Talk:List of former Muslims/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles

I came across content deletion cases in Ex-Muslim articles. Yasmine Mohammed and Ayaan Hirsi Ali in both cases content deletionists deleted own views of Yasmine Mohammed and Ayaan Hirsi Ali respectively. If reliable enough source is available why one's own views can not be there, in articles written about them?

In case of reason forwarded by deletionist is WP:Coatrack, How Yasmine Mohammed can have opinion on multiple aspects? If she has at all and Wikipedia article covers it, It will be WP:Coatrack! I find this argument strange. Whether it is Barak Obama or Donald Trump and many other politicians, they are going to have opinions on multiple subjects even those subjects which they are not experts and I see lot of coverage of that in Wikipedia. Why there is no WP:Coatrack on them and only on Yasmine Mohammed? Is use of WP:Coatrack really rational enough in this case?

In another deletion, while deleting Ayaan Hirsi Ali's opinion edit summary goes Pundits make many inflammatory claims, but we cannot document them all. Please cite a reliable, WP:IS for this. Actually content seem to have news source refs and deletionist seem to ask for neutral source may be critical of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's opinion.

Here I seek to compare again with Donald Trump, He too makes lot many believed to be inflammatory claims. And adequate news sources would be available. For example in Donald Trump case may be Fox News source not necessarily not neutral but unlikely publish fake news detrimental to Donald Trump. So does Wikipedia not take Fox news ref just because the news source does not include any criticism of Donald Trump?

I am not against including criticism of opinions. For example Yasmine Mohammed article includes criticism of title of her book. But whether we will not allow her opinions on multiple subjects citing WP:Coatrack or we will not allow her opinions in article about herself because reference source does not include criticism on any of her opinion?

Are these really valid rational and logical excuses for content deletion or content stone walling? Here is List of fallacies, may be this list helps deletionists help better to support and wikisplain their above mentioned arguments of deletion.

I do not know all Wikipedia rules, other editors too who support ex-Muslim articles visit Wikipedia much lesser, they would be knowing rules and wiki processes much lesser. Contesting such deletions, prima facie unfair ones happen much lesser. Does this not really create Wikipedia:Systemic bias against atheists in general and Ex-Muslims in particular?

Bookku (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku:, this is inappropriate - I see you've had this problem before. The page describing the process clearly states : Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the {{rfc}} tag. Then you can add a discussion section. Could you please fix this - I've struck through it at the moment. Just add the neutral statement or question, a new section heading for discussion, then your comments. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to suggest neutral statements then I will add above comment. Or may may be I will drop Rfc for a while I find some self-censored and politically right language for my-self. Or May be I create an Rfc for having a mode of Wikipedia wide discussion without need of such censorship. Bookku (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you are wrong. Criticizing the islamic faith is probably more divisive than other religions right now, most of which are on the WP:LCI list. I'm a little familiar with Mohammed's book, but I would need more context about these specific changes in the article. Thank you for posting in the WiR project for an RfC. Perhaps an actionable project would be to chronicle these instances and submit an article for the Signpost arguing your case.Fred (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Bookku, Doug Weller and Frederika Eilers I agree that views of Yasmine Mohammed and Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be covered in their respective articles. At the same time I do have concerns about WP:COATRACK in some other articles, like here Talk:Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies#Coatrack.VR _talk 03:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Vice regent, I'll just add that to represent their views we should use reliable secondary sources, not cherry-pick quotes from them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

• It is fine to summarize their views in their article. It isn't fine to drop massive quotations or extensive WP:PRIMARY-sourced details into the article in a way that effectively turns it into a place to proselytize or argue for their position. If you look at the politicians you mentioned, the articles for Barack Obama or Donald Trump note the existence of their views in brief, dispassionate terms, cited to secondary sources that briefly note the things they believe or advocate; at no point does it delve into their arguments for their beliefs in any depth. We do not, for example, list every single accusation Trump has made against his political opponents, only the ones that have attracted strong secondary coverage. By comparison, articles for activists like these frequently become bloated with massive sections that quote their arguments verbatim, often cited only to primary source or to friendly interviews; or we go into excessive detail on every individual statement they have taken, in a manner that serves the same purpose (ie. every accusation they have ever made that supports their point of view.) That is inappropriate and is likely the reason you are encountering WP:COATRACK concerns. We're supposed to zoom out, consider their overarching views, and reflect those, rather than cover every single thing they have ever said and every position they have ever taken. The fact that you see it as censorship is also telling - the articles say what they believe overall, surely? It sounds like your objection is that you believe that the articles should be used as a place to advocate and not merely present their views, and that having such advocacy removed is censorship. --Aquillion (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Superstitions in Muslim societies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Bookku (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?

Greetings,

This is basically continuation of first round of discussion which took place previously @ Talk:Islamic literature and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)

Present Wikipedia tendency

An average tendency on Wikipedia seems to be of transforming word Muslim into Islam or Islamic wherever possible without visiting nuanced aspects. As a small example title Islamic feminism is nuanced and correct since it specifically refers to theory of Islam. But is it correct to redirect title Muslim women to Women in Islam those who are not exposed to nuances might think so. Some might take refuge to fallacy of Appeal to popularity, but nuanced view suggests otherwise. Pl. do read on below given copy pasted discussion from Talk:Islamic literature

Here comes concept of normative.

• Quick google search of term Normative gives definition as "...establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behaviour...."

Is present lack of nuanced approach, risks throwing in and enforcing a sided normative. All Islamic art can be called Muslim art, but whether all Muslim art can be called Islamic art. For example recently one Saira Khan recently openly declared of not being practicing Muslim, and still we can not list her in List of former Muslims so formally remains a Muslim at the most one can categories them in Cultural Muslim; take one more point, there can be former Muslim who reverts to Islam is it easy to classify their art Muslim or Islamic ? Or take example of M.F. Husain many of his drawings are of living things so whether it is safe to classify his art Muslim or Islamic ? :File:Khamseh Nizami 001.jpg is included in article Islamic Art how far it can be called Islamic Art or is it safer to call it Muslim art?

Those Wikipedians who do have lesser familiarity with Muslims or Islam usually tend to take position I/We don't have understanding on the topic, pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam, even when topic is critical of Islam that is categorized Islamic project pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam. Doesn't it risks throwing in and enforcing a sided normative?

Scholarship highlighting this issue

1) According to [1] Muslim is purely someone who practices Islam and Islamic is anything influenced by Islam or produced by Muslims.

2.1) According to M.M. Knight, when one does not speak for real Islam (i.e.'an abstracted ideal' that floats above, Muslim, human cultures but speaks for 'lived traditions') it is preferable to use the term Muslim instead of the term Islam or Islamic.

2.2) M.M. Knight further says,terms 'Islam/ Islamic' imposes claim of normativity, which is distinct with lived experiences hence need not be conflated. (My emphasis)

Question of Grammar

One copyeditor user Dakinijones points out his difficulties @ Talk:Islamic literature, he says:

...According to [2] Muslim is purely someone who practices Islam and Islamic is anything influenced by Islam or produced by Muslims. So I’ve done some of the (requested via women’s rights article) copyediting on that basis. Please correct my ignorances with sources if wrong. Thanks!...

Similar points of grammar have been discussed @ Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) similar to [3] their point is architecture, music, art, thought are not humans so saying Muslim architecture, Muslim music, Muslim art, Muslim thought, should be avoided.

Since personally I am more concerned with normative I am okay with Muslim architecture, Muslim music, Muslim art, Muslim thought since those are more inclusive terms in spite issues of grammar inaccuracies, but terms are understandable to human mind; my human brain can very well understand those terms as 'architecture/ music/ art/ thought created by Muslims.'

Nuanced differences and other Wikipedia articles

Please see below given table.

List of articles With Word Muslim or Islam in title

	Muslim	Islam	Comment
	Muslim dietary laws		This needs to be Islamic dietary laws ?
		Apostasy in Islam	Article Former Muslim of Ex Muslim needs to exist separately because title Apostasy in Islam has Islamic normative that atheists don't share?
		Islamic culture	Needs to be Muslim culture?
		Islamic literature	Needs to be Muslim literature?
		Islamic Golden Age	Needs to be Muslim Golden Age ?
		Women in Islam	Need to be Muslim women?
		Islamophobia	Need to be Anti Muslim Sentiment?

• Would term Muslim culture represent cultural diversity among Muslim communities over time and places reflect better than monolithic representation in term "Islamic culture"?

• Can we draw a parallel, In between Your point differentiating between "Women in Islam" and "Muslim women" and Apostasy in Islam and Former muslims being both valid, and have entirely different normative directions?

I am very well aware of grammar related points of Maproom & Louis P. Boog maintained by them and others @ Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) and not too keen to break grammar related rules but want other readers also to be aware of issues involved for wider consultations. Bookku (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• Do you have a specific proposal for this page? For example, are you proposing this page be moved to Former Muslims? Or that this page be merged with Apostasy in Islam? I'm sorry but I'm a bit confused.VR _talk 03:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO any consensus building on such topics will be long drawn process so at the moment in first round of discussion, I wish people become aware that there is some thing to look into. It became common also because I started discussing from village pump side and will be posting to one or two more common discussion places. After taking note of first round of discussion in second or third round we can make specific proposal. Basically I am not in any hurry.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: wondering where Muslims (ethnic group), fits in all the above. Lotje (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The term "Islamic" means that it originates from religious sources such as the Quran and the hadiths, or anything related to Muhammad. The term "Muslim" sounds like it relates to the acts of Muslim individuals. Law about apostasy, culture, art (ban on painting and sculpture), literature, etc. are rooted in Islam's own sources. - Aybeg (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Issues like this are one reason we have Wikiprojects, this belongs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/ Doug Weller talk 13:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: As I mentioned earlier, This is not a decision making round, I started with centralized Village pump → Now some individual talk pages → again such centralized pages you are discussing → and again back to concerned individual pages with specific proposals for those pages.

As I said earlier I am going very slow, The whole purpose is to avoid any hasty decision making, reach out and involve as many stake holders are involved, and let every one have more than enough time time and opportunities to express their views. You might have noticed I am trying to reach out all likely stake holders and I have included even those views which do not necessarily match with mine.

Just may be you can express views on any of the talk pages at individual or central location at any round of discussion, I do hope and request you to join in discussions as per your choice and rest of community will take all views in to account before deciding on any thing. Many thanks for expressing yourself and warm regards Bookku (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)