to decree heresy. In fact it appears that every muslim simply claims to be muslim in that I don't know of a certification body that issues anything to prove this. To stick "claims" in this article would imply that the very basis of claiming to be a muslim should be qualified also by the word "claims". We don't do this in Wikipedia articles on Muslims and so we needn't do this for ex-muslims. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not an example of "weasel words" because it is neither vague, nor misleading; exactly to the contrary it is making the statements clearer and less misleading (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words). --Be happy!! (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
As we have a 3rd party that says this we need not use the word "claims" as we reference the 3rd party in preference to the self-published i.e. we prefer secondary sources over primary sources. So it is clear that Ali Sina is an ex-muslim and we have a 3rd party that says this. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ali Sina's chapter in Ibn Warraq's book (Leaving Islam) is in a section titled "Part 3: Testimonies of Born Muslims: Murtadd Fitri". Of this section, Ibn Warraq writes in the Preface: "After the name of each author in Part 3 I have added in brackets the author's country of origin, to give an idea of the geographical range of the apostates and their cultural background." Ali Sina is thus annotated as being from Iran. rudra (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to think that Ibn Warraq bases the notion that Ali Sina is Murtadd Fitri on more than the fact that the FaithFreedom.org website states this? I don't doubt that "Ali Sina" has a good command of Persian, but do not consider that in any sense conclusive. Iranian Christians, for example, are usually native speakers of Persian.  --Lambiam 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's very likely that Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina are personally acquainted, and Ibn Warraq has been associated with the Faith Freedom Foundation for a long time. (e.g. [12], other, earlier, copies of which can be found by googling.) rudra (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Ibn Warraq does not count as a reliable source per WP:RS. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Ibn Warraq is notable enough. You have to be a little bit more precise than a throwaway claim that 'x' fails 'y'. Ttiotsw (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The best way to put it is that "FFI was founded by a person with the the pseudonym of Ali Sina. According to the FFI website, Ali Sina is an Iranian ex-Muslim residing in Canada, who has issued a standing challenge that he will remove the FFI website if proven wrong on a number of issues."--Be happy!! (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an improvement, but we do not even know, from reliable sources or otherwise, that "Ali Sina" is a person! Even better:
Faith Freedom International (FFI) is an Internet website that is critical of Islam.[1][2] According to the website, FFI was founded by an Iranian ex-Muslim residing in Canada, going by the pseudonym of "Ali Sina". On the website, Ali Sina has issued a standing challenge that he will remove the FFI website if proven wrong on a number of issues.
This should solve the verifiability problem. Note that I have also removed the qualification "secularist organization", for two reasons. Just like we don't know if Ali Sina is a person and not an organization, we don't know if FFI is an organization rather than a one-person run website; forum members do not an organization make. Furthermore, "secularist" is not supported by reliable evidence; there is even some reason to suspect there may be something Christian behind this.[13].  --Lambiam 13:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Are there objections to changing the first sentences of the article to th text above?  --Lambiam 21:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Not from me. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Me neither. ITAQALLAH 01:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I object. Ali Sina has a remarkable grasp of multiple languages and has quite a remarkable ability to manage multiple web sites in different languages e.g. English (the default site), Dutch, with the Dutch sub-domain [14], Italian (e.g. list of articles here in Italian [15] and others. It stretches incredibility for FFI to be just "Ali Sina" and so it is an "organisation".
The adjective: is it secularist ? I hate "-ist" words as they are usually imprecise but how would FFI be described else wise ?. The root of "Secular" is to mean temporal things in a religion but secularist generally means restricting or delimiting religion from unwarranted interference in society. An alternative word could be "humanist" or "rationalist" but FFI self-identifies as "secularist" plus "secular" and "secularist" is more commonly used for anti-fundamentalism of religion. Thus the opening paragraph should stay.
On the question of Ali Sina being multiple people: it would seem unlikely given he has appeared in public and interviews e.g. the transcript of Frontpage Symposium with Mr. El-Mallah, Robert Spencer, Julia Roach and Ali Sina in it which we have referenced. Now it may be that there is an "Ali Sina" team that goes around getting in the rare interview and updating websites but given that the number of interviews is quite low wouldn't it be more parsimonious for Ali Sina to be just one person and that the web sites are updated by many rather than "Ali Sina" to be many people ? As a conspiracy it lacks credibility. Ttiotsw (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You do not appear very willing to understand that my concern is the presence of unsourced and unverifiable information delivered as a fact. I am not stating the information is false; instead, I'm trying to draw attention to the fact that this information is unsourced and unverifiable, yet presented as a fact. Applying Occam's razor and other facilities of ratiocination I can conclude all kinds of things myself that are very likely true, but putting them as content in the articles requires not that they be true, but that they can be verified in reliable sources. Conspiracies may be rare, but they do happen, and in this case the number of people involved does not need to be so large as to make it totally impossible. JT LeRoy also made public appearances and had regular telephonic contact with many people for years before someone blew the whistle. It is not clear to me from the Frontpage article that the participants had a meeting in which they were physically present in one locality. From reading it, my impression is actually that these "symposia" are telecoms or even conducted by e-mail.
Does the suggested replacement become acceptable to you if the beginning of the second sentence is changed into:
"According to the website, FFI, which calls itself a secularist organization, was founded by ..."
?  --Lambiam 13:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it is you that has failed to present a clear case for your original query, namely that is it creditable "that Ali Sina is the pseudonym of an ex-Muslim." ? Now, tediously I feel, you are nit-picking out word by word the opening paragraph. I have presented that "secularist" is as good a word as any to describe FFI and that is an uncontroversial description of the role of the site. Yes, I use self-published sources BUT these are allowed when the site is describing itself but not other things. Where something is obvious we don't put cites and refs else every word in Wikipedia other than "the, that, he, she and it" and the like would end up tagged with refs ! That would be crazy. That's why it's tedious. So I don't agree to the change as it grates and its a waste of time. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ttiotsw, you are the only person here who is going against consensus. All the information we have should be qualified by "according to the website". According to the website, FFI is a secularist organization that was founded by an Iranian ex-Muslim residing in Canada, going by the pseudonym of "Ali Sina". On the website, Ali Sina has issued a standing challenge that he will remove the FFI website if proven wrong on a number of issues." is accurate and perfectly acceptable. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Your text you double-quote above differs from that of Lambiam and it differs from the original topic that this talk section started from. If you are going to make an appeal that we have consensus then can you please be consistent in what you think we have consensus on !. Consensus is not a vote. It is not a rule of the majority. It is a mutual agreement as to what is a suitable text.
You are proposing a new version and Lambiam has introduced another version. Not your unusual consensus, thus the current text is the current consensus view after many hours of editing by many editors. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the different proposals, I think most people here believe that the current presentation is inadequate. I would much prefer something more specific such as "Faith Freedom International is an anti-Islam website" or "Faith Freedom Internation is an Internet website which is critical of Islam." Including the phrase "secularist organisation" is quite misleading since a) it doesn't meet the conventional definition of an organisation (it's just a website acting as a soap box). Having multiple language compatibilty doesn't make you an "organisation," so I don't really buy that argument; and b) it's defined by its anti-Islam, not by its secularism - so the website's being secularist or otherwise is not of primacy (also note it hosts many articles from a variety of perspectives and that it has a large evangelical Christian contingent). Given that most of the information we're using is from the website itself or sources closely affiliated to the website (I still believe this article topic lacks the fundamental non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources), I think it's perfectly reasonable to include attributions such as "According to the website..." in the lead. ITAQALLAH 23:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You write:

No, it is you that has failed to present a clear case for your original query, namely that is it creditable "that Ali Sina is the pseudonym of an ex-Muslim." ?

I assume that by "creditable" you mean "worthy of belief, credible" – "creditable" usually means "deserving credit, praiseworthy, meritorious, estimable, honorable".

Your statement completely misses the point.

I have asked a simple question, namely what the evidence is for a specific statement made in the article. This is a completely legitimate question in view of the nonnegotiable Wikipedia policy on verifiability. There is no need for me or anyone to "present a clear case" in order to ask this question. I have not asked whether it is "credible". I think it is quite credible, but that is besides the point. We must not include content in the articles on the basis of credibility, but on the basis of verifiability.

From the start, you have been giving non-answers in the style of "How can you ask such a question? Stop bothering us with this nonsense." As I've said before, the point is not whether it is credible that Ali Sina is the pseudonym of an ex-Muslim, but whether it is verifiable, and if so, what the evidence is. I repeat, since that seems to be necessary:

The issue is not whether it is true, but whether it is verifiable.

From the answers given I can only conclude that it is not verifiable. You appear to be happy to let it stand at that, and in fact obstructing something being done about it. A majority of discussants disagrees with you. Moreover, your position is against Wikipedia policy.

Which formulation should be chosen from the many versions that will remove the unverifiability is in comparison a minor issue, about which, in all likelihood, the discussants who agree on the desirability of remaining within policy can easily and quickly agree. Your point of there being too many versions for consensus is a red herring. There is no difference of substance between these versions. I offered a second version to accommodate you by removing the basis for the (in my eyes irrelevant) objection you had voiced, but it is increasingly clear that whatever we do, you will always find another objection.  --Lambiam 23:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

After all that exactly which version are we agreeing to ?. I'm simply supporting the current article content rather that proposing a new unverifiable copy. This article has been subject to a large amount of drive-by vandalism and that it why it's on my watchlist. If people didn't vandalise this (and others e.g. Martti Ahtisaari, Tennis ball, Wafa Sultan, Sea cucumber, Melania Trump‎, etc) then I wouldn't be here.
Make it easy by just pasting in the old and new text under new sections in talk. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Category: Anti-Islam sentiment

Is anyone interested in quickly getting it over with or not ? Here is the reliable source - http://www.springerlink.com/content/p02g0g86387j4t62/

Or are some people allowed to ignore wikipedia policies and act like they believe their own propaganda ? thestick (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more explicit? What is the "it" I may or may not be interested in quickly getting over with?  --Lambiam 12:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people don't want this article to be included in Category:Anti-Islam sentiment even when it's very relevant to it and all WP policies are satisfied. thestick (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't "very relevant". In fact, it is just the opposite. It is hardly relevant, and the category would promote exactly the opposite view the RS presents. Yahel Guhan 19:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think anyone who reads the source knows precisely what it says. And that is: most of the material on WikiIslam (a FFI proxy), especially its own original material, is easily classed as Islamophobia. Secondly, please explain why you believe the Anti-Islam sentiment category is "hardly relevant" to an article about an anti-Islam website? ITAQALLAH 19:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
So is this page now indefinitely protected? thestick (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This an old discussion, but I feel the need to say something. The category survived because it's not about whether things are classed as Islamophobic. If the category is going to be used that way I'll vote for deletion myself. The category is about things that are significant to the issue or largely notable for it. This isn't meant to be a semantic difference. Anti-Islamic things can be in the category, but so can groups known for opposing such sentiment. As well as groups that may study it in a neutral fashion. The category should not be a way to tar groups as Anti-Islamic. If this is in the category as a way to say this group is Anti-Islamic that's wrong. If it's in the category because this group is linked to Anti-Islamic sentiment or important to discussions about what it means that's fine.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The RFC about the issue that led to edit warring is still open. I don't know how it is supposed to reach closure; the page on RFCs does not explain the procedure. I asked a question about that here a couple of days ago, but did not see a reaction yet. Perhaps, next time you open an RFC, you could also explain the issue on which comment is requested, like I finally did above.  --Lambiam 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, Wikiislam is not a "FFI proxy". You dont put categories on an article because of a small sub-section of the article. That would be equivalent of putting the category "suspected pedophiles" in the Muhammad article. If there was an article on WikiIslam, you could argue the addition of the category there, certainly not here. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course WikiIslam is a FFI proxy, why would you even deny this? It was set up by the members of FFI, FFI has a sub-forum dedicated to collaboration on it, and I believe even has Sina's stamp of approval. If it's not a FFI proxy, why have you never questioned its presence in this article? Secondly, as requested above, please explain why you believe the Anti-Islam sentiment category doesn't belong on an article about an anti-Islam website? Do you deny it's an "anti-Islam" website? ITAQALLAH 23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Anti-Islam sentiment is the same as a prejudice against Islam, or at least that is how the category is used. If you dispute that, remove all statements stating that anti-islam is a prejudice (the main article for the cat. should be changed to the Anti-Islam disamb. link, and the Category:Religious discrimination should be removed from the anti-islam cat.) Second, just because Ali Sina may have given approvial to wikiislam doesn't mean it is a proxy. Wikiislam is just one small part of FFI, and it is not the same as most of the entire website. One part from a barely reliable source that doesn't even fully state it is islamophobic does not justify the inclusion of the category. Yahel Guhan 05:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It's already included in category:prejudices, category:anti-islam sentiment is even more specific. thestick (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new start of the lead section

As requested by Ttiotsw[16], I am starting a new section with the current version of the first two sentences of the lead, and a proposed replacement, which addresses an issue raised about verifiability (see #What is the evidence that "Ali Sina" is an ex-Muslim?). If we can agree on the principle, further minor changes can be realized through the usual Wikiprocess (assuming this page will ever get unprotected again).

Current version:
Faith Freedom International (FFI) is a secularist organization which is critical of Islam.[1][2] FFI was founded by Ali Sina, the pseudonym of an Iranian ex-Muslim residing in Canada, who has issued a standing challenge that he will remove the FFI website if proven wrong on a number of issues.
Proposed replacement:
Faith Freedom International (FFI) is an Internet website that is critical of Islam.[1][2] FFI identifies itself as "a grassroots worldwide movement of ex-Muslims and all those who are concerned about the rise of the Islamic threat". According to the website, FFI was founded by an Iranian ex-Muslim residing in Canada, going by the pseudonym of "Ali Sina". On the website, Ali Sina has issued a standing challenge that he will remove the FFI website if proven wrong on a number of issues.

Support replacement

Oppose replacement

  •  

{{editprotected}}

It appears that consensus has been reached to replace the first two sentences of the lead by a new version, given above under Proposed replacement. Please apply the change.  --Lambiam 09:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I request the addition of a link to the Islamophobia article in the list of 'See Also' links. As per the discussion on this page, I think it has been established one would be interested to read the Islamophobia article too, the website also discusses the subject.

Support

Oppose

  •   For the same reason as I oppose the inclusion of the Anti-Islam cat. It is POV, and is an attempt to label the organization as islamophobic when it is not. Yahel Guhan 06:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate? Since when did "See Also" links become labeling? Did you go through the FFI website, do you not see articles about the subject, what about that 3rd party RS which calls wiki-islam islamophobic? thestick (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
See also does not imply causality nor correlation. It only says that readers who came to this article may find information in other articles also useful.Bless sins (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You all dislike/disagree with the content of this website, and want to label it as an islamophobic hate site, something I intend to not let you do. First by insisting on a greater connection that really isn't there, then adding POV links. The website is not islamophobic, so nothing is added by making that connection (except the presumption that the website is islamophobic). Yahel Guhan 03:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh huh and your POV is NPOV? thestick (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A "See Also" link doesn't change that - however, I would be very grateful if you could show me a site which you consider prejudicial and islamophobic if you say this site is only 'criticism' . (Although the proposed edit makes no judgment or allegation whether this site is islamophobic or not. )
I personally haven't found such sites, probably because I haven't really gone out looking for them. If I do run across one, I'll be sure to let you know. Meanwhile, I would draw attention to the meaning of the term "prejudice" (essentially, passing judgment before or to the exclusion of relevant facts), and if you think it applies, you are free to debate your understanding of this failing on that site. Who knows, you may even win yourself $50,000. Go ahead. rudra (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I already know what prejudice means, and I don't need the money. thestick (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You'd think that if they genuinely had $50,000 that they would have spent a bit of money on a better web design ;-). But anyway, a See also for 'Islamophobia' may not be completely necessary as it's already linked in the article. ITAQALLAH 21:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  -- The article has link to Criticism of Islam and that article already has a link to Islamophobia. FFI is critical of, but AFAIK doesn't ask for prejudice of muslims and so the See also links should reflect this network weight and they do.Ttiotsw (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I disagree with such an inclusion. The topic of Islamophobia does not correlate with the subject enough to be included in the "See also" section (the opinions of some users are not entirely sufficient, and we have two third party sources which seem to disagree on the matter). Additionally, the link is already included in a paragraph which provides proper context. If I recall correctly, we are discouraged from adding links to the "See also" section which were already mentioned earlier in the article.--C.Logan (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments (See also)

I really wonder where the opponents would place the following statements on the scale from Islamophilia to Islamophobia:

  • "All Muslims, to the extent that they follow [the Prophet], are terrorists";
  • "Islam induces hate backed by lies";
  • "Islam is indeed a satanic cult";
  • "Muhammad was a terrorist";
  • "Umma [the community of Muslims] is fascism".

 --Lambiam 19:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

...then you should wonder in private because this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Faith Freedom International article and it is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Ttiotsw (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
But does it make you reconsider your statement "but AFAIK doesn't ask for prejudice of muslims"? Also there aren't any sources about this site (supporting neither - whether it's just criticism or prejudice) so you should go by the listed pages, from which you can conclude it's anti-islamic. Anyway, don't see this going anywhere.. thestick (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No, because I have no idea who has made those claims nor where this is recorded. If you are going to cite some evidence to support some point then reference where and when it is said because those criticisms could have been said by anyone from any Christian Pope onwards. About the only people I wouldn't expect such criticisms from are the Bahai, which, even though Islamic states seem to want to kill off Bahai anyway for some bizarre reason, seem like nice people. What is it with Muslims and the Bahai ? Now that is prejudice. Your examples about Muslims or Islam ?. That is criticism. Ttiotsw (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Those statements are all made on the page About Faith Freedom International of the FFI site, which is signed at the bottom: "Ali Sina".  --Lambiam 11:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I must commend you on your most excellent quote-mining. Again, though this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Faith Freedom International article and it is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Ttiotsw (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion was pretty much about this article and it's relation with the article Islamophobia and category:Anti-Islam sentiment and I think what Lambiam found was a justified response to ""but AFAIK doesn't ask for prejudice of muslims" ? thestick (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
And I replied back to show that the examples that were quotemined were criticism and by example I showed you what prejudice really is with the Bahai faith. The Bahai have been shown institutional prejudice by Islamic states. FFI is not a sovereign nation, nor a business nor service provider. It is only a private web-site and so it can only criticise as it has no other power. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If someone were to state that all Jews, to the extent that they follow the Mitzvot, are terrorists, that Judaism is indeed a satanic cult, that Moses was a terrorist, and that the people Israel is fascism, would you then also say that this is not prejudice but criticism? Then I think that your notions of what is prejudice and what is merely criticism are totally out of sync with how these terms are normally understood – and, moreover, that you yourself are in the grip of anti-Judaism sentiment, or Judaismophobia, or however it should be labelled.
In general we attempt to assign the most appropriate categories to articles, and the most obvious place to discuss the categorization of an article is on the talk page of that article. Such categorizations depend on the topic of the article. If there is some disagreement about the categorization, it is rather natural that the topic of the article is an aspect of the discussion. That should not be confused with a general purposeless discussion of the topic. This is a discussion with the purpose of improving Wikipedia by assigning the appropriate categories to this article. A statement such as that all "true" Muslims (those who follow the Prophet) are terrorists is pure, unadulterated, 100% Islamophobia. If that is not Islamophobia, then no statement is, and the concept of Islamophobia is void.  --Lambiam 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well said, this was evident when no-one who was so vehemently opposed to including even a See Also link failed to provide even a single example of a site that they consider islamophobic ( Bias? ). thestick (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove protection

I'll ask whoever is protecting this page to please unlock it. It has been frozen since January and that is unacceptable. It is, for all intents and purposes "an endorsement of the current version". The major discord was over a cat tag which does not warrant full-protection in the first place, much less for over a week or two.{{Editprotected}} Lixy (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. In the future, these requests should go on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --- RockMFR 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Lixy (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFQUEST

Per WP:SELFQUEST, "Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if...it does not involve claims about third parties..."

Thus faithfreedom can't be used to make claims about Edip Yuksel, a third party.Bless sins (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm. Given that Edip Yuksel has published many pamphlets and essays in English, all of them put out by the United Submitters press -- that is, by his former congregation then the "self-publish" claim is a bit rich. Looks like our Edip Yukse article needs a going over for notability, WP:EL / WP:SPAM. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That comment belongs to Talk: Edip Yuksel.Bless sins (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Time ripe for Ali Sina to have his own dedicated article

Now that Dr. Sina has had his book published, with 11 reviews on Amazon, and a featured article about him and his book in the Jerusalem Post which has been announced on JihadWatch.org and commented upon (see http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021475.php ), I think it is time for him to get his own dedicated Wikipedia article, like other book authors have. Does anyone disagree? If so, please state why you do. Arguments in favour welcomed, of course. 99.226.237.182 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. The reviews on Amazon could be astroturfed, the Jerusalem Post is good but just one entry, his book is produced via a POD (print on demand) service, which ultimately means it is less marketed (whored?) than if it was published by a big-name-house and in the end his notability is still very much interwoven with FFI. Just not enough yet to justify own article given the variety of editors that would be interested in such an article. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

ʌ

Okaaaay. Hmmm. Is this the reason also why Itaqallah removed the following?

", notable, in part, for being the author of Understanding Muhammad: A psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet [ISBN: 978-0980994803].[3]".

I don't know why he did that.

99.226.237.182 (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's original research. No secondary source says he's notable for that. ITAQALLAH 21:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Itaqallah. Correct me if I'm not understanding you right, please. It sounds to me like you are saying that the listing in Amazon.com with the 11 commentaries is not an acceptable reference; it's (i.e. the commentaries there are) "original", not "secondary". I am not sure if I understand all this about "original" and "secondary" qualifications, but you are an old pro here at Wikipedia and I am not. Perhaps you would not mind explaining to me what's wrong with Amazon? Also, there's a new reference that came about very recently. What about the Jerusalem Post article which came out on June 19th (see above link via Jihadwatch.org or just click here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1213794275742&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull )? Would that be acceptable? 99.226.237.182 (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The Amazon entry isn't anyway reliable enough. Anyone can get a book published (e.g. via Lulu.com etc) and anyone can get an ISBN. Book+ISBN = Amazon listing. All for around a $100 or so. Anyone with an Amazon listing may then attract reviews but we don't know who those people are. The only acceptable reviews are in major newspapers. JPost is great but we need more. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What would go on the Ali Sina page that is not already on this page? I personally think that he is notable enough, but there is a problem that almost all of his work hitherto has been on Faith Freedom. I have not read his book. Does it argue new points that have not been published on Faith Freedom? Epa101 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

New website launched in response

www.faithfreedom.com

the website claims to have been launched due to not having their voices heard on Sina's website. They have some good articles too and the same debate format. I think this can be added to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgeoningknowledge (talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard Dawkin's website no longer lists FFI

not listed here

recently removed by popular demand

Can this be noted?--71.141.118.69 06:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we would note it - no serious sources have noted this AFAIK. We already have enough problems with insignificant stuff in this article, and I don't think another one would help. The Behnam 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That's convenient-- FFI's listing in the Appendix of a book is mentioned as if it were a tacit endorsement by Dawkins of the site, and THAT'S worth mentioning, but not the fact Dawkins removed the listing from his site after people pointed out the site was populated by Christians and Hindus engaging in polemics against Muslims rather than an atheist site "giving support" to apostates. Well, I say if the first is worth mention then the second is as well, so I'm editing it accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.34.185 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


is the website down?

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php

I can't get in - anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.131.182 (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How the feck should we know ? - FFI isn't hosted here ! Ttiotsw 08:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Same thing for me though... it may affect the need for this article :-p. Or at least we may have to change many things to past tense! The Behnam 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
second time this year. We'll just have to wait.--SefringleTalk 03:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Its been hacked thats all. By the way Mr. Ali Sina is a racist, a user called "Sona" or now "Sona2" exposed this. In fact I think it might still be on Sonas blog; Yep its there See fourth paragraph --Street Scholar 10:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You do realize that a blog isn't a reliable source to accuse someone of racism. SefringleTalk 22:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You do realize that Sona's blog cites the source on Ali Sina's website were he has made racist remark at Pakistanis. It's actually on his website. --Street Scholar (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Although I am generally sympathetic to Faith Freedom, I agree that Ali Sina has made comments about Pakistan that can be seen as either completely ridiculous ranting or plain racism. In the book "Apostates of Islam", you realise why. His father was a devout fundamentalist Muslim and took his son to Pakistan to live in some terrorist camp. It did not leave Ali Sina with the best impression of Pakistan. Epa101 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the impression Ali Sina claims to be a freethinker yet he harbors abhorrent and racist views. Attacking someone based on their skin color is cowardly. Moreover, I've also personally been on Ali Sinas website, he calls Muslims subhumans and lower then animals, the irony is apostates have family which are still Muslim. I don't respect individuals who make sensationalists statements to outrage or flame another group. --Street Scholar (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No, he never called Muslims in general subhuman. That could easily be misunderstood by someone that doesn't know the difference between an individual Muslim and the actions of the organization of Islam. Here is what he actually said:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/EdipYukselp35.htm
--OxAO (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)



This website has quickly devolved into just one of those anti-muslim rants. The sad part is that Ali Sina does not even know how the Quran was revealed and how it should therefore be interpreted. Same thing with hadith. He uses them as if ALL hadith are authentic, when by their very nature they are not. the website even has articles according to which virus from cats have infected evil Muslim minds to give rise to crazy people. i don't know whether to cry or laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgeoningknowledge (talk • contribs) 03:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

References

In general I subscribe to the position that for figures who propound controversial theories that some consider objectionable, the best way to describe what the espouse is simply to cite in an appropriate way from their published works, and in default of accessible works in English, that such sources as their official website, or the website of their political movement, are acceptable sources for a quote. I am not happy taking such quotes from sources operated by their opponents.

According to the Larsson-piece, the used quotes definitely got a POV. However, if we check them, we can only read a summary, which doesn’t mention Wiki-Islam at all. I checked if I could find another version of the article, but I couldn't find it. Thus, we cannot find out if the quotes of it are true, or if the article is well referenced. Furthermore, it is unclear why Göran Larsson, as an expert on Judaism, is the best source for Islam-matters. However, if the article shows up, the opinions of Larsson might be notable and worthy of mention, as long as WP:WEIGHT is kept in mind.

A solution fot WP:WEIGHT, which is commonly used, but frequently abused is to present multiple points of view, but clearly label them as opinions. The risk is overemphasizing a particular POV and/or the article resembling a debate. Thus I come back to my first point: if people make controversial claims, you better use their own official website as source.

Concerning the Spengler-source: “According to the columnist Spengler in the Asia Times, Ali Sina believes that Islam is not a religion but a political movement. Spengler disputes this claim, forwarding that Islam is both a religion and a political ideology.” I guess it is all true, but I do not see why we should include the second sentence; it tells more about Spengler than about Sina.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally have full access to the article, and I'm sure you can find it in a google cache. WP:UNDUE applies to when we have multiple conflicting views emanating from reliable sources, which I don't believe is the case here. The only reliable academic material we have on WikiIslam says much of its material is Islamophobic. The article itself is a scholarly, professional, peer-reviewed paper published by a high quality press in a respected journal. Hence it's not merely a matter of it being Larsson's personal opinion - it's his judgement stemming from his assessment of the academic literature about discrimination on the internet and how WikiIslam fits into that. ITAQALLAH 12:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I took some time to find the Larsson-piece, but it is nowhere to be found.I believe that what you say about the content is true, but it violates WP:V. In this way, it should be removed from the article. Like I said, maybe you can describe what the espouse is simply to cite in an appropriate way from WIkiIslam's published works. That can be the examples used by Larsson. Furthermore,I suggest we should remove the libellous "Opposing Websites"-chapter, as has happened at the Zakir Naik-article. What do you think of that?Jeff5102 (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does it violate WP:V? Do medical, scientific and scholarly journals hosted on JSTOR also not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia merely because some people can't access them? How about the large majority of academic books that you may not have access to? I can independently verify any passage from Larsson's article - and if there's anything you feel needs check then please ask. But this pretext alone cannot be sufficient for removing what is high quality reliably sourced material.
I'd recommend we remove all external links except those which are actually reliable, whether they are for or against. I don't see how links to websites opposing FFI can be considered libel, especially as this article isn't a BLP (unlike Naik's). ITAQALLAH 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It does violate WP:V, because nobody can check it. Futhermore, it was the first issue of the magazine, so it is unclear whether this has a good reputation. And it is only one source, making the fragment WP:UNDUE. Besides, talking about islam-sites is no hard science, so the given judgements are opinions by definition. I had the same problem when I wanted to include conclusions from reports from the Stephen Roth Institute (of Tel-Aviv University) on the Adnan Oktar-article. Those conclusions couldn't be presented as facts, but as opinions at most.
And although FFI is no BLP, its webmaster Ali Shna is. Thus, websites with articles titled The stupidity of Ali Sina. or Ali Zina does it again! Yes, he makes a joke and a fool of himself! or More foul rubbish from Ali Sina. can be seen as libel.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I just told you that I can check it, as can anyone with an Athens access. JSTOR materials are also restricted in access, but their content is used in many of the featured articles on Wikipedia. Same with other online book resources. This cannot be a pretext for removing reliably sourced material.
Secondly, the journal is reliable, the press has a scholarly pedigree and is academically peer-reviewed. WP:UNDUE is totally irrelevant, as there are no opposing viewpoints present in reliable sources. Please refer to the first sentence of that section. "Besides, talking about islam-sites is no hard science, so the given judgements are opinions by definition." - you make it appear as if there's no academic field known as Islamic studies.
"And although FFI is no BLP, its webmaster Ali Shna is." - Did you see Sina mentioned once in the scholarly journal? Your analogies are well of the mark, there is no case of libel here at all. "Thus, websites with articles titled The stupidity of Ali Sina. or Ali Zina does it again! Yes, he makes a joke and a fool of himself! or More foul rubbish from Ali Sina. can be seen as libel." - I'm sure you're aware that the source in question says nothing of the sort. ITAQALLAH 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I've read that comment again and realise that you're referring to the external links, so scratch that last part. I've gone ahead and removed all of the partisan unreliable links and retained only those directly related to the topic or those which appear to be reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you can mail the Larsson-piece to me; then I can judge for myself. Furthermore, I do not understand what Spenglers opnion about Islam has to do in this article. Please explain that to me. And finally, we could keep the "Articles related to Faith Freedom International or Ali Sina"in, while we get those "similar websites"-part out. In an article about Maradonna, we shouldn't put a "similar football-stars-part in it either. Jeff5102 (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Update: I didn't receive the Larsson-piece, so I cannot check it. THus, I reversed the WikiIslam-part.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason you doubt the representation of the source, that makes you so eager to remove it? Reminding me to e-mail you would have been sufficient, you know. ITAQALLAH 18:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason is, that this article appears to be quite negative on WikiIslam. Maybe with reason, maybe not. That is why I would like to verify it.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, you need to activate the e-mail address for your account, because it says 'This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.' Otherwise I can't e-mail you. ITAQALLAH 18:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That problem is solved!;)Jeff5102 (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've sent you the paper. Apologies if the tables aren't formatted correctly :o ITAQALLAH 19:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Ali Sina makes a claim, Spengler disputes it. Both should be mentioned. External links should be of reasonable quality, unreliable ones like FPM etc. should simply be avoided. Similarly, websites of "opposing skew" which are similarly unreliable should also be avoided. ITAQALLAH 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Stating that someone is a fool and produces disgusting rubbish does not constitute libel. It is clearly an expression of one's opinion, and not a statement of fact. (I agree with the removal of the EL crud, though.)  --Lambiam 17:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Itaqallah don't remove the external links since there was misunderstanding.A new topic should be opened in which there should be a discussion about the external links.Oren.tal (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily and FrontPage Magazine are the first two cited sources about this article. It is a common knowledge that these two websites provide extremely conservative, racist and biggoted points of view on such things as Islam. I think in order to maintain neutrality it is necessary to diversify the primary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.141.247 (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

External links=

Please people say what the problem with them and why you want to remove it?the up topic is mixing and confusing.Oren.tal (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

They are polemical and not considered reliable. See WP:EL. ITAQALLAH 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Not considered reliable? Says who?
As I say above, I could agree with the similar websites-part, but I have trouble with the related websites. I cannot imagine why links to debates held by the webmaster of FFI couldn't contribute to a better understanding to the article. Jeff5102 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you truly believe that JW, FPM, WND, 19.org etc. are reliable websites? Community consensus is that they aren't, as was agreed over at RS/N. I think it's already be linked to on this page but I'm happy to provide it if necessary. ITAQALLAH 21:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, do. That would spare us a debate.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#FrontPage_Magazine_and_WorldNetDaily. ITAQALLAH 17:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Like I said: this saves us both a pointless debate.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Itaqallah external links are not sources and don't have to be reliable but only relevant.That point was raised during the discussion about miracle in the Quran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 10:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
See WP:ELNO. You are highly inconsistent in your argument, especially as you do not restore the 'opposing websites' section alongside the 'similar websites' one. ITAQALLAH

17:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC) I gave an external link to a page where Ali Sina was refuted but was taken off, please explain why. This not professional. Here is the website: [17]


This page is a mess.

If you're going to write in English, then write in English. Anybody remember? ENGLISH! On the ENCYCLOPEDIA WEBSITE!!!! If you can't spell the word "view," then stay the @#$% off the ENCYCLOPEDIA WEBSITE!!!!! Gunslinger1812 (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits

Jeff, I've cross-posted my comments on your talk page here as you didn't respond there. In essence, I explained the edits made in the edit summary with all of the changes I made, and I don't think reverting it wholesale was justified.

Hi Jeff5102. Regarding your revert of a few of my edits on Faith Freedom International, I don't believe it's a requirement that every change be explained on the talk page so long as the edit summary is sufficient. Even so, a lot of the changes I made, such as removing material sourced to unreliable references (i.e. WND, FPM) or material that relies too heavily on primary sources, were raised by myself on several occasions on the talk page over the past year or two. If there are any specific edits you disagree with I'd like to hear your feedback. Regards, ITAQALLAH 21:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you still disagree I'm interested in learning which edits you disagree with and why. ITAQALLAH 16:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

O well, if you want to change it, all right. The problem I have is that this article has been changed over and over, and I thought we might have reached a consensus. However, your changes prove that I was wrong. That is quite disappointing, to be honest. I guess I'd better look for images of French revoltionaries. That is way less controversial.
Meanwhile, I took the liberty to delete a dead link, and to delete a category. With regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, the article is far from perfect. Issues like sourcing have been quite long-standing. About the category, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is more specific than Category:Criticism of religion, and the former connotes something slightly different as well. I think the former is warranted especially given the discussion about FFI's project WikiIslam by an academic journal. ITAQALLAH 09:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree this article isn't perfect, but at least there appeared to be consensus. The category, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, was proposed earlier, but as you can read in the discussion, "no consensus could be reached on this proposal". Furthermore, I disagree by calling Faith Freedom a hate site, because, accoring to an anonymous user, "there is no difference between jew watch and this website". The "Jew watch"-page uses 17 sources to support this claim, while at FFI, none (NONE!) source is present. So is there any consensus on this?Jeff5102 (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hate site

All right, calling FFI a "hate site" without sources, and without consensus, that is both factual inaccurate AND NPOV. thus, I placed the relevant tags on it.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What appears to have happened is someone unfamiliar with the English language - or at the least Wikipedia - believes there's a double standard in labelling Jew Watch a hate site while FFI is labelled religious opinion. See User talk:Iqubalrazi. I am curious what User:Itaqallah thinks about this. I personally only discovered this page via Huggle while reverting vandalism, but I'm not at all comfortable with having such an accusation in place with a {{fact}} tag, and the source previously cited did not use that term. Natural Cut (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Islam

"Although the site claims that anyone can edit content, editing privileges require an account that is only given with special permission."

Where is the source for this claim? As far as I am aware it is not accurate. It should be removed. The Vandalism protection features last improved on the 19th March, 2009 show the above claim about Wiki Islam made on this page are not accurate! Who gives this 'special permission'? Where do you apply? etc..

TLDR: Source please.

Hesperornis (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Several problems and cleanup...

  1. I've updated links to jpost.com, alexa.com, and ranking.com as the previous links were no longer working. Site Meter's data on the website are not accessible so I've removed them. The ranking in each of Alexa's and Ranking.com's database has increased, so I've updated that, and removed the information about fluctuating rankings in the distant past as that information is not reflected on Alexa. Anyway, all websites have fluctuating rankings so the mention is somewhat pointless.
  2. There was a sentence describing the websites location Washington, and I've removed it as FFI uses a private registry service which is actually the entity registered in Washington - not FFI.
  3. The debates section and political views section used only self-references, and all of the sentences dealt with claims made of third parties. Self-references may not be used in such cases per WP:SELFPUB.
  4. I've removed an external link that contained no discussion of FFI. Oore (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the debates-section: how could you ever describe what the more important content of a site is, if you are not allowed to link to it??Jeff5102 (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course you're allowed to link to it. Just find secondary reliable sources that discuss the material on the website. Oore (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not see the problem. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, and I do not see what claim is made of third parties. You might have a case here if the persons who debated Ali Sina complain about the contents of the debate, but I have not seen any protest to it.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The claim being made of third parties is that these debates occurred with them. The reading of the rule is very clear, and no protest is required from third parties. Please do not restore this material until you've found secondary reliable sources supporting the material, as restoring it is also in violation of WP:BLP. Oore (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, as you have already seen, I placed the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. I hope I explained your point well. During the course of the discussion, I will not restore the material. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This discussion took place on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Following the advice of SlimVirgin, we kept out the debates-section out of the article.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB on internetsites and -debates

See the latest discussion on Talk:Faith Freedom International. This article is about a website with, among others, debates of the site owner with several persons concerning the islamic belief.
I am discussing the following:
1) According to User:Oore, you need secondary reliable sources supporting the material to describe the character of a site (hence his deletion of the part:The website's challenge)
2) The site-owner published his discussions with notable people online on his website. According to me, we can link to a site to describe this site. However, according to User:Oore, the problem is that these debates "dealt with claims made of third parties. Self-references may not be used in such cases per WP:SELFPUB." Furthermore, it should be a violation of WP:BLP.
I do not agree with this reasoning, because:
a) The article is about the website, and not about the claims made in the debates;
b) Nobody contested elsewhere the statements made in the debates on FFI-site;
c) If the guidelines are interpreted the way User:Oore does, a lot of articles concerning websites (and books) all need a major clean-up.
Please give some advice, and please also look at the discussions here and here for more information concerning this article.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this: [18], the removed material seems fine to me, and can be restored, but it might need a tone adjustment to make it clear that this version of events is according to FFI. SELFPUB is not applicable here, since the events reports are events that FFI is a primary source on, as a participant in them, and merely documents the endeavors of FFI. Secondary sourcing would be preferable to give the events more context, but primary sourcing is fine for basic facts. Since the article merely summarizes and does not analyze the primary source, it seems to be sufficient for now. Considering using WP:3O for cases like this in the future rather than policy talk pages. Gigs (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Considering the extreme rhetoric used on the website (e.g. Obama being similar to Hitler, etc.) there's no reason to give any credence to the claims presented on it regarding third parties (e.g. "this person responded in so-and-so manner" and "this person refused to respond"), unless it's presented in a reliable source. Also, Jeff, your point on the articles of books doesn't follow. Most of the book articles on Wikipedia are not self-published. Oore (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Primary sourcing is heavily used in articles about works of fiction; I think that's what he's referring to. I don't see any problem in a primary source reporting on its interactions with third parties (and us using that factual information in articles). If this source was making claims about the third parties on matters outside of its own interactions with them, and we were reproducing them in the article, that would be a different matter. As always, we must be careful not to add our own analysis to such primary sourced material, but I don't see that happening here. Gigs (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Well I am more inclined to agree with the material's inclusion as long as it is qualified, but the other problem I have with doing that when we do that, we're making our own assessments of what is and what is not significant about the website when we choose what to include in the article. Furthermore, after reading past sections of the talk page, several editors have contested the inclusion of the material on the same grounds as I have (as can be seen here, here, and here). You should take that into consideration Jeff. Oore (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
We have to make those assessments about what to include every day. We've never been able to come up with a community standard on what constitutes relevant information, however. As long as the picking and choosing isn't designed to paint a false picture, I don't see a problem there either. As for the old conversations, if you look at the ANI thread that resulted, there were several neutral editors who were saying things very similar to what I am saying here, which is why the material has remained for over 3 years since the last discussions. Gigs (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually I believe that the material has been largely absent for these past years, until those editors went inactive or ceased editing this article and Jeff later reinserted it last year. What ANI thread are you referring to? Thanks. Oore (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Gigs is referring to discussion no. 48 in this archive. In it you see the contributions of the three involved editors. One involved editor was defendinding the inclusion, while the other two were the same "several editors who contested the inclusion of the material" Oore is refering to. However, you will also see that the neutral editors have no problems with the inclusion of the debates-section.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I've just read over that. Let's proceed with the inclusion then, but I think the text needs to be more qualified to make it more clear that the information is being presented as provided by the primary source, as those editors suggested. Oore (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I remember dealing with that website a long time ago as an admin, and it did include a lot of personal attacks on third parties. It's the kind of website we should avoid using as a source—even as a source about itself—as far as possible, in my view. These sites can be used as a source for basic details on themselves, but they shouldn't be used to turn Wikipedia into a platform for information that no independent source has been fit to report. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That has been my point precisely - the website is very extreme in its use of language and can hardly be used as a reliable source particularly for any statements on third parties. Oore (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I guess we can agree to most of what you are saying. I only wonder if you see the disputed text concerning the debates at FFI as "basic details on themselves," or as "information that no independent source has been fit to report." Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Jeff, I just noticed this. I didn't look at the disputed text. I would say be wary of using this as a source for anything except the most basic details about itself that you can't obtain from anywhere else, and which are harmless. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merger

I propose merging Ali Sina (activist) into this page, after a recent AfD that closed as no consensus but with an admin suggestion to discuss a merge. There simply doesn't exist the reliable-source coverage of Sina to support a separate article - aside from one piece, all coverage is trivial or unreliable. If an individual is only mentioned in fringe promotional material, but he is mentioned in the context of his organization, a merge is the appropriate action. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Support per my comments in the recent AfD. The bio article currently only contains at most three sentences of verifiable info; the rest is bloat sourced to primary/unreliable sources. The Interior (Talk) 23:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article closed no consensus, default to keep. One option of course would have been -- had it received consensus support -- to close it as a merge (or, had it received consensus support, any other way for that matter). It did not receive consensus support for a merge. This isn't a deletion review page. It closed as no consensus, support to keep, not accepting the merge suggestion. In keeping with the close, that's how it should be. This close just took place today -- let's stop the tendentious battleground wikilawyering that marked the AfD. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment O dear. Here we go again. After unsuccesful campaigning to delete the Ali Sina (activist)-page, the same usual suspects take on the FFI-page. And Epeefleche is opposing again. I wonder, if there was no consensus there to merge the article, how could there ever be consensus here if the same editors are discussing it again?Jeff5102 (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I commented at that suggestion at that page. I'll see what the motives of that administrator are.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow, it's almost as though the AfD closed with the suggestion to discuss a merge. But no, clearly taking the very suggestion made at the AfD and which accommodates the views of most of the participants is a "here we go again." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? At Ali Sina's deletion page you were VERY eager to place a banner saying "consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not ' by counting votes." And now you are talking about a suggestion "which accommodates the views of most of the participants." I honestly thought that a majority vote wouldn't matter for you. Anyway. Let's have a look at the history of the Ali Sina and FFI-requests for deletion and deletion reviews:
  • 9 July 2005 ; FFI; result: delete.
  • 29 November 2006; Ali Sina; result: delete
  • 5 December 2006; FFI; result: no consensus
  • 5 December 2006; Ali Sina; deletion review ; result: delete
  • 7 January 2006; Ali Sina; result: no consensus
  • 2 October 2010; FFI; result: keep
  • 18 October 2010; FFI; deletion review ; result: closure endorsed
  • 22 January 2012; Ali Sina; result: no consensus
Is it then strange that I say: "here we go again?" For some reason, Ali Sina and his website got a great attraction to people who want to delete the articles concerning them. There are lots of other articles on Wikipedia which are concerning less notable websites which are less referenced. There are articles on persons without any reference in it, which still are here. Anyway, please have a look at WP:WEB and see what you all can make of it. I am still considering my position, although I am inclined to state thate the fuzz around the articles alone already justifies them.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, it accommodates the views of most of the participants because it preserves the content, poorly sourced though it is (thus suiting the keep and merge !voters) while not having a separate promotional article with mostly duplicate sourcing (thus accommodating the delete, redirect, and merge !voters). You are free to nominate other Wikipedia articles for deletion if you feel that they are not notable; the repeated attempts by users to keep agenda-based non-notable articles for no policy-based reason doesn't stop you from doing that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the first editor (User:La goutte de pluie) who requested for a deletion of FFI is now banned for being a sockpuppeteer, the second requester (User:BhaiSaab) was banned indefinitely on March 15, 2008, after numerous instances of ban evasion for his ban in 2006. Only the third requester (User:Oore) has a clean record. Equally, the first requester of the Ali Sina-article (User:م) was blocked with an expiry time of indefinite. The second requester (User:Utcursch) was a barnstar-winning administrator, and you were the third one. If you consider the views of a group of which 50% is banned as "the views of most of the participants", then I guess you are mistaken.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
What do the records of the nominators have anything to do with this discussion, unless you're saying that the nominations were made in bad faith? Besides, if you're going to include the previous nominators, you might as well go ahead and include all of the other participating editors in previous discussions. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment! I just looked at the first AfD-procedure, and it appears that both other voters against the article (User:Blu Aardvark and User:JamesBurns) are banned for sockpuppetry as well. On the other hand, The other AfD-discussions seem to be more interesting to read. Maybe we can use the arguments from those discussions for a well-evaluated decision.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the arguments are what should be focused on. Whether editors were subsequently banned for whatever possible reason is irrelevant, unless the reason for their banning also affected the AfD debate, which is not what you've been asserting. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe that only the !votes of editors in good standing have any relevance.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure all editors mentioned had accounts in good standing when they participated, and when the debates closed. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know, and it doesn't matter. If so, it was only because their misbehavior had yet to be revealed. In any event, the conversation is today -- and their views are the views of what are today blocked "bad standing" accounts. Completely irrelevant -- other than to show that a position has been driven by bad faith accounts, which certainly does nothing to support it, and only heightens the sensitivity to SPA editing/commenting.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you realize that, in the previous AfD debates, there were plenty of comments made by SPA accounts that went the other way? I'm not sure what point you and Jeff5102 are attempting to make by this demonstration. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
All accounts that are not now editors in good standing -- whatever their position -- that have !voted have made !votes that are of zero value at this point in time. If and to the extent that bad faith accounts !voted, it is of zero importance now how they !voted, whatever their position. Notwithstanding your suggestion above that their !votes before they were caught are of some value now. They aren't.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
So do you propose that, for all editors who are now banned, they could not have made any edits in good faith prior to their ban? If so, that's a bit ridiculous. But anyway, I look to the persuasiveness of their arguments. FFI has only received substantial coverage in one article linked on this article page. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course we don't today consider the views of those we know to be sockpuppets and their masters, and other indef blocked editors for that matter. Are you seriously suggesting that a blocked sock and its blocked puppets should have their views considered? That is dumbfoundingly peculiar -- if it were true, one could just create 100 socks and IPs and SPAs, have them blocked, and then say their views should be considered. Zero sense to that, obviously.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
If that is your concern, which user do you suspect "voted" multiple times in the previous discussions? If it's genuinely problematic for the sake of this discussion, then either find the manipulation that occurred (via sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet tags) and is thereby influencing our talk here, or drop the subject and focus on the arguments. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, the issue is that blocked users and sockpuppetspuppeteers came up after Roscelese stated, when I complained about the large amount of AfD's, that it thus "accommodates the views of most of the participants." THat is why I checked the reputation of those initial requesters, and discovered that they were not that respectable.
But on the arguments. 24.217.97.248, could you explain to me why on one side it is a problem that there are two articles (FFI and Ali Sina), which are closely related, while on the other hand it is a problem that "FFI has only received substantial coverage in one article linked on this article page." It sounds a bit contradictory to me.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question. If I understand correctly, it's quite possible that only one of two related topics merits an article on Wikipedia based on the (lack of) coverage that it has received. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
IP seems to have the right idea. Based on the paucity of coverage, it's possible that neither may belong, but certainly redundant for both to be here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it may be more sensible to merge this page to the Ali Sina page, rather than vice versa. While both pages have fairly meager coverage in secondary sources, Sina's coverage is slightly more in-depth in a few of the sources. 65.254.110.217 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like we are back in square one! Obviously Ali Sina is getting under the skin of a lot of people. Merging is the same as deleting. This motion was defeated and a few of those who supported the deletion were banned because their accounts were fraudulent (sockpuppeteering). Ali Sina’s latest article "How the West Is Fanning Islamic Extremism" is reprinted in 1590 sites. (Do a Google search). That is enough notability. But of course nothing will satisfy those who rather see him dead than alive. It isn't good for Wikipedia to allow the religious zeal of some of its editors to dictate which subjects should be covered and which ones should not. That is a policy practiced in all Islamic countries. Wikipedia is not an Islamic site. -OceanSplash (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose a merge - I haven't bothered with Muslim-related articles for a while (got side-tracked on Landmines of all things) so rather surprised we actually had an Ali Sina article at all and what's more it isn't a stub. Other editors have spent some time gathering a nice list of references. Ali Sina and FFI are very much linked but as a rough glance at the Ali Sina references there are enough ISBNs and some well known publishers so I think he's encyclopaedia enough to stay. There are very few vocal apostates from Islam. We're not comparing Ali Sina with Anime characters (of which there are how many hundred with pages of text ?) but with the category of apostates from Islam and of those he is notable with these mentions and I'll explain why: someone could no doubt go through each reference and show how it is a "trivial" mention but by what standard ? Any mention at all is non-trivial in Islam when it comes to Apostacy: it is a death sentence in places. If one tweet is all it takes to get extradited then even the most trivial mention is a serious matter. The standards of what is "trivial" are actually set so low with Islam that this list is incontrovertible evidence for a death sentence for Ali Sina and so these are all non-trivial mentions by the standards that critics of Islam are judged. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Won't comment on your assertion that we should set the bar the lower for critics of Islam in terms of coverage, but do note that an ISBN has no bearing on the quality of content. Obtaining an ISBN is simply a matter of registering (free in my country) and the issuance bodies make no review of the quality of the items they are registering. The Interior (Talk) 19:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know (I think Canada does that and obviously Createspace issues them) - heck I have my own registered block of 10 issued to me - the point is that these are not just BLOG links and so unless someone wants to spend the time picking apart all the references to show they are one-off self-published etc that have been used then there is no need to merge. The AFD didn't find that. It is not actually us that sets the bar low though - it is the Islamic community itself. Rather than ignoring apostasy they kind of go nuts and end up providing the publicity. In the end the Ali Sina article has enough to keep it around. If there is a merge then it would at worse be the FFI contents into the Ali Sina i.e. keep Ali Sina. But given that the FFI article has survived a number of AFD you would have to wonder what would be the WP:POINT. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Better idea: could you tell us which references you believe support notability? The number of bad references available is very large, but of course they're useless. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
We're not discussing notability though - the Islamic community has guaranteed notability - but if a merge of Ali Sina into FFI is desired. I've disgreed and given why and at worse think it should be the other way around i.e. FFI merged into Ali Sina. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The "Islamic community" doesn't guarantee notability - coverage in reliable sources is what establishes notability. I think a merge of FFI into Ali Sina would also be acceptable - the problem is that given how little reliable coverage there is of either of them, two articles are certainly superfluous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a good approach would be to start a subsection (here, I guess, since this is where we're talking) where we can collate the reliable sources in use in the two articles, then look at whether they cover FFI or Ali Sina primarily. We'd be a bit closer to figuring out what content is supported by RS, and which article should be merged to which. From my reading so far, I'd be leaning towards FFI -> Ali Sina - the website is the platform, but it's the message/messenger that gets the press. The Interior (Talk) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. This piece focuses on Sina; it's the only reliable and significant source I can find on either thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why the several books on the Ali Sina page aren't valid sources. It seems he is a significant figure among critics of Islam. I certainly would want to come to Wikipedia for information on the fellow. I think the Ali Sina page should be maintained. I can't comment on the Faith Freedom International page because I still don't fully understand the criteria for giving a website a page in Wikipedia. I'll have to read more on this matter. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The books cited on Sina's page are either unreliable (because they are from vanity presses like Academica Press or other non-RS publishers), affiliated with Sina (Sina's own books can't establish his notability because notability is determined by independent coverage), passing mentions (notability guidelines require coverage to be significant), etc. Have you checked out WP:GNG in your inquiries? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The publishers seem to range from those with a conservative and Christian focus to those that have a wider product line. I’m not that familiar with Thomas Nelson the parent publisher of WND books or Academica Press which does publish a wide range of topic but Macmillan is a familiar name. In any case, the references seem to be adequate, in most cases, to the limited purpose of providing information about Mr. Sina. I found the article on him useful as I was trying to dig up info on the fellow. I’m opposed to losing that article. This article, on the FFI website, seems to be the weaker of the two. Perhaps a merge into the Ali Sina article has merit but I’m agnostic. The WP:GNG is helpful as is the rest of the page but such general guidelines don't always give me a clear idea--that comes with time. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Macmillan is a fine publisher, but as I said, a passing mention can't attest notability. Academica has a reputation as a vanity press; the topic range is irrelevant. Etc., etc., unreliable sources and passing mentions don't attest notability, per GNG and other guidelines which require significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. "I admit that there are no sources, but I don't like Muslims" is not a keep argument. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
No it is not and so the argument to remove the article because the subject is hated by Muslims. Judging from the number of your comments you seem to be quite eager to remove this article. Is there any personal reason that you’d like to share? (OceanSplashtalk) 08:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It's amazing how I point out half a dozen times that he and his organization haven't received coverage in reliable sources, and you just hear "Muslims are trying to censor Wikipedia." Don't waste my time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
OceanSplash's block log seems to indicate that those ideas are a common theme for his posts. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Block log? As far as I can see OceanSplash has a clean record for the last six years (and please help me if I got it wrong), while for example Roscelese was blocked only a month ago. I do not see why there is a reason for a personal attack on him. What happened to your stance that "all editors who are now banned could have made any edits in good faith prior to their ban", by the way?Jeff5102 (talk) 09:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
What does it mean to have a clean block log over a period of time when you barely have any edits over that time? i still stand by what I said regarding banned editors. Unless you can demonstrate that a specific edit was made in bad faith, there is no need to presume that. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
This is like saying we must trust all dealings of an individual prior to him being caught and convicted as a con artist. OceanSplashtalk) 08:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.118.30 (talk)
Actually, it's not, OceanSplash, and perhaps you shouldn't mischaracterize arguments. A more appropriate analogy would be failing to infer that the all actions of a con artist are part of a con, when in fact he was jailed for a con that was limited in scope and time. 12.49.107.186 (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Experience shows a crooked person is generally crooked in all his dealings. Once a person is proven to be dishonest, everything he has done prior to him being caught become suspitious. OceanSplashtalk) 11:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the new anonymous user (welcome!) as well. The reason for this is that "editing wikipedia" IS an action "limited in scope and time." To put it sharply: I wouldn't do any financial dealings with Bernie Madoff because of his financial record; I do not care if he was a good husband, or never cheated when playing golf. Thus, if an editor is blocked for bad editing, I have less trust in his/her intentions when editing.
And to answer the other anonymous user of his/her comment of 6 March: 1) it was not me who started to discuss someone's block log; it was you. 2) I do believe that the average person betters his/her live more in six years than in one month. I have no clue why you are defending blocked editors, except the one whose ideas oppose yours.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Where can I find mafia hit lists and Gang hit lists and other illegal assassination lists for people's heads on WIkipida?

"two imams in India have offered a reward of USD 20,000 (or 1 million Rupees) for anyone who kills Sina"

When did Wikipida help contribute to organized Crime?
--OxAO (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Faith Freedom International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Faith Freedom International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference WND was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Jamie Glazov (31 Dec 2004). "Symposium: Gender Apartheid and Islam". FrontPageMagazine.com. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
  3. ^ Ali Sina (May 1, 2008). "Understanding Muhammad: A psychobiography of Allah's Prophet". Felibri. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Faith_Freedom_International/Archive_2&oldid=1136340654"