Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Islam and Controversy task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Islam/Islam and Controversy task force page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This project page was nominated for deletion on 15 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is a new Taskforce

I created this taskforce modelled on the other Islam related taskforces, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Muslim scholars task force. Any suggestions? The taskforce page is basically empty as you can see. This taskforce has been created so editors critical and non-critical of Islam can join hands in improving articles critical of Islam. Also hopefully, edit wars can be prevented or atleast reduced using this approach. --Matt57 00:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've needed this for a long time. Arrow740 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have. I think this was the best way to create such a collaboration. I believe the WikiProject Islam is not enough NPOV. There are many places on WP where people non-critical of Islam have grouped together, but there was no place there people critical of Islam could group together for collaboration. Hopefully this should help in improving the Criticism of Islam related articles. Although the members of this group will be from both sides, the main aim will be to improve these articles and so hopefully we can work together. --Matt57 01:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia should be hosting camps for pro-Islam and anti-Islam groups. The Wikiproject Islam page isn't meant for pro-islam views only. Your saying there isnt a place for people critical of Islam to get together, is this the place for that? If so, your not promoting NPOV but anti-Islam POV. At best this area is redundant because Wikiproject Islam already exists and doesnt exclude any opinion, at worst its meant to promote islam-bashing. Shams2006 01:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response was not surprising. Would you say that Criticism of Islam also exists for 'Islam bashing'? Criticism of Islam is a major article which has many sub-articles. I already stated above that everyone can get together and improve the articles in this area. There are many people who are interested in this area, hence this sub-project. Please check the main page of the project and see the full list of Taskforces there. When those task forces can exist, I dont see why there should be an issue about having this taskforce. This is one of many task forces which are all grouped according to a certain topic or area of interest in Islam.--Matt57 02:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably strike out the sentence in your comment above that this place is for people "critical of Islam" to gather. I've spent a lot of time on the CoI pages and I'm not here to be critical of Islam, I'm here to improve the quality of articles about that criticism, both the criticism itself and the responses. We all leave our various ideological allegiances at the door when we come to Wikipedia as editors. - Merzbow 06:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have felt...unwanted in the other Islam-related groups. That's probably what he was referring to. Arrow740 11:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver got the point below; there's nothing else for us to join. Arrow740 02:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merzow, I've struck it out now - yes my original motive is for us to get a handle on these articles and to somehow prevent them from being POV Edit war battlegrounds. Now the issue is: How should we use this taskforce to make these articles better? Thats the issue now. I asked Striver for his advice who's done this kind of work on Islam articles. --Matt57 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can strike out the comment but that doesnt change the purpose you created this grouping for. Arrow apparently feels the same way you do. The purpose this group serves is as a gathering place for anti-Islam people. If not that its redundant as Wikiproject Islam already exists. I dont think Wikipedia intended to allow for groups devoted to criticizing a single topic. There are groups (wikiprojects) which specialize on categories of topics, such as things related by nation or religion or culture or subject, "criticism of Islam" is a single subject with a single POV. This is wrong for the same reason POV-driven articles are always wrong. Shams2006 02:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my original or stronger motivation, as you can see in my first post. For detail, see my last post below. --Matt57 05:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that is precisely the impression i was getting. in the consideration of instances like that (i guess we can call it a freudian slip) and Matt's participation on the faithfreedom forums where he routinely reports his wiki-travails to notify all of his e-friends, or Arrow's advocation of forming a group to forward a specific POV on the wiki, then it becomes rather difficult to ignore the possibility that there is an entirely different motivation at hand here. ITAQALLAH 02:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740, i do not like many of your comments and edits, and i suppose the same is true regarding your view of my edits and comments, but if i have contributed to you feeling unwanted in the main project, i sincerely apologies - in my eyes, you are welcomed there and if anything in particular is making you feel unwanted, then tell me and i will personally look into it. As for this project. Yes, i could agree that it is needed. But, and a BIG but... uh... not that kind... anyway... comments like "has been created so editors critical and non-critical of Islam can join hands in" is giving this project a very bad start. You do not want to START it with making such distinctions. As Merzbow stated, "We all leave our various ideological allegiances at the door when we come to Wikipedia as editors"... or at least try to. I know i need to struggle with myself on occasions, but at least i get a bad conscious if i blatantly fail to do so. For example, it was me that created Controversies related to Islam and Muslims and its template, and it was me that splited out Criticism of Muhammad and Criticism of the Qur'an in contrast to the bigots that merged together all of Alex Jones sites and deleted all of them, together with all his movies, and i am not going to write what i think about those peoples... I HATE that kind of behavior, and if you even catch me being a bigot, give me the url of this diff to my talk page, and ill get the message. We are not here to promote Islam or disprove it, we are here to represent notable views of it, as long as we remember that, I'm fine with adding "anti-Islam" text and everybody should be ok with adding "pro-Islam" text.--Striver 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<reset>First, my motivation was clear and simple: To improve the articles on Criticism of Islam to the point where they are featured on the Main page. That is our goal. It doesnt matter if that means that people critical of Islam will get together on this. They wont obviously and they cant. Projects cant be excluded to a certain faith system or exlude people of a certain faith system. The purpose of this group is to improve the articles on this topic and thats what this task force is for. And really its not a big deal because if you look at the other taskforces like this one, there's almost no activity anywhere. If I donated $5000 to charity and someone says I did it to lighten my wallet, well thats one perception. The main thing is, I donated to charity. Here the main thing is, the improvement of the articles under these topics. As you can see in the Suggestions area, this taskforce is already being put to use. --Matt57 05:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea maybe is innocent, but I think this is the wrong way to go about it. I feel this project may need to be deleted, given its potential to be misused. Shams2006 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaan? Whats the CORRECT way then? CAn you give any suggestions? And if thats the way you want to go, thats fine. If these project pages get deleted, I will create the related sections on the Wiki Project Islam's MAIN PAGE so you'll be happier in that case I hope. In either way, there is nothing wrong with a taskforce formed to improve articles critical of Islam. And you are wrong by the way in assuming that this taskforce is formed for a POV. You do see Muslims editing articles critical of Islam, right? So there, you are proved wrong. Lets see what happens now. Like I say, there are millions of attempts to silence the criticms of Islam and this is one of them, yet again - this goes on in Wikipedia all the time. --Matt57 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you're conspiracy theorising. you don't seem to appreciate the principle of assuming good faith of other editors, especially with those who you think are Muslim. if you cannot stop treating fellow editors with suspicion for even a moment, then i don't know how well that bodes for your future participation on wikipedia. ITAQALLAH 06:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegations of conspiracy are irrelevant. As I said, my aim is to pursue a higher quality of articles relating to Criticism of Islam, which has many related sub-articles and this is what I will aim for, whether it is through this task force or the project's main page or anything else. I dont understand why any one would have a problem with this. My aim for example is to make sure that Aisha's age at marriage appears on Wikipedia's main page. Do you agree with this mission and if not, why not? This is an article relating to Islam after all. --Matt57 12:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use the Wikiproject Islam mainspace. It's that simple. Shams2006 18:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's no rule being broken here by creating a new taskforce to focus on one type of articles (Criticism of Islam). I can take all of this stuff to the main page and create a big sub-section on the Project's main page though - its up to anyone else who opposes it. My preference is to keep the pages confined here so the effort can be focused. I dont think other members of the project would like to see the Project's main page cluttered - the taskforce will help to keep the clutter out of there. Tahts why we have taskforces on everything else as you can see on the project main page. Plus not much is going to go on these taskforces so I think that should relieve you a little. --Matt57 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, is there a userbox to go with the group?

The title says it all!--Boris Johnson VC 16:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking for now we can use the main project's userbox:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Islam.

This is what I'm using right now. If the project develops more into a successful positive activity, maybe later with the consensus of all the members, we can have a userbox saying something like "This user is a member of the Criticism of Islam taskforce".--Matt57 00:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox does really look good, but i personally rather not use the crescent --Striver 01:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to use my own userbox with the version of the new logo because I really liked the new logo and I feel the author of the logo made a great effort as well.--Matt57 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to do so for all i know. Peace. --Striver 11:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of this group, as predicted

Why is "Dhimmi" listed in Category:Criticism of Islam ? Islamist Terrorism? Why "persecution by Muslims"? These aren't "criticism" articles even if people edit them to take advantage of an opportunity to bash Muslims through ancient history. These articles SHOULD be about historic practices or occurances that are sober and objective, not biased by peoples own opinions and POV. Just because you see an opportunity to bash Islam doesnt mean all articles on Islam fall in this category. As I suspected, this group is going to be used to abuse Muslims through mockeries in articles relating closely or distantly to Islam. Shams2006 06:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "Dhimmi" was an inappropriate listing, but next time leave out the unjustified accusations. - Merzbow 08:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're open to change the listing of the article with a good reasoning. There is no more "abuse" in this group as there can be in any other group. Thats why everyone is encouraged to participate. Would you say these articles were better included in an "Islam and controversy" category ? I would say so.--Matt57 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pertinent CFD

Interested editors should see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, a proposal that Category:Anti-Islam sentiment should be superceded by Category:Critics of Islam and Category:Islam-related controversies. — coelacan talk — 15:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Islam articles

We need to expand the focus of this task force to include all such articles. This should be the "Controversial Islam Articles" task force. That would include criticism of Islam articles, obviously. Arrow740 00:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i disagree. "controversial" is ambiguous and subjective. "criticism" is more precise in the types of articles to be dealt with, such as Criticism of Islam. everything else, such as Jihad, Jizya and so on, belong rightly under the main WikiProject. ITAQALLAH 01:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Than maybe we should rename this task force "Controversial Islam related articles task force," and expand our focus. Comments?--Sefringle 07:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well i just answered that above. regardless, "controversial" topics ("articles" is the incorrect word to use), as well as the non-controversial ones, come under the jurisdiction of the main WP:ISLAM. ITAQALLAH 17:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sefringle, actually that was what I had thought in the beginning too when people tried to get this taskforce deleted. If the taskforce is renamed to "Islam and Controversy taskforce", you're right it would cover more articles and would look less "threatening" as well, so I vote for this rename, it is appropriate I think.--Matt57 18:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there's no reason why 'controversial' Islam articles should not be focused on by the main wikiproject. regardless, "controversial" is a subjective and ambiguous ambiguous judgement. the current name incorporates a well-defined series of articles. ITAQALLAH 20:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Matt. Arrow740 07:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

templete

I suggest replacing the {{WikiProject Criticism of Islam}} templete with the following templete:--Sefringle 05:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{WikiProject Islam|Criticism of Islam=yes}}

Criticism of dhimma

There have been books written criticizing dhimma. We should have an article about this criticism. Any thoughts? Arrow740 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but a new article on Dhimma could be justified if there was an existing Citicism section on that article. --Matt57 23:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename this taskforce to "Islam and Controversy"

This has been brought up by some before. I propose the renaming (moving) of this taskforce to "Islam and Controversy". This sounds less threatening and can cover a broader range of articles.--Matt57 20:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is an ambiguous title, "controversy" is a subjective judgement. it covers no well-defined set of articles unlike the other task forces, and hence it seems unecessary. ITAQALLAH 21:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have the whole SERIES of articles on "Islam and Controversy" Template:Muslims and controversies. Do you suggest we create a new template for "Criticism of Islam" so we can group all related articles there? Islam and Controversy is a good name. --~~

i don't think so, i think it's ambiguous, and there doesn't seem to be any good reason why such articles can't be handled by the main WikiProject. ITAQALLAH 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? So you're saying we should delete all the other taskforces as well? --Matt57 22:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i see no need for them. they are all defunct and unnecessary IMO. but in any case, at least they are specific. ITAQALLAH 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Why havent I seen you ever protesting to get those taskforces deleted? --Matt57 22:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it would be nice to see you engaging in constructive dialogue without always firing a barrage of questions. see WP:AGF. ITAQALLAH 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You assume bad faith yourself when you accuse others of bad faith. My issue is simple: If you think those other taskforces should be deleted, then I want to see you putting MfD on all the taskforces. Otherwise please do not propose that we should manage Criticism/controversy related on the Main project space. If you're not going to MfD all the taskforces, I will rename this taskforce to Islam and Controversy soon, unless I see a lot of justified opposition from other people. We have talked about this above before and others supported the idea of renaming, so I will move this task force soon.--Matt57 23:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't for you to judge what 'opposition' is justified and what isn't. see WP:OWN. i simply advised you to stop interrogating others with consecutive questioning, for that too is a form of trolling. i see no problem with wider community input, but you're going to have to try responding to my concerns instead of brushing them aside with red-herring interrogation. ITAQALLAH 23:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<r> As I have said, I didnt you see asking for those other taskforces to be deleted and yet you believe we should not have this taskforce. Can you explain why you oppose this taskforce but have not voiced opposition before to get rid of the other taskforces? More importantly: Here's my response to your concerns: No, an "Islam and Controversy" taskforce would not be ambigous. Thats why we have a TEMPLATE based on the subject. Do you think the template is vague too? You did not respond to this as well before. So I'll ask for the 2nd time: Is the "Islam and Controversy" template vague or not? When you keep ignoring my questions and concerns, I dont see how you're the one accusing ME of "brushing concerns aside with red-herrings". --Matt57 23:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't say i opposed this taskforce's existence, i said i opposed it becoming ambiguous as you proposed, when we already have the main WikiProject to deal with the general topics. this is the nth time you have rushed to premature accusations. i have no opinion about the template, comparing templates to wikiprojects is a case of apples and oranges. the proposed "task force" is ambiguous, unlike the other task forces. what prevents the main WikiProject from dealing with miscellaneous articles that may or may not fall under one's subjective judgement of 'controversy'? ITAQALLAH 23:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still didnt address all of my concerns. You have said "there doesn't seem to be any good reason why such articles can't be handled by the main WikiProject" - which means you oppose this taskforce. Name a few articles where there is ambiguity whether they belong to a proposed 'Islam and controversy' taskforce, or some other taskforce. If you cant name those few articles, then you are wrong in saying that the new name would be ambigous. Remember that I created this taskforce. I guess I could have created the right name back then and then we'd all be ok with it.--Matt57 23:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tend to agree with Itaqallah... the main Wikiproject pages aren't very busy as it is and this page is even less active. Redundancy deletion makes sense. (→Netscott) 23:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that it doesnt make sense for anyone to say that this taskforce should be deleted while the others can stay? --Matt57 00:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see: straw man. "You have said "there doesn't seem to be any good reason why such articles can't be handled by the main WikiProject" - which means you oppose this taskforce." -err, i'm talking about articles which may be perceived as "controversial", while outside of the scope of this taskforce. you asked for examples, well any article one personally consideres a 'controversy' could be included. i would support a redundancy deletion of all taskforces. i think i've sufficiently expressed my points here. ITAQALLAH 00:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you failed to provide examples. The fact that there's disagreement between whether or not a certain article belongs to one taskforce or another, is not a factor in saying that the taskforce shouldnt be there. Also, it really isnt a big deal whether an article belongs to one task force or not. --Matt57 00:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial is too subjective to have a wikipedia task force on. --Aminz 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed

The taskforce has been renamed to Islam and Controversy after discussion. --Matt57 13:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you failed to adequately discuss this move or coherently argue your points in the face of editorial opposition. such action is thus unilateral and disruptive. ITAQALLAH 16:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the move had been discussed 3 months ago and people agreed to the move. Infact, this move was first proposed by Arrow740 and supported by Sefringle, while no good reason was given to oppose the move then. Your attempt to propose a re-move is a disruption. --Matt57 20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"no good reason" is your own conclusion. 'people agreed to the move'- apparently, and the move was also disagreed upon. ITAQALLAH 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are failing to give any reasons for the move/rename you are trying to do.--Matt57 22:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lack of consensus from this unilateral action necessitates we restore the previous page name. ITAQALLAH 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins sometimes take an action even when there has been no consensus. They take action depending on the best decision to take. Good reasons were given for the rename in January and now, none for keeping the name. --Matt57 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're not an admin. see WP:CONSENSUS. you are also not the adjudicator on this page, so it doesn't matter what reasons you consider valid or invalid. ITAQALLAH 22:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ItaqAllah, please continue the discussion below where you proposed to move it back. --Matt57 22:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

as explained earlier, there was no consensus for this hasty and unilateral move, with the moving editor, as shown above, unwilling to allow for community discussion to develop. ITAQALLAH 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move: Keep the current new title. There HAS been discussion on this before 3 months ago. People supported this rename. No valid reason was given by you to not rename to the curent title, except "Its vague". When I asked you to explain why its vague, you didnt respond. This is a better title. It can cover more articles and is less threatening. Now to mention that it was me who created the group in the first place. Yes, I'm not "owning" anything but the fact is if I had created the task force with that title at the time, no one would have asked it to be renamed to "Criticism of Islam" as it was entrely my own idea. --Matt57 18:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "There HAS been discussion on this before 3 months ago" it was opposed then too. you acted unilaterally without consensus, and so this move remains unjustified. please do not misrepresent opposing arguments. ITAQALLAH 18:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arrow740 was actually the one who PROPOSED the move and this was SUPPORTED by Sefringle. No valid reason was given to oppose the move at that time. Please dont falsely accuse others of misrepresenting others. --Matt57 18:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - see WP:NAM. the same reason was given then as given now. whether or not you believe it is valid is irrelevant, as you are partial to the debate. indeed, i said it is 'vague', arguing that such articles fitting one's subjective judgement of "controversial" (maybe one thinks 'Islam' itself is controversial) could typically be handled by the main WikiProject. you then engaged in a series of unrelated questioning, as can be seen above. finally, you unilaterally performed the move, without regard for achieving consensus. ITAQALLAH 22:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - How is WP:NAM relevant here? I'm done discussing this topic with you for now. We will wait for other users to provide their opinions on this rename. --Matt57 22:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a good idea to try it. We'll see how it goes. Arrow740 22:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        NAM is a reminder for us both to calm down. ITAQALLAH 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Arrow, thanks, if you could write Oppose or Keep (the current title) like I did, that would be good. This was your suggestion actually infact, so thanks for that. We are facing unecessary opposition and difficulty. --Matt57 22:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move We all know a controversial article when we see it. It's good to have a taskforce to direct congenial, balanced editing of such articles. Arrow740 22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose move Consensus is pretty clear. No move. You seem to be the only one in support for the move. The current name is better and makes this substance of this wikiproject more broad, but a better name would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Controversial Islam-related articles task force.--Sefringle 04:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'controversial'?

this is exactly the ambiguity i had previously mentioned, which is currently being exploited. what makes the articles i removed 'controversial'? content disputes don't make the topic itself controversial. ITAQALLAH 22:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an article pushes a certian POV, or is about a specific POV it is controversial.--Sefringle 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Itaqallah, what is being exploited here? All this taskforce is doing is putting more focus on an article. That can only be better for an article. If an article contains controversy and difference of opinion and POV issues and all the ones you removed, did - then it belongs in this list. Like I said on your talk page, there's no harm in having an article here. All we're trying to do is improve the articles by putting more focus on them. Please cooperate so we can achieve the objectives of this taskforce. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a content dispute doesn't necessitate that the article topic is 'controversial'. there is no need for a separate taskforce to deal with content disputes. task forces are topical. ITAQALLAH 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. Please see the defination of controversy: "A controversy or dispute is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate. " --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and this taskforce concentrates on disputes concerning the subject to be reported upon in articles, not on content disputes themselves. for content disputes, we have dispute resolution and the POV-articles WikiProject Islam template. ITAQALLAH 22:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point?--Sefringle 23:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itaq, I didnt see any justification from you, explaining why its a bad idea to have an article on the list. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it includes articles that do not belong here, such as 'Islamic ethics'. task forces are supposed to allow for focus on specific sub-topics, and to turn this page into one drawing focus to 'content disputes' makes it redundant and perhaps, looking at the circumstances, tantamount to canvassing. ITAQALLAH 23:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic ethics needs to be evaluated to make sure it doesnt have POV issues. There's nothing wrong in having that article there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

every article on Wikipedia needs to be 'evaluated to make sure it doesnt have POV issues'. there is no POV dispute, nor it is a 'controversial' topic. by your own standards, it shouldn't be here. this is no longer a topical task force like the other task forces, and it serves no encyclopedic use not already facilitated for. its only apparent usage is as i have highlighted above. ITAQALLAH 23:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment of the taskforce's "usage" is incorrect. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Itaqallah says every article should not be POV. If you dispute the content of Islamic ethics article, that can be addressed on its own talk page. There might already be the category of disputed article. I also don't like the creator's motivation: "This taskforce has been created so editors critical and non-critical of Islam can join hands in improving articles critical of Islam."- "Articles critical of Islam". That's not NPOV but anyways, Islamic ethics is not critical of Islam. --Aminz 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt has not justified the inclusion of numerous articles that quite simply don't belong here. Aminz, since the unilateral ambiguation performed by Matt57, it seems that this task force does little other than advertise those articles where certain 'attention' is needed. i don't see any basis for this task force if it does not strive to focus on a particular topic like the other task forces do. ITAQALLAH 00:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itaqallah, "focus"? According to yourself, the taskforces are redundant and they should all be deleted. Do you still hold that opinion? You or Aminz have not given a reason as to why its harmful for an article to be listed in this taskforce. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reset>Matt, let us not engage in red herrings. they are all redundant, but at least they had specified a topic of focus. you formed this taskforce citing them as precedent. you no longer have that precedent. please argue what use this taskforce serves, if it is not topically-focused. pages that are not genuinely useful or of encyclopedic benefit, regardless of whether or not they are harmful, are deleted. ITAQALLAH 01:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ask what use this taskforce serves? To improve and maintain articles where POV issues exist and where disputes between editors are common. This is a taskforce beneficial for all editors, not just me. Its for you as well. Many topics in Islam need a "watch". You can use the list of articles as a watch-list to check for POV vandalism, deletion of content and what not. Its a taskforce to improve controversial Islam related articles, as the objective says. I still havent heard any reason from you as to why this taskforce is detrimental. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually, {{Islam Open Tasks}} seems to do that exact job quite nicely. if this page serves no genuine and unique use, then it is unnecessary baggage, and such is generally deleted from Wikipedia. ITAQALLAH 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The taskforce is more than that little table. The table cannot substitute for the taskforce. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please explain why not. the title of this taskforce belies its purpose: it is to canvass articles that are undergoing content disputes, regardless of whether or not the topic itself is actually considered 'controversial' in relation to Islam. i may request outside community comments on this shortly, as it doesn't seem that we have much else to say to eachother. ITAQALLAH 02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, outside opinions will help. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my discussion with Sefringle here [1].

I suggest renaming this task to Article Improvement task force from Islam and Controversy task force--Aminz 06:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Article Improvement task force" doesn't mention Islam, so it shouldn't be used. This has already gone through a deletion review and the result was keep. NN 06:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, how about renaming all the other taskforces as "Article Improvemment Sub-task 1", and 2 and so on. Then I could agree with your proposal. I wish people would stop being suspicious of this taskforce. Its only aim as is mentioned is to improve the quality of articles and you are all members of it, those who oppose the taskforce so I dont see why you would oppose it. It exists so everyone can take advantage of it--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Observations on Islamic Articles

This is largely based on a message I left on Matt's page. Since I started working on the Islamic articles I have noticed some editors push forward the following standards that are not derived from Wiki policies. Notably:

1) The prohibition against quoting the Koran. The Koran is a primary source. Wiki policy clearly says that primary sources can be used for descriptive purposes. What is prohibited is making interpretations.

2) The prohibition of presenting views of those who are not "renowned scholars" or "PhDs" etc. There is no Wiki policy that states that these are necessities. Anyone who took the trouble of acquiring a degree in Islam would probably be sympathetic to it. This standard blocks out much valid criticism of Islam.

3) Shunting off criticisms of Islam to secondary articles like "Criticism of the Koran". If this standard was applied uniformly there would only be neutral or positive opinions in articles, whereas all criticism would end up in secondary articles. Readers of articles would not get balanced views. Criticisms that are referenced and from RS (defined according to Wiki, and not some extra-Wiki standard) are entitled to be added to articles. Criticism cannot be removed simply because some editors sympathetic to Islam wish to hide it from the public.

Don't forget 4) Removing links to critical articles from other articles and templates. Mike Young (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that the above standards are "extra-Wiki", and therefore invalid. As far as I understand, there are no special standards for Islam in Wiki.

NN 09:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) there is no prohibition on quoting a primary source. there is a prohibition on manipulating a primary source, as you have previously done, or on quoting it in an inappropriate manner or context. 2) see WP:RS. claiming that those who are qualified to speak authoritatively about Islam must be sympathetic to it is an unfounded, "extra-wiki" argument. 3) see WP:NPOV. again, you have lowered the standard of RS to polemicists on partisan websites, so this premise must first be corrected before we even think about discussing article content. ITAQALLAH 12:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"polemicists on partisan websites". Instead of name calling, it would be more convincing if you were to point out where Arlandson has made errors, for example provided wrong information. NN 18:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page should deal with the reason for Islamic Terrorism and related questions. E.g. was it always this way. If not how did it develop. These are questions I am curious about.

No link from main Islam Template

I think there should be a link to the list of controversies from the Main Islam template. I beleive the interest shown in controversial subjects (which can be inferred by the edit count and size of discussions) means that many people will want to look at the articles on controversies. But they won't be able to find them from the template. Any comments? Mike Young (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be, and has already been discussed at Template talk:Islam. "Edit count" and "discussion size" (through which you're inferring "popularity") have no bearing on content decisions, unless this is discussed in some policy or guideline that I'm not aware of. ITAQALLAH 17:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:17, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Look over Wahhabi article?

Hi, Sorry if I'm in the wrong place. I'm looking for somewhere to ask if someone would mind looking over the Wahhabi article and talk page; maybe the Salafi article, too? There are maybe problems with the neutrality of the article; some of it needs better referencing and some needs copy editing.

[User, a new and vocal Salafi editor is rather upset at what he sees as bias and I've hopefully managed to steer him and another user away from mass deletion of content to discussion on the talk page, but there's not a lot of discussion from others. I've also tried to sort out one or two issues in the Wahhabi article, but Islam is not my field and it really requires an expert. Any help appreciated, thanks, Esowteric+Talk 21:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also related messages on users talk page and my own. Esowteric+Talk 21:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

A discussion has begun here to decide if the article Nakoula Basseley Nakoula should be merged to Innocence of Muslims Please discuss this at the talkpage indicated to keep all discussion centrally located. An AFD was recently closed as "Keep" with the suggestion that the article could be proposed for merger. Please help collaborate on a consensus. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innocence of Muslims

We have an edit war beginning that I wish to nip in the bud (one way, or the other). Guidelines suggest asking at the involved projects and I am very much about Wikipedia WikiProjects so....... I am asking if the film article Innocence of Muslims should include a full section detailing the protests or just a mention alone in context and with secondary sources be included?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ahbash

With reference to the discussions at the Al-Ahbash page, it becomes abundantly clear that the subject ofAl-Ahbash isextremely controversial, thus, that page desperately need the involvement of some previously non-involved, impartial, neutral, just, fair and knowledgeable editors who can kindly help with a version ofAl-Ahbash (and other Al-Ahbash related pages) which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Your kind and precious help would begreatly appreciated. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the lead mention that the majority of victims were Hispanic, and should the lead mention that Pulse was hosting a Latin night?. - Mr X 13:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? Please post on that page if you have a comment. Felsic2 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed on Umm Qirfa antti islamic properganda

This new user who went against the last stable version after a month of no new accusations and said it was unreliable or unsensible he gave no proof that the sources are unreliable he played the same trick ratna played previously and stop me from editing by having the wikipedia page protected and even after lengthy talks in the talk page with a admin c.fred and ratnahattin not even ratnahastin could prove these sources given in my version were unreliable so why has my edit been reverted and page protected so I can't revert it?

My version was stable for a month before this new user and vandal TolWol56 came he reverted to ratnahastins version which the second part ratna wrote wasnt even concerning her which had been addressed. Shouldnt his removal of my text be a consensus before its done?

Tolwol56 plays the same tactics as ratna and accuse me of another user exil who reverted his edits I am not exil but if he keeps playing this game I can accuse him to be ratna is he so eager to use his version and same accusation?

His new accusations is that the sources I used are from taha publications again ratna made this accusation but didnt explain which one.

Even if it did taha publication has been around for forty years I dont see how they are unreliable as a publishing site?

https://www.tahapublishers.com/about-us/

So can anyone deal with this here is the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umm_Qirfa here is my edit whicvh was reverted after a month long period of no new accusation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umm_Qirfa&oldid=1044995801

Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.96 (talk) 00:05, 23 Sep 2021 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 09:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Hezbollah

Hezbollah has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]