Talk:Secular Islam Summit/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Protected

Since there's been a lot of reverting going on here, I've protected this page for 48 hours. Use that time to work out the issues you're having. If you can resolve it before the 48 hours is up, let me know and I'll remove the protection. I'll also say that, from purely an administrative standpoint, I don't see any BLP issues, so my protection isn't an endorsement of one side or the other. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish I shared your faith, but unfortunately, as you can see from the talk page, discussion has proven useless because Kwamikagami refuses both to compromise (eg. see hir last comment, where I, having already made a few attempts at compromise wording that addresses hir concerns, ask hir to suggest wording that accommodates mine, which zie ignores and responds with wording which I've already pointed out several times as misrepresenting the source) and to acknowledge consensus (witness how BLP suddenly becomes an overriding concern when it's clear that Kwami's position is disfavored). A consensus has already been reached, but this individual tendentious user is edit-warring to prevent us from implementing it; this isn't a problem that can be solved by more discussion, since the user is ignoring the results of our normal discussion processes. What do you recommend? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

To make a suggestion: stop making personal remarks like "It was rather embarrassing for you last time." In such a way people will be less willing to cooperate with you.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well?

It would be nice if Kwami would explain the reasons for reverting. In particular, since there is consensus that it's inappropriate to treat this as a back and forth between SIS and CAIR, I'd like to hear you explain why you restored the "groups sniping at each other" format, where I'd tried to put speakers' comments about CAIR in a section on what was said at the summit, the way we talked about; and why you again changed the meaning of the sentence on Manji's proposed text to the less-relevant proposal for a future version, rather than to the one that was actually about the summit that is the subject of the article. This seems like a childish attempt to keep some of your text in the article, rather than anything actually related to improving it, particularly as you have made no attempt to defend either edit in previous discussions where they have come up. Particularly confusing is your insistence on restoring material that you have repeatedly and strenuously objected to (eg. quotes). It really looks like you're just reverting me for the sake of reverting me, and it's very disruptive.

I've also removed, again, your original research about Haddad. If a source doesn't say something, we do not comment on its absence on our own initiative; we must have a source that comments on the absence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If people have stopped arguing with you because you've gone away, that doesn't mean you have consensus for your POV. You are not the default state of the universe. — kwami (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If I leave an extensively thought-out post arguing for my preferred version of the article, then wait for over a month during which no one comes up with any arguments against my version, then yes, it does seem that I have consensus. If you want to make changes, then why don't you make a case for them on the talk page? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to make changes. I'm happy with the result of the RfC collaboration. — kwami (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Then do not revert the changes that came about as a result of the RFC. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Which WP are you editing? The only changes here are yours. I left some of them, but if you prefer I can revert them all back to the version of the article after the RfC. — kwami (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you leave them where I did. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, if you edit war, I'll take the time to figure out how to report you. Do you really want that? 24.45.42.125 (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you read WP:BOLD so you understand how things work here. It's the person who proposes the edits who needs to justify them. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, the original research about Haddad is there because you added it. I left it while we discussed because I, unlike you, am not an edit warrior, but you've clearly failed to gain consensus to include it. I don't think you've even tried to justify it, so do not continue adding it. Similarly, CAIR's sourced comments on the speakers' hostility to Islam was part of the article before you began your edit war and you have failed to gain consensus to remove it. You are the one proposing changes, and it is you who must (and who have failed to) gain consensus for them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Adjwilley for removing the original research about Haddad. However, there still remains the matter of the CAIR criticism. It is a misrepresentation of CAIR's criticism to pretend that their criticism had only to do with speakers' religious status and not with their views. I imagine you would be opposed to removing the comments on speakers' religion, in order to add material on criticism of their views while maintaining the same weight, so why would the reverse be acceptable? (And this doesn't get into the user behavior issue: again, we are not bound to justify any edit to Kwami, who does not own the article - since the removal of the criticism is a change Kwami is proposing, it is a change that Kwami must gain consensus for, and more specifically one that, in the course of several months of discussion, Kwami has failed to gain consensus for.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My main goal in making that edit was to stop the edit war before it got out of hand. I saw that you had already breached 3RR, and Kwami was at 3RR for today, after having reverted 3 times over the past 2 days, which could also potentially earn a block depending on the admin. As for the content, I have to say that I don't really get what the fight is about, and most of the versions look alright to me. Mainly I'm interested in finding a middle road that's acceptable to both of you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm nowhere near 3RR (IP 24 is not me); Kwami's reverted 3 times in the past day but that's at the line, not over it. I'd appreciate your comments; admittedly it's obvious that Kwami will continue edit-warring against consensus anyway, but more users' input is always helpful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with your edit, as it makes sure to convey the substance of CAIR's criticism (as well as making Haddad's clearer, though more clarity could still be better). There's still the issues I discussed above which go directly against the results of the discussion, but these are less important to me (although I'd also like to restore more of Manji's text, rather than again selectively quoting to create an inaccurate impression of her views). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I had assumed that the 24 IP was you, and the 32 IP was Kwami, and that you both had forgotten to log in. It seemed to make sense that way. And I don't think anybody is edit warring against consensus, since there doesn't seem to be any consensus right now anyway.

I've made another edit, hoping that it might be a compromise for the two of you. Let me know if it's alright with you or if I should self-revert. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see if Kwami's alright with this particular edit, and then if/when that's settled we can talk about the other issues. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My problem is the same that it's always been: the BLP problems of repeating slander, and Roscelese's POV that slander is acceptable as long as we can document that s.o. said it.

We are calling religious people atheists. That is a problem. If we're going to repeat s.o.'s slander, we'd better have a good reason for doing so, and make it very clear what it is. If we cannot do that, we need to delete the thing altogether.

Haddad had criticized the summit without knowing anything about it apart from the lineup of speakers. It's fine to criticize that, but if we're going to repeat ignorant comments (and I mean that in the literal sense, that Haddad was ignorant of anything that was actually said at the summit), then we need to be clear about that as well. I'm not sure that the Haddad ref even belongs here. She's presented as an expert, but we use experts for their knowledge of the topic, and her knowledge is only tangential. If Roscelese is not willing to accept some sort of clarification that Haddad is not speaking from actual knowledge of the summit, then she should be removed as well.

I removed the word "speakers" you added in the CAIR section, as that increases the BLP problem. The Haddad ref I'm moving here for discussion:

Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University criticized the summit speakers as being extreme in their views. [ref name="tbt">Laughlin, Meg (March 6, 2007). "Intelligence conference draws criticism". Tampa Bay Times.</ref>]

That sounds like she heard what they had to say and judged it to be extreme. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Did Haddad not hear what they had to say? Did she only know who the speakers were?

I thought the "speakers" you removed was helpful, and I wish you'd add it back. "dismissing the summit speakers as 'atheists and non-Muslims' hostile to Islam" makes sense; "dismissing the summit as 'atheists and non-Muslims' hostile to Islam" not so much. I don't think it comes off as a BLP violation, especially in light of the second half of the sentence ("...too quick to declare who is, or who is not, a true Muslim"). Saying that they "denounced each other" and the "dismissing" also makes it clear that they're just name-calling. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you're right. Added 'speakers' back in.

All we know of Haddad (which they couldn't even spell right) is a single quotation: "Legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup. The speakers are extreme in their views. Basically, it's everyone known for damning Islam." The tense of "are horrified by the lineup", and the lack of any comment about the opinions expressed, suggests that this was said in anticipation of the summit. Quotations from other people also suggest that the interviews took place before the summit, for example in referring to the summit in the future. There's also the problem that several religious Muslims declined their invitations. We can't know whether Haddad was aware of that, but it may be relevant to the audience of WP. — kwami (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to find more on Haddad, to see if we can clarify her comments, or if she had any reaction after the summit. I can't find anything. A week later, Mike Ghouse at the World Muslim Congress was repeating the St. Petersburg Times quotation.[1] — kwami (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is as specific as can be. Haddad criticized the speakers as having extreme views. We will not engage in original research about whether her opinion might have changed after the summit or whether what they said at the summit might have differed from their usual fare (which Stephens would contradict anyway), and pulling these nonsense objections out of unspeakable parts of your anatomy in order to remove the text again, after failing to gain consensus for its removal before (you're also at 4RR and I would strongly recommend that you cease reverting now), demonstrates a continued lack of interest in consensus-building.

Addressing earlier comments: you've got to be kidding me that an expert in Christian and Muslim history is just a layperson on the issue of whether Islam oppresses people and whether it can coexist with other religions. Don't waste our time like this, please. Your point of view on sourced criticism is truly fascinating, but a) Wikipedia doesn't work that way, which is why we have entire articles on things like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and b) most of the people in question are indeed atheists and non-Muslims. We've already established that they are and that they are proud to be so. Rather than asking us to go over old arguments that have already been shown to be hollow, please produce new (and smart) arguments or accept consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been letting you two talk it out, with the intent of supporting any reasonable compromise, but the edit-warring hasn't ended. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And isn't likely to anytime soon, I fear.

I'm waiting for Adjwilley's response. — kwami (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll admit I'm split on this. I agree with Kwami in principle that Wikipedia shouldn't blindly pass on gossip and rubbish, even when it can be sourced. I also disagree with Roscelese's comment about it being established that most of the people in question were indeed atheists and non-Muslims, since I like to give extra weight to what people self-identify as (i.e. Secular Muslims), and because if they were truly atheists and non-Muslims, why would they be offended when they were called such?

On the other hand, my impression is that one of the reasons the Summit is notable is because of the criticisms that were flung back and forth, and it's ok to report some of that. I think that balance of criticism, as it currently stands, is about right. There's as much criticism of CAIR as there is of the Summit, and that it would be hard to remove any more criticism from either side without throwing off the balance.

As for the Haddad comment, I wouldn't mind a little non-substantive rephrasing. It's not entirely clear what she means by "extreme". I mean, I understand it as meaning that they were extreme from a conservative Muslim's point of view, but when your average non-Muslim hears "extreme" in this context, they could easily think the opposite (religious radicals). Anyway, that's my thought on the Haddad quote. I don't really have an opinion on whether she should be included or not, but she does help to balance out the peacocking "landmark" from the previous sentence. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Responding by numbers:

1. Where do you get the idea that anyone was offended at being called an atheist or a non-Muslim? Many of these people are very proud atheists or non-Muslims (eg. Ibn Warraq, who wrote a whole book about it, among many others), and people like Manji presumably know the comments do not apply to them. I don't see that this is sourced. Are you possibly taking the offense of a user and applying it to the subjects?
2. Haddad continues in the source with "Basically, it's everyone known for damning Islam." Hence my attempt to specify what Haddad was saying, which Kwami reverted, as it is apparently a terrible thing to let readers know what a source actually says.
3. Haddad is not a conservative Muslim and her comments on the speakers' extremism do not represent a conservative Muslim point of view; she's a Christian (Presbyterian) and an expert on this subject. That's where her comments are coming from - the scholarly mainstream. But I agree that "extreme" is vague, hence (as I said) my earlier attempt to put in meaningful content.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

kwami, there's nothing to fear, because you have the power to end this edit war by honoring the consensus. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to calling atheists "atheists". As I've said over and over for months now, I'm opposed to calling devout Muslims "atheists". Yes, Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are proud atheists. But Irshad Manji and Hasan Mahmud are proud Muslims. When we say the speakers are "atheists and non-Muslims", and Manji and Mahmud are speakers, we're saying that Manji and Mahmud are atheists or non-Muslims. I don't know whether they would be offended by that or not, but per BLP we should not do it regardless.

I agree with Adjwilley that Haddad's quote adds a nice balance to the intro of that section. It's appropriate when we present it in context. Like most things, however, it's inappropriate out of context. — kwami (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Luckily, we don't refer to anyone as atheists in WP's voice, and we furthermore do not claim that the comment referred to all the speakers. Why do you believe you are more qualified than US News, which reported on the criticism of the summit, to analyze that criticism?

And what context would that be? Your original research about her not saying anything about the summit? The necessary context is what you have tirelessly tried to remove - her position as a scholar on this very subject and her specification of what is extreme. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be operating in a parallel universe. I find it appalling that you believe misrepresentation to be acceptable. Anyway, we should probably see what Adjwilley has to say, since we appear to be incapable of understanding each other's POV, whereas we both understand his POV. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I can't support my view that the Muslim speakers were offended at being called non-Muslims and atheists, so I'll strike that bit.

@Both: Can we agree that the second paragraph is properly balanced? The "atheists and non-Muslims" quote is balanced neatly by the "too quick to declare who is, or who is not, a true Muslim" in my view, so perhaps we can stop talking about that paragraph and move onto Haddad.

@Kwami: Do you have any specific suggestions on how you'd like to rephrase the Haddad sentence? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not any particular phrasing, as long as we make it clear that we have no RS that Haddad actually criticized the summit. She criticized the lineup. I would assume that she was shown a list of speakers, and said that it's ridiculous, they're not representative of Islam, they're everyone who's against Islam, etc. But we have no indication that she knew anything of the summit itself, what the speakers actually said. She may have assumed that they would say biased things, and she may have been right, but we don't have a source that's what happened, and we can't conclude that she would not have modified her evaluation if she had actually been there. If you're good, you may be able to peer into the crystal ball and foresee the future, and Haddad may be that good, but we're restricted to our sources.— kwami (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

By reporting what the source says, we make no conclusions about whether or not she would have changed her mind. By inserting unsourceable text about her not commenting on the summit (your definition of "mak[ing] it clear," as opposed to clearly reporting the content of reliable sources), we do imply that she would have changed her mind. Please suggest a solution that does not ask us to engage in original research. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese has called this OR. But the only mention of Haddad is so brief that we can't say much of anything about what she actually knew. That is, as nice as it is to use Haddad to balance that paragraph, the weight we're giving her is not supported by our sources. We're reading assumptions into them that are not supported by them. Bret Stephens, on the other hand, actually attended the summit, and so was writing from experience. He's the only reporter we know of who was there. Yes, the result is unbalanced, but our sources are unbalanced, and after a point trying to force balance into our sources can't be justified. It would have been nice if other Muslim invitees had at least attended and blogged about it so we had their views on what was said, but unfortunately that didn't happen. What we're left with is a reporter from a conservative and potentially biased US paper who attended, a professor who appears to be an appropriate expert but to have only commented on the list of names, and to be largely ignorant of the actual events, and an allegedly militant Muslim organization which apparently wasn't there either. Our sources are therefore pretty shitty, but we can't polish them up into a nice balanced account without introducing a bias of our own. — kwami (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's rich. Every reliable source on the summit includes criticism, and not only do you continue to spuriously invoke due weight in order to remove criticism from reliable sources, you now claim that that's because there isn't enough criticism in the sources? What a joke. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not all sources are equal. If you will not accept putting the source in context, then the only solution is to delete it altogether. We cannot imply that she knew what was said at the summit if our sources do not support that.

A parallel: we can't quote s.o. as saying that President Obama is extreme in his policies, if the comment was made before he was president. Not unless we make it clear that the comment was made before he was president. Otherwise the natural reading would be that the commentator was familiar with Obama's presidential policies. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, yes, we can and do talk about criticism of Obama's policies from before he was president. We obviously would not say "President Obama" in the paraphrase, but that's because it would be adding something that isn't in the source in order to push a point of view, the same way you're trying to add material about Haddad that isn't in the source in order to push a point of view. You will not delete sourced criticism because our NOR policy forbids you from watering it down in the service of your point of view. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, kwami, but you're not really addressing Roscelese's points at all. We can't insert our own research. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nor can we misrepresent our sources. If it's a choice between OR and misrepresentation, then we need to delete it. It fails WP:WEIGHT anyway. — kwami (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Luckily, it isn't a choice between OR and misrepresentation. We are representing the source accurately by refraining from introducing OR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: Hm, maybe s.t. like Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University, remarking on the speaker lineup of the summit, characterized them as being extreme in their views. Not sure that quite gets it, but I hope it captures the idea that she's responding to the names, not to anything they said at the summit. — kwami (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't original research, but it's also poorly written; "...of Georgetown University described the speakers in the lineup as..."? Restoring material on what they were extreme about, of course. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's awkward.

The less individuated the better. The overall lineup may give the impression of being extreme. But some of the speakers clearly are not. That's the problem. — kwami (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We could try what worked before - remove "the", ie. "described speakers in...". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that Haddad's objection was that many of the speakers were known for having strong views against Islam? If this were the case, we could get rid of the imprecise "extreme" and say something along the lines of "Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University questioned the summit's non-partisan status, pointing out that many of the speakers were known for having strong views against Islam." ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "strong" and "extreme" can be substituted one for the other. One can hold a strong belief that is also mainstream and accepted, which isn't what Haddad is saying in the source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Extreme" is kind of a subjective word. In what sense are their views extreme? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should avoid making assumptions in article text. I myself would interpret her comment as meaning that their beliefs about Islam (eg. that the religion is incompatible with democracy or freedom) are not held by the mainstream or supported by evidence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

But who's the mainstream? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Presumably scholars and/or the informed public. But again, at this point it's all conversation, really, since we can't actually analyze her comment in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me try to answer my own questions now, and you tell me if I'm wrong. I think the "mainstream" in this case is moderate/mainstream Islam. The speakers views are "extreme" compared to those of regular Muslims. Because the word "extreme" is so subjective I think it would be helpful to be more specific (since "mainstreem" Muslims can and often are seen as "extreme" depending on who's making the observation). ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Haddad is comparing the speakers to the Muslim public exclusively. That assumption doesn't seem supported by the article content (Haddad says that she and other scholars are horrified by the lineup), and given that many of them, and certainly the most prominent among them, are not Muslim, it seems that she'd be comparing apples to oranges if she did. Why do you think she's describing their views as extreme when compared to the views of Muslims specifically, rather than to generally accepted opinion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My assumption comes from the one sentence in the article that seems to interpret Haddad's comment: "Experts on Islam question the summit's nonpartisan status." It is also influenced by the Stephens article Islam's Other Radicals ("At this landmark Summit on Secular Islam, there are no 'moderate' Muslims"). I'm having a hard time with terms like "generally accepted opinion" because they're imprecise. Whose opinion? What is generally accepted opinion when it comes to religion and politics? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes - she's an expert on Islam and is comparing their views on Islam to mainstream or scholarly views on Islam, as befits an expert...? At any rate, this sort of over-analysis is why I think we will have to retain Haddad's wording. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for continuing to pick at your words, but "mainstream or scholarly views on Islam" doesn't make much sense to me either. What's the scholarly view? Many summit speakers didn't like Islam. So scholars and the "mainstream" do? Prominent speakers were atheist. So scholars and mainstream are not? No. She has to be comparing the speakers to moderate Islam. Her criticism is that the speakers don't represent a cross-section of Islam. They're from the tail end of the bell-curve. Their views are extreme compared to the average Muslim. "Fringe" if you will.

I would oppose keeping her exact words if they're imprecise. I'd prefer taking the article author's interpretation of her words: "Experts on Islam question the summit's nonpartisan status." ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be better. They did that to orientate the reader, and they had access to the full interview. — kwami (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You continue to read material into Haddad's comment which isn't there, and this is clouding the issue. There is nothing in the source which supports the idea that the speakers were extreme because they were atheists. What we have is what the source says: "Experts on Islam question the summit's nonpartisan status. 'Legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup. The speakers are extreme in their views. Basically, it's everyone known for damning Islam,' said Yvonne Hadad, a Georgetown University professor who teaches 'the history of Christians and Muslims.'" - and it is evident from her use of the word "views" that she is talking about, y'know, their views. Which she elaborates on by explaining that their damnation of Islam is an extreme view. I'd be more than happy to quote the entire thing in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What's clouding the issue is that we have so little info on Haddad's views that almost any attempt to explain it would be OR. Given that she has been afforded so little coverage in the article, anything more than a few words on our part would have WEIGHT issues. I think Adjwilley has the proper solution, with maybe the addition of her name: "Experts on Islam, such as Yvonne Haddad, have questioned the summit's nonpartisan status." That fits with the juxtaposed journalist being from a conservative paper not known for its editorial balance. — kwami (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It's also misrepresenting, by omission, the substance of Haddad's comment. She said the speakers were extreme, due to their anti-Islam views, and it is not up to us to decide that she didn't know what she was talking about. (Her comments were also picked up in the Charlotte Observer, which summarized them as her describing the summit as "a collection of extremists.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean this Charlotte Observer-article? Anyway, we only have a small part of what Haddad actually said or might have meant. I'm not sure what we should do with it yet. I thought I had an elegant solution, but Roscelese apperently didnot agree with me. RegardsJeff5102 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Carrying water for U.S. News & World Report

While the partisan language of this article has now been toned down to the point where it appears neutral, I question the neutrality of the piece itself. The framework for the piece is based almost entirely on the worldview of U.S. News' senior editor Jay Tolson. While U.S. News & World Report may be deemed to be a "reliable source" in the sense of fact-checking, they are not NPOV: they have a politically conservative agenda. If you look at the opinion piece that is extensively referenced here, "Fighting for the Soul of Islam" [2], Tolson mentions the Secular Islam Summit only to bolster his inference that Islam is monolithic, that CAIR represents Islam, and that "other Moslems" when they exist at all, are marginalized crackpots and possibly not even "real" Moslems. In fact, Mike Ghouse, in the World Muslim Congress piece [3], points out that well-known moderate Moslems not only exist, but that they declined to attend the conference, as some of the invited speakers were controversial and may even have had death threats directed at them. As one of them had been specifically invited for the purpose of receiving an award, there was no question of rescinding any invitations in order to make the conference more representative.

I also note that the question of funding has not been addressed in the article. If you "follow the money" as they say in U. S. politics, the sources, and the links in the piece, indicate that CAIR, along with their conference cited here, is funded by the Saudis, who have deep pockets as well as an unrepresentative Salafist worldview. Tracking back the funding for the Secular Islam Summit is a bit more convoluted, but eventually ends up with the conference itself being funded by a Jewish non-for-profit (oh, my, isn't THAT the elephant in the room) while the security for the event (because of the alleged death threats?) was funded by the FBI, since there just happened to be another simultaneous conference in the same location that they were already providing security for. So here you have the Saudis, the Bush administration, and a poorly-delineated Jewish group all collaborating to paint a picture of the big "mainstream" sharia-law, fatwa-toting, death-threat Moslems rattling their sabers at a convention on one side of town while the reasonable, humanistic Moslems-in-name-only meet in fear at their protest convention on the other.

That brings up the question of why this conference is notable at all. Conferences with speakers are a dime a dozen. They often held on campuses, but there are also TED talks, and the Council on Foreign Relations also presents panels of experts in various topics, including Islam. I'm sure there are countless others. So why is this article about a conference long past suddenly being worked on instead of deleted? Does it have anything to do with the American political cycle, and the sudden emergence of the word "sharia", as in "sharia law" as an American campaign issue. Neotarf (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that support your personal beliefs? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the money, though I've seen that reported for CAIR. Roscelese raised concerns about the logistics/intent of the Summit being held together with a possibly neocon security/terrorism summit. And the only reporter known to have been there is from a conservative paper (the WSJ). One of the problems we've been having is the dearth of coverage, which does raise the question of notability. — kwami (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The terrorism summit was apparently sponsored by something called International Holocaust Education Center, but that is somewhat peripheral to the article. I have removed the reference to attendance by "government officials from Arab countries, Europe, Canada, and the US" as the press release quoted says only "government guests" were "expected to attend". It would be nice to find a link to anything al-Jazeera actually published about the conference, although I'm fairly certain al-Jazeera English came later, so it would probably be in Arabic language. Still, news organizations sometimes send representatives to events, and either find the events are not as notable as they had hoped, or are trying to get a statement from one of the publicized participants about something else, and use their invitation to the event as a cover to getting a non-related interview. There is nothing here to indicate that al-Jazeera actually put out anything about the conference.

I looked at the Glen Beck and Glen Beck TV articles to see if this could be incorporated into one of those articles, but it doesn't really look like a good fit. Maybe the Center for Inquiry article? The Glen Beck article says "his critics contend he promotes conspiracy theories and employs incendiary rhetoric for ratings". That might might explain why this particular article is drawing so many uncivil remarks and becoming a magnet for edit warring. Some of the speakers at the convention have received massive media attention, so for now I have continued to add to the article, but if someone else wants to delete it or combine it with something else, I would support that, especially if it continues to attract uncollegial editing behavior. Neotarf (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I can't devote a lot of time to responding right now, but here are some short comments:

1. U.S. News is a reliable source by WP standards. Like other reliable sources (eg. NYT, WSJ), it may have a bias one way or the other, but it's not so severe that it distorts its status as a reliable source. If there are particular statements sourced to USN that you think may be untrue or exaggerated, or if there is a part that you feel is being given undue weight, let's talk about that.
2. I'm not sure what point you're making about the hypothetical disinvitation of Sultan. It's not like it would have happened if she hadn't been given an award.
3. We can say what it's funded by if we have reliable sources which directly say so. We do have sources which talk about funding from the Center for Inquiry, so we could make that more clear along with the CfI's organizing the conference. It is not per se problematic that the summit was funded by a Jewish organization, if such was the case.
4. What sort of conspiracy theory are you proposing here? CAIR did not collaborate with the conference, they opposed it.
5. I agree it's probably not notable - got one or two articles of news coverage at the time, but WP:NOTNEWS and there hasn't really been anything since - but deleting anything on Wikipedia that makes Muslims look bad (and/or Israel look good), even if it violates our notability guidelines, is an uphill struggle so I chose to put my effort into making the article neutral instead.

I've also walked back a few recent edits, explaining in my edit summaries.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sigh...

I thought that we had a version that, to quote Roscelese "mostly looks good as well." That was on 30 May 2012. At that time, I was confident that the last few details would be solved, and the following silence made me think that this really was the case. But when I checked the article today it appears we are back at a heavy edit war. What went wrong? Why is there such a fuzz on an article that "mostly looks good"? Anyway, I'll read the (lengthy) discussions and see if I can have some constructive comments. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have just restored some edits that were reverted without discussion. Writing an edit summary is not "discussion"; all edits should have an edit summary. And there is certainly no "consensus". WP:BRD says the next step is "discuss."

After the current flurry of edits started up again, when supposedly a resolution had been reached, I spent several days going over this article and its sources. I spent another day reviewing various policies. The first thing I noticed was problems with WP:NPOV. There are also WP:BLP issues, including "possibility of harm", that I feel very strongly should be resolved before any of the removed text is restored. There are notability issues. I have put all my rationales in a separate section, to try to avoid misunderstanding. I have tried not to fill up the discussion with a lot of blue links to policy, but if it is necessary to reach consensus, I can certainly go back and add references to the appropriate policy considerations.

The first question to resolve is notability. The question is not, as Roscelese puts it, whether it "makes Muslims look bad", but whether it makes a good encyclopedia entry, according to Wikipedia's standards. Five years ago, maybe the article was something trending in the news, and there was a reasonable expectation that neutral sources might be found and it might be expanded, but maybe that has not happened and will not happen.

A consensus should be reached on deletion before any more work goes into the article.

Neotarf (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of recent edits--please do not restore disputed text without consensus

Summit activities

This had a tag on it for expansion, yet when the meeting took place, 5 years ago, there was not enough available material to fill this in. I seriously doubt more sources will become available, as the meeting received only passing notice at the time. Neotarf (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The WSJ source may be useful for expanding the section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The WSJ piece is behind a paywall, can I post it here without COPYVIO? Maybe this will help: [4] It's still a conservative source, so there are context issues; you need a second source. Neotarf (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessary to post the text of the source on the talkpage, which would be a copyvio issue. The archive link is fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Award given to Wafa Sultan

Since this was in an orphaned section of the article, I added this information to another paragraph. Neotarf (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

See above comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wafa Sultan quotation

The quotation attributed to her, and set aside in a paragraph all by itself, seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur in this article, and perhaps taken out of context, since the quotation was originally found in a conservative source.

This also makes the article unbalanced, since other participants, some of them with a much less controversial public profile, are not quoted. Neotarf (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sultan's comment was picked up in at least two other sources on the summit (US News and Abdo's WaPo piece); sources clearly feel that it is important as an illustration of the political character of the summit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Abdo was the keynote speaker for the CAIR convention. And you think this is the person who can provide a neutral value judgment in characterizing the rival convention on the other side of town? "One participant, Wafa Sultan, declared on Glenn Beck's show that...." If Glen Beck wants it on his show, that's a pretty good reason to keep it off of Wikipedia. This does NOT illustrate the political character of the summit at all. Neotarf (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, Sultan frequently makes this sort of comment using this phrasing - she said it on Beck's show, but also (per WSJ) at the conference itself. Other sources from totally different years also find her saying it at speaking events. To address your comment on how it indicates only Sultan's personal views rather than a fact about the conference - well, that's an interesting opinion, but the sources disagree with you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What sources? You cannot pick conservative opinion pieces and use them to put your own spin on quotations. This is not neo-conservapedia. Per WP:NPOV " Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Neotarf (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to paraphrase. In the past, we've summarized it with something along the lines of "...that there was no such thing as moderate Islam". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

St. Petersburg Declaration

It is enough to summarize this, not to provide a soapbox for the organization that wrote it. Neotarf (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Notes

This is not a note. It is a long unattributed quotation by one of the participants, centrally placed, and in such a way as to look like a statement endorsed by Wikipedia or like information that has been fact-checked. It would be best to get rid of this quotation altogether, as it is not found in any reliable source. Neotarf (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I very much disagree that it looks in any way to be in Wikipedia's voice. The quote was placed in a footnote as a compromise between including it and not including it (so it's viewable, but not in the article's main text flow), but I would also be happy to accurately paraphrase it as an alternative to including it. Paraphrases suggested by other users have selectively omitted aspects of Manji's position, such as that a "secular Muslim" need not be an atheist or apostate, but a believer who supports the separation of mosque and state. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Off topic, why promote this one person's views. Even more important: no reliable source. Neotarf (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not off-topic. Could you explain why you believe it's promoting her views? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why single her out to quote her extensively? WP:BALANCE The issues of the conference have already been summarized elsewhere. A consensus was reached on their inclusion. More importantly, per WP:Identifying reliable sources#Quotations "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context." Where is the source for this supposed quotation from a living person? Neotarf (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You're joking, right? We have the quotation from Manji's blog. If you're not going to read the sources, you are not up to the pressure of editing this article. Now, whether we should cite the blog is a separate discussion, but whatever we do, we must make sure that we accurately represent Manji's views. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, that is uncivil and unsupportable. Personal attacks are not helpful.

No, I am not joking. That is the policy. If you don't believe I quoted it correctly, read it for yourself.

Now, please discuss your edits per WP:BRD A consensus was reached and now you are reverting without discussion. We do not include something in an article just because someone put it in their blog. Please review WP:NPOV for the use of sources.

Neotarf (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If your concern is that we cannot use partisan secondary sources to convey Manji's views, you'll be overjoyed when I tell you (again - you must have missed it the first time) that we are using her own publication, not someone that might have taken her words out of context. If you want to talk about whether the blog belongs, do that - don't cite a completely opposite policy. The idea that your edits have consensus is laughable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be a violation of the WP:SPS-rule. I quote: "...self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." And furthermore: Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. If there was some editorial overview, we might have accepted it. But now, the only person who has editorial overview on Manji is Manji, who thinks that Manji's actions are notable. Roscelese, I will not act as rude as you do to Neotarf, but I do think that you are wrong at this point.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hence my saying over and over that the discussion we should be having was over whether we should include an SPS source, not whether some hypothetical secondary source was misrepresenting Manji. I'm glad someone is paying attention. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

External Links

• Center for Inquiry

This was deleted by Roscelese, but I don't see a reason for the deletion, perhaps it was accidental. It is the home page for the Center for Inquiry, the organization that hosted the meeting. It would certainly be a service to readers who want more information about this organization to make the external link easily available. Neotarf (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Center for Inquiry has its own WP article, which we link; I don't see the need for an external link as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The WP article for Center for Inquiry does have a link to the official website, but why make them click through to the article to find it? Also, you may or may not be aware, but the conference website that is listed, secularislam.org, now automatically redirects to the Center for Inquiry home page. Interestingly, it is blocked in some locations, so the redirect does not work everywhere. I wondered why, and my inquiries got me to this forum page [5] which has an excerpt from the website which appears to be not-so-neutral cherry-picked out-of-context Koranic sayings of the "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them" variety, and forgetting to mention the others, that moderate Moslems like to cite. Of course, this stuff goes on all the time, all over the web; it's just not appropriate at Wikipedia. But why hide the link to these guys? Neotarf (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the summit website redirected to CfI's website. That is a good reason to include the CfI link, though I wonder if we should explain? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't really have any further information, but maybe it would be good to label the other link something like secularislam.org or Secular Islam. It's not like it's a dead link or anything, it's being maintained, and it might be of interest to someone. Neotarf (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP considerations

WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"

and "....the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

While many of the participants' statements may seem tame by Western standards, consider Hamad al-Naqi, now in jail in Kuwait, which has just passed the death penalty for cursing or mocking God, [6] or the Saudi journalist who in February of this year faced the death penalty for apostasy for some statements he made on Twitter. [7]

Consider also this statement of Jay Tolson, senior editor for U.S. News & World Report, (quoted in this article) about the participants of this very conference:

” I personally heard a spokesperson for CAIR’s Florida branch describe some of these contributors, who were attending a conference on secular Muslims in Tampa, as “not real Muslims.” In certain parts of the world, such words are tantamount to a death sentence. ” [8]

Particular care needs to be taken with statements that make it appear that attendees might be atheists, or critical of Islam, or collaborators, or have converted away from Islam. Some may have clarified their positions since the conference, or may not have known it was funded by a Jewish educational nonprofit, or may have just been quoted inaccurately. If they have these views, let them put it on their own websites, with whatever nuance they wish.

Let this material stay off of the encyclopedia until more care can be taken with it. We are not on a deadline. Neotarf (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of the attendees are atheists or Christians and are public about it - to say nothing of being critical of Islam, as most of these people have made their career out of being critical of Islam and as the purpose of the conference was to criticize Islam. I don't mind removing the list of signers if it's sourced only to the summit's own website, but that's a DUE or PRIMARY issue having to do with what content reliable sources dictate we put in our article, not a BLP or safety issue. If reliable secondary sources talk about signers, BLP does not prevent us from including that information. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. I spent some time looking at some of their individual websites, and that's not what they say about themselves, contrary to the spin of this article. I don't think you can characterize the attendees as anything; they seem to be quite diverse. They also seem to word their positions most carefully. The most you can say is that they endorse separation of religion and state, although maybe even that is such a western concept that it is putting words in their mouths. Neotarf (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the attendees are not monolithic. Does this mean that we should avoid reporting what reliable sources say about them and their positions? Certainly not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source is not the same as a neutral source. It is unfortunate that most, if not all, of our sources are from the conservative end of the political spectrum. We can use them for facts, but we cannot merely repeat their opinions and value judgments as if they were fact. Wikipedia has a higher standard of neutrality.

But we have had this conversation before.

Neotarf (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting to live in your world, in which a reliable source reporting on someone's own stated religious identification (eg.) were considered an "opinion," but unfortunately for you that is not the world in which WP functions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability

I cannot think of one reason this conference was notable. In addition, the few reliable sources that exist are conservative, making it very difficult to create an article with balanced sourcing. As the current article seems to have recently become a target for edit warring, incivil remarks, and a vehicle to hang neo-conservative talking points on, it would probably be best to delete the article entirely.

It appears that Roscelese and Kwami both support deleting the article, and after having spent some time going through all the notability policies, I think there is a good case for it. In any event, this question should be resolved before any more effort goes into editing, or into trying to reach consensus on the above issues.

Neotarf (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm sensitive to your notability concerns (not because of the "conservative" nature of the sources - USN and WSJ aren't so conservative as to be fringe or as to disqualify them from attesting notability - but because of their paucity and lack of persistence) but I doubt you'll be able to get anything deleted that a particular cohort of users thinks will make Muslims look bad, regardless of genuine notability concerns. If you feel like it, but... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"...but..."??? And I'm afraid I don't understand this "makes Muslims look bad" issue. If the article makes anyone look anything, then it's not NPOV. I'm frankly curious about what would happen. If there was a recommendation to keep the article, the reasons might give some insight as to direction. But let's give others a chance to comment now if they wish. Neotarf (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"If you feel like it, start an AfD, but I doubt it'll succeed in spite of notability issues..." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Roscelese, the only one here making Muslims look bad has been you, though I don't think that's been your intent. There's certainly no "cohort", which implies a conspiracy. Conspiratorial thinking generally isn't conducive to good discussion. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I recall, you're not among the group of editors referred to, but keep whining if it makes you feel better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese I feel that your remark to kwami will not contribute to an improvement to the article, and I don't feel good about it. Let's try to resolve the issue without personal comments, and please take a look at WP:EQ. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have an article on s.t. that attracted this kind of response. We can at least aim to be less biased than some of the sources our readers my hear about this from. — kwami (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I was going to request deletion and page protection after taking care of some other stuff, but Roscelese seems to like the article too (although saying so in a roundabout way), and there seem to be some constructive edits going on. This page was getting maybe 4 page views a day, 10 on a good day, before the edit war started up again, and is now getting a hundred or so; not sure if this is all Wikipedians or if there is something else going on.

I'm going to continue to push back vigorously on the re-insertion of any "ex-Moslem" language to describe any of the participants or to characterize the event. (WP:BLP — possibility of harm to living subjects.) See my longer explanation above in the "BLP considerations" section. Neotarf (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't "like" the article; I just don't think it's a productive use of my time to try to get it deleted. If someone else starts an AfD, I'll !vote in it. Re your second claim - no, it's absolutely wrong to pretend that no one here is an ex-Muslim. It is not a BLP concern to say someone is an ex-Muslim when (eg.) he has written an entire book about being an ex-Muslim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly that is not a problem. The problem comes with lumping in everyone else, even if we have a RS quoting someone as doing that. As long as we don't have generic statements to that effect, I have no problem. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, when have I ever said we should "pretend" something? Please do not put words in my mouth or misrepresent my position.

If Wikipedia is going to go out on a limb here, and claim that someone has committed a crime, i.e. being كافر, that is, "ex-Muslim", which in some places still carries the death penalty, there needs to be some vetting of sources before this type of glaring BLP infraction goes into the article. This is not CAIRpedia, we should not be labeling living persons with Salafist definitions.

Neotarf (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Utterly nonsensical" is honestly the nicest thing I can think of to say about this argument. We will not suppress someone's proud and open self-identification because there are regions of the world (where these individuals do not reside) in which this self-identification is illegal. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It had sufficient coverage by RS to be notable. I think I would be against deletion.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

multiple problems with sources and neutrality in Wafa Sultan section

Why has this been reverted without discussion? Please discuss. I have corrected a couple of glaring problems with this section, such as attribution, and original research with respect to the views of the other attendees, but huge problems with WP:SUBSTANTIATE WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV remain. 1) Why is this quotation being included at all if remarks from the other speakers are not included? (notability problem) 2) neutrality--it needs to be paraphrased, otherwise Wikipedia is just providing a soapbox for somebody's shock phrase 3) Why is it in a paragraph by itself? Is this an attempt to use it to characterize the whole convention? (The structure of the article give undue weight.) 4)need another RS for confirmation as WSJ is not neutral. See WP:RELIABLE guideline for quotations: "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." This person seems to be very peripheral to the discussion, i.e. not a scholar, known for TV appearances on Al-Jazeera and Glen Beck; even WSJ calls her the "radical" of the convention, yet she is presented here front and center, giving her undue weight. 5) section is incomplete, the paragraph has only a topic sentence and no supporting material; is there more info about her participation in the conference? Neotarf (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You have attributed wrongly, and you have wrongly assumed that the comment on the other attendees was original research (it's almost a verbatim quote from the source). I've already suggested a paraphrase, so I'm puzzled that this was the one edit you didn't make, preferring instead to make a bunch of destructive edits. As for your other concerns, I've already responded to you (eg. about expanding the paragraph with more summit activities), but you haven't seen fit to return the courtesy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks and an edit summary that consists of profanity, does not make "discussion" or a "courtesy". It is disruptive. Please discuss the edits and not the editors. Discussion should center on sources, article focus, and policy, and explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Announcing "you are wrong" is not a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotarf (talk • contribs) 13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the descriptions of the persons Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan in their own articles. I agree with Roscelese's description of Warraq. However, Wafa Sultan is described as "a medical doctor who trained as a psychiatrist in Syria, and an American author and critic of Muslim society and Islam." I think we can take over the last part (which is referenced) of this. After al, she was not at the summit for her work as psychiatrist, was she? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC).

Your wording is fine - I want to make sure that we don't suppress neutral and cited information under the guise of BLP, but your edit preserves the substance of the content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And concerning neutrality, what was wrong with last years version of the article? All we have to do is replacing the dead link with the archived one and/or the corresponding US News article and cut down the linkspam. Then, it would look neutral enough to me.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverting to that version would remove an immense amount of content - favorable, neutral, and critical. I must be misunderstanding you since you can't possibly be suggesting undoing a year's worth of work by many editors - what are you suggesting here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Jeff, the problem with that is that Wikipedia is not regarded as a "reliable source". See WP:CIRCULAR "Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources, because this would amount to self-reference." Here is an example. Suppose the Saudi government determines that someone named Muree al-Asiri is a witch. A dozen or so Koranic scholars confirm that he is a witch and sentence him to death. He gets his head chopped off with a sword and the information gets put into Wikipedia [9]. Now, suppose we want to say something about him in an article, and we see that he has been determined to be a witch. Can we then say, "Muree, al-Asiri, a witch"...? No, because even though it is on Wikipedia and the official Saudi news agency, Wikipedia is not a RS and the Saudi news agency is not unbiased. We could probably say he was "a witch according to the Saudi government" because at this point he's not exactly a living person, so there is no issue of endangerment, but since we are using a biased source, we would still need to look for other sources.

If we are going to call Wafa Sultan an atheist, we can't just echo the Saudi government. We need a reliable and unbiased source who said so. Is she really an atheist? According to this website, "At the end of her speech, she utters something quite strange for an atheist, “God bless you and God bless America.”[10] Well. And its not just hearsay, they seem to have videos to back up what they say. But this is "original research", along with the religious interpretation of "what is a non-Muslim". It is not up to WP editors to peer at videos or book covers and try to read the tea leaves. The policy says we need to quote a reliable source. At this point we should be discussing the sources, not sniping at other editors. Neotarf (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you really asking us to have this conversation here? We do not need to speculate about Sultan's religion from comments she has made about God. She has repeatedly stated that she is an atheist. It does not get much easier than that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with WP:Verifiability policy, the place to have that discussion is on the policy page. Neotarf (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

We also need to reach a consensus about endangerment. Some of the people named in the article claim to have received death threats based on what has already been published about them elsewhere. Does anyone here want to see someone die as a result of a Wikipedia article? Not on my watch, say I. Neotarf (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

But I never called Wafa Sultan an atheist. I thought that "an American author and critic of Muslim society and Islam" would be a good description, which is backed up by a New York Times-reference. That works fine for reliability to me. If you have something similar for Ibn Warraq, I would be delighted. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My "atheist" comment wasn't for you, Jeff, it was meant rather for those who keep reverting whenever the "ex-Muslim" language is taken out. In some places, converting away from Islam is considered to be particularly egregious.

I rather like the "an American author and critic of Muslim society and Islam" language. With the NYT I think we're on solid ground. Your z's were correct too, to answer the question in the edit summary. The original article seems to be written in AmE, certainly the sources are from U.S. media. I also like having the organization's own statement in the beginning of the article. The article is about them, after all. The statement you pulled out of their press release was certainly the "money quote". Sources for Ibn Warraq -- I know it's conservative, but does WSJ have something usable? The time I have available to work on this is becoming more limited.

I had forgotten the quote about the death threats in the NYT piece. I used a quote from a USNews source in the BLP discussion above, but some moderate Muslims have challenged the suitability of talking about death threats. It's good to know the NYT doesn't consider it an unsuitable thing to publish. Neotarf (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

We could also say that (eg.) Ian McKellen's proud self-identification as gay should be suppressed because there are countries in which to be gay is illegal. He doesn't live in those countries and is not subject to their laws, but neither are these people here. It's a ridiculous argument. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What is a ridiculous argument? Attributing information about living persons to a reliable, published source; or considering the possibility of harm to living subjects when exercising editorial judgment. Neotarf (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

just a question. what harm are you referring to? wafa sultan is a board member of the counterjihadist and islamophobic "stop islamization of nations"-group. should wikipedia omit this fact as well?-- altetendekrabbe  21:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The descriptions of the attendees in "Participants" are right out of the WSJ article, which for Warraq talks about his book Why I Am Not a Muslim. The WSJ is not going to be the vehicle for your crusade to suppress information about these people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

just a note about wafa sultan. she is an advisory board member of "stop islamization of nations" (sion) [11]. sion is part of the islamophobic counterjihad-movement. they're planning to attend the upcoming counterjihad-conference in stockholm this year, [12]. thus, wafa sultan is not merely a "critic of muslim society and islam"...-- altetendekrabbe  17:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there other wording you would suggest? I've been concerned throughout my editing of this article about attempts to suppress the anti-Islam positions of many of the speakers, but in this particular section I'm less worried about how we describe her since we immediately provide her quote about not thinking moderate Muslims exist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

it should be mentioned that wafa sultan is a board member of sion, a counterjihadist-group. not mentioning this fact is quite misleading and exonerates her views that are highly partisan and political. the counterjihad-movement is an *extremist* movement. see e.g. this report published by the international centre for counter-terrorism, [13].-- altetendekrabbe  17:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

We should be careful not to bring in too much outside material (ie. material from sources that are not about the article subject, the summit). This is because there's plenty of material out there on Sultan, and we don't want to give a selective impression by choosing some facts but not others from equal sources. Even the NYT cite added is potentially OR-ish. Also, SION was founded several years after the summit, so we can't suggest that she was a board member at the time. Surely there must be a way of conveying her views without bringing in original material? What do people think of "opponent of Islam"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

fine with me.-- altetendekrabbe  18:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer my version. If we think of a description by ourselves (without any sources), people with other opinions will think this will be POV-pushing.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why you prefer "critic of Islam" to "opponent of Islam"? This seems to be the substantive difference between our preferred version. Neither one comes from a source related to the summit (which is to say, if we're going to be pulling in external sources, we could source "opponent" just as easily, or more so, as "critic"). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I already explained that before: 1) it is sourced by the NYT and 2) it is the same description as used in Mrs. Sultan's own article. If you find a better source than the NYT, you may edit the description in your way and change it into 'opponent'. But Roscelese, these kind of discussions make me think of deleting the descriptions of the persons. They have their own articles, and one can check over there who mrs. Sultan/mr. Barraq is. And by the way, why are you making such a fuzz on a description which is "fine" according to your comment on 30 July?Jeff5102 (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing with the NYT article (besides that it arguably sources opponent just as well as critic) is that, since it's just used to source stuff about Sultan and not about the summit, we have no reason to prefer it to any of the equally reliable sources that use "opponent" such as [14] (My comment earlier: it's fine but the more accurate language is preferable.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. On the other hand, there is the Sydney Morning Herald which seems to be a decent source with a reasonable depth of coverage", which describes Wafa Sultan as a courageous critic of jihadist terrorism and societies such as Syria. If a person can be described in so many different ways, I really think we'd better delete the descriptions in this article. As you see, even WITH reliable sources a description of those islam(ism)-critics/opponents can easily be seen as POV-pushing. These kind of problems make me wish I was helping to create an encyclopedia in a simpler world. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an op-ed, which we naturally should avoid for descriptions of this kind. Anyway, I think it's important to give some sort of brief blurb about Sultan so that the reader can have context for the statements without having to click through, and I think that (obviously considering that some sources say critic and some say opponent) it's not unfair to describe someone who believes that Islam is a coercive political and terrorist ideology as an opponent of or anti-Islam. ("Anti-Islam" is also very well sourced, would you say "anti-Islam" or "anti-Muslim author who was born in Syria and immigrated to the United States" was good? It's more wordy but "anti-Muslim Syrian-born American author" sounds weird to me.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Not in a section on reception! Reception is about reception. — kwami (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

How nice of you to join us; perhaps you would care to refresh your memory of what the discussion is actually about before making a meaningless comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Chronological order?

I don't really care either way, but it should probably be discussed at this point. I can see an argument for having everything in chronological order, but there's an equally good argument for having just two paragraphs, one with the positive reception, one with the negative. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any real value to chronological order since everything happened around the same time. I had previously separated it into secondary sources (at present, we just have Haddad) and primary sources (op-eds etc.). There is also the paragraph on the CAIR meeting that accumulated its own op-eds, but I wasn't sure how to easily separate those. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Adjwilley's 2nd suggestion is how it's usually done: unless you're trying to push the negative POV, of course, as you have been doing for months (years?). — kwami (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It also so happens that the secondarily-sourced and primarily-sourced criticism split fairly well into positive and negative, so we can leave the article at the better version, as I edited it. Would you like to explain why we should promote the worse sources over the better sources? Do recall that "they make a thing I like look better" is not a policy-compliant reason. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Better" means you agree with it, "worse" means you disagree with it – that's not how we use those words on WP. When citing facts, 2ary sources are preferred over primary. When giving opinions, they aren't: we're simply giving opinions.

The default order is positive reception then negative reception. When you change that, you're promoting a particular side. We might do that with pseudoscience, when there's academic consensus that pro side is idiotic, but we have no indication that's the case here. — kwami (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could cite some policy or consensus, instead of just declaring that we don't care about secondary sources anymore. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)