Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Solomon

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 01:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Serious article issues have been brought up and have not been addressed.

Sam Solomon

(

)

... that a former Muslim has claimed that Muslim immigration is an Islamic strategy, based on the hijra? Source: Based on his book, implicit in the title Modern Day Trojan Horse: Al-Hijra, the Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam? Sources describing it [1], [2]
- Reviewed:

Created by Thismess (talk). Self-nominated at 15:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sam Solomon; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

I think more input from a more experienced editor is also needed in addition to mine for this review, but I'm going to say no.

I want to state this upfront: my reasoning is not because I disagree with the views (I partially agree with the main premise that Islam prioritizes its spread, but I disagree with many of the peripheral claims made by the authors you cite. Also there's plenty of DYKs I disagree with that I'd still happily approve), I am denying it because the sources provided are not 100% ironclad, when even you would probably agree the topic is extremely controversial.

I'll also state that I won't get into a political conversation about whether or not these beliefs are valid. Neither of us would convince each other of anything. Let's focus solely on the criteria needed to approve a DYK on any controversial topic.

The second source I suspect is plainly unreliable, as it's published by First Edition Design Publishing, which appears to be an ebook publisher (vanity press?). If the source was uncontroversial and from a well-known and universally-respected author, it could maybe get a pass, but the book is called "Islam – A Threat to Civilization", and reads ...the Europe which your fathers and grandfathers fought and died for is not the Europe we are living in today... It has changed beyond recognition as a result of [...] mass immigration driven by the dangerous force of islam [sic]... I am here with a battle cry: "Wake up, Christians of Tennessee. Islam is at your gate." Do not make the mistake which Europe made. Do not allow islam [sic] to gain a foothold here. This is objectively a pursuasive essay on a controversial topic, self-publishing does not cut it. Even if it wasn't self-published, I'd still question whether or not its a reliable source given its open POV pushing (and yes, I also constantly reject left-leaning sources. My favorite sources are basically timelines with statistics).

The first source leans more reliable, although I have other issues with it. It's written by William Kilpatrick, who's written pieces that say ...But if you’re looking for a single sign that the world’s going to Hell, my candidate would be the queering of the U.S. military. I’m not talking specifically about the gaying of the Army—although that’s a large part of the problem... [3], as well as The question is not an academic one. We can expect more—if not many more—violent attacks by trans individuals. [4]. Kilpatrick publishes through third parties, which is largely fine. It's maybe worth noting that Kilpatrick's book is published by the Catholic Ignatius Press, but plenty of religious publishers are basically universally respected; the reason I mention it is because of potential conflict of interest due to religious tension.

My main issue is that I don't think Kilpatrick is trustworthy. The flippant tone Kilpatrick employs while writing about such serious problems, as well as the haphazard generalizations that he makes about millions of people are so egrigious that I would never consciously use writing from him. The burden of responsibility for writing on serious issues is extremely high. You cannot slip up, and every controversial claim needs to come with mountains of evidence, but Kilpatrick doesn't do his diligence (and no, opinion pieces don't excuse this behavior). I write a lot on extremely controversial topics, stuff that's gotten people lynched in the past, and I would be petrified to use sources from people like him because it could destroy my credibility in an instant.

If anyone else has any input, please share, but I feel this is unlikely to pass unless you find ironclad neutrally-written peer reviewed sources from reputable publishers. I personally would never have put forward a DYK nom this controversial unless I was putting forward sources nobody would be able to question. toobigtokale (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand your concerns. Just for reference though I have exchanged the most problematic source in the article with a better one. Thismess (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for being receptive. I'm going to be blunt and say this nom does not reflect well on your intentions, even if this is fixed. Even in the best case, where you were skimming sources to find what you needed and didn't scrutinize the source, that's extremely irresponsible and seems like you're rushing to support a conclusion. And for a conclusion like this... Do you see how that looks?

I'm going to be keeping an eye out for future nominations or similar from you, especially if it's on this or similar topics, and will scrutinize your work. Although I'd do this to any controversial topic anyway.

When you write damning things about over a billion people, your writing must be immaculate. Be prepared to bring your A game if you write on this topic again. toobigtokale (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)