Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:01, 22 November 2020

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Faith Freedom International. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about Faith Freedom International at the Reference desk.

Islam Redirect‑class Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Redirect‑class

This redirect is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This redirect is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: closure endorsed, October 18, 2010, see discussion. keep, October 2, 2010, see discussion. no consensus, December 5, 2006, see discussion. delete, July 9, 2005, see discussion.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Faith Freedom International was copied or moved into WikiIslam with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

New website launched in response

www.faithfreedom.com

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

Richard Dawkin's website no longer lists FFI

not listed here

recently removed by popular demand

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

I don't see why we would note it - no serious sources have noted this AFAIK. We already have enough problems with insignificant stuff in this article, and I don't think another one would help. The Behnam 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's convenient-- FFI's listing in the Appendix of a book is mentioned as if it were a tacit endorsement by Dawkins of the site, and THAT'S worth mentioning, but not the fact Dawkins removed the listing from his site after people pointed out the site was populated by Christians and Hindus engaging in polemics against Muslims rather than an atheist site "giving support" to apostates. Well, I say if the first is worth mention then the second is as well, so I'm editing it accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.34.185 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

is the website down?

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

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

How the feck should we know ? - FFI isn't hosted here ! Ttiotsw 08:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Same thing for me though... it may affect the need for this article :-p. Or at least we may have to change many things to past tense! The Behnam 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

second time this year. We'll just have to wait.--Sefringle 03:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Its been hacked thats all. By the way Mr. Ali Sina is a racist, a user called "Sona" or now "Sona2" exposed this. In fact I think it might still be on Sonas blog; Yep its there See fourth paragraph --Street Scholar 10:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that a blog isn't a reliable source to accuse someone of racism. Sefringle 22:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that Sona's blog cites the source on Ali Sina's website were he has made racist remark at Pakistanis. It's actually on his website. --Street Scholar (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Regardless of the impression Ali Sina claims to be a freethinker yet he harbors abhorrent and racist views. Attacking someone based on their skin color is cowardly. Moreover, I've also personally been on Ali Sinas website, he calls Muslims subhumans and lower then animals, the irony is apostates have family which are still Muslim. I don't respect individuals who make sensationalists statements to outrage or flame another group. --Street Scholar (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, he never called Muslims in general subhuman. That could easily be misunderstood by someone that doesn't know the difference between an individual Muslim and the actions of the organization of Islam. Here is what he actually said:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/EdipYukselp35.htm

--OxAO (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does it violate WP:V? Do medical, scientific and scholarly journals hosted on JSTOR also not warrant inclusion on Misplaced Pages merely because some people can't access them? How about the large majority of academic books that you may not have access to? I can independently verify any passage from Larsson's article - and if there's anything you feel needs check then please ask. But this pretext alone cannot be sufficient for removing what is high quality reliably sourced material.

I'd recommend we remove all external links except those which are actually reliable, whether they are for or against. I don't see how links to websites opposing FFI can be considered libel, especially as this article isn't a BLP (unlike Naik's). ITAQALLAH 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It does violate WP:V, because nobody can check it. Futhermore, it was the first issue of the magazine, so it is unclear whether this has a good reputation. And it is only one source, making the fragment WP:UNDUE. Besides, talking about islam-sites is no hard science, so the given judgements are opinions by definition. I had the same problem when I wanted to include conclusions from reports from the Stephen Roth Institute (of Tel-Aviv University) on the Adnan Oktar-article. Those conclusions couldn't be presented as facts, but as opinions at most.

And although FFI is no BLP, its webmaster Ali Shna is. Thus, websites with articles titled The stupidity of Ali Sina. or Ali Zina does it again! Yes, he makes a joke and a fool of himself! or More foul rubbish from Ali Sina. can be seen as libel.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I just told you that I can check it, as can anyone with an Athens access. JSTOR materials are also restricted in access, but their content is used in many of the featured articles on Misplaced Pages. Same with other online book resources. This cannot be a pretext for removing reliably sourced material.

Secondly, the journal is reliable, the press has a scholarly pedigree and is academically peer-reviewed. WP:UNDUE is totally irrelevant, as there are no opposing viewpoints present in reliable sources. Please refer to the first sentence of that section. "Besides, talking about islam-sites is no hard science, so the given judgements are opinions by definition." - you make it appear as if there's no academic field known as Islamic studies.

"And although FFI is no BLP, its webmaster Ali Shna is." - Did you see Sina mentioned once in the scholarly journal? Your analogies are well of the mark, there is no case of libel here at all. "Thus, websites with articles titled The stupidity of Ali Sina. or Ali Zina does it again! Yes, he makes a joke and a fool of himself! or More foul rubbish from Ali Sina. can be seen as libel." - I'm sure you're aware that the source in question says nothing of the sort. ITAQALLAH 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read that comment again and realise that you're referring to the external links, so scratch that last part. I've gone ahead and removed all of the partisan unreliable links and retained only those directly related to the topic or those which appear to be reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can mail the Larsson-piece to me; then I can judge for myself. Furthermore, I do not understand what Spenglers opnion about Islam has to do in this article. Please explain that to me. And finally, we could keep the "Articles related to Faith Freedom International or Ali Sina"in, while we get those "similar websites"-part out. In an article about Maradonna, we shouldn't put a "similar football-stars-part in it either. Jeff5102 (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: I didn't receive the Larsson-piece, so I cannot check it. THus, I reversed the WikiIslam-part.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you doubt the representation of the source, that makes you so eager to remove it? Reminding me to e-mail you would have been sufficient, you know. ITAQALLAH 18:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason is, that this article appears to be quite negative on WikiIslam. Maybe with reason, maybe not. That is why I would like to verify it.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you need to activate the e-mail address for your account, because it says 'This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.' Otherwise I can't e-mail you. ITAQALLAH 18:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That problem is solved!;)Jeff5102 (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've sent you the paper. Apologies if the tables aren't formatted correctly :o ITAQALLAH 19:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ali Sina makes a claim, Spengler disputes it. Both should be mentioned. External links should be of reasonable quality, unreliable ones like FPM etc. should simply be avoided. Similarly, websites of "opposing skew" which are similarly unreliable should also be avoided. ITAQALLAH 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Stating that someone is a fool and produces disgusting rubbish does not constitute libel. It is clearly an expression of one's opinion, and not a statement of fact. (I agree with the removal of the EL crud, though.)  --Lambiam 17:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

External links=

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

They are polemical and not considered reliable. See WP:EL. ITAQALLAH 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not considered reliable? Says who?

As I say above, I could agree with the similar websites-part, but I have trouble with the related websites. I cannot imagine why links to debates held by the webmaster of FFI couldn't contribute to a better understanding to the article. Jeff5102 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you truly believe that JW, FPM, WND, 19.org etc. are reliable websites? Community consensus is that they aren't, as was agreed over at RS/N. I think it's already be linked to on this page but I'm happy to provide it if necessary. ITAQALLAH 21:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

See: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#FrontPage_Magazine_and_WorldNetDaily. ITAQALLAH 17:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Like I said: this saves us both a pointless debate.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Itaqallah external links are not sources and don't have to be reliable but only relevant.That point was raised during the discussion about miracle in the Quran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 10:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO. You are highly inconsistent in your argument, especially as you do not restore the 'opposing websites' section alongside the 'similar websites' one. ITAQALLAH

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

This page is a mess.

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

Edits

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

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

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

O well, if you want to change it, all right. The problem I have is that this article has been changed over and over, and I thought we might have reached a consensus. However, your changes prove that I was wrong. That is quite disappointing, to be honest. I guess I'd better look for images of French revoltionaries. That is way less controversial.

Meanwhile, I took the liberty to delete a dead link, and to delete a category. With regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the article is far from perfect. Issues like sourcing have been quite long-standing. About the category, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is more specific than Category:Criticism of religion, and the former connotes something slightly different as well. I think the former is warranted especially given the discussion about FFI's project WikiIslam by an academic journal. ITAQALLAH 09:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree this article isn't perfect, but at least there appeared to be consensus. The category, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, was proposed earlier, but as you can read in the discussion, "no consensus could be reached on this proposal". Furthermore, I disagree by calling Faith Freedom a hate site, because, accoring to an anonymous user, "there is no difference between jew watch and this website". The "Jew watch"-page uses 17 sources to support this claim, while at FFI, none (NONE!) source is present. So is there any consensus on this?Jeff5102 (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hate site

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

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

Wiki Islam

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

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

TLDR: Source please.

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

Several problems and cleanup...

1. I've updated links to jpost.com, alexa.com, and ranking.com as the previous links were no longer working. Site Meter's data on the website are not accessible so I've removed them. The ranking in each of Alexa's and Ranking.com's database has increased, so I've updated that, and removed the information about fluctuating rankings in the distant past as that information is not reflected on Alexa. Anyway, all websites have fluctuating rankings so the mention is somewhat pointless.
2. There was a sentence describing the websites location Washington, and I've removed it as FFI uses a private registry service which is actually the entity registered in Washington - not FFI.
3. The debates section and political views section used only self-references, and all of the sentences dealt with claims made of third parties. Self-references may not be used in such cases per WP:SELFPUB.
4. I've removed an external link that contained no discussion of FFI. Oore (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the debates-section: how could you ever describe what the more important content of a site is, if you are not allowed to link to it??Jeff5102 (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course you're allowed to link to it. Just find secondary reliable sources that discuss the material on the website. Oore (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the problem. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, and I do not see what claim is made of third parties. You might have a case here if the persons who debated Ali Sina complain about the contents of the debate, but I have not seen any protest to it.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The claim being made of third parties is that these debates occurred with them. The reading of the rule is very clear, and no protest is required from third parties. Please do not restore this material until you've found secondary reliable sources supporting the material, as restoring it is also in violation of WP:BLP. Oore (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, as you have already seen, I placed the discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability. I hope I explained your point well. During the course of the discussion, I will not restore the material. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion took place on Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability. Following the advice of SlimVirgin, we kept out the debates-section out of the article.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB on internetsites and -debates

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

Regarding this: , the removed material seems fine to me, and can be restored, but it might need a tone adjustment to make it clear that this version of events is according to FFI. SELFPUB is not applicable here, since the events reports are events that FFI is a primary source on, as a participant in them, and merely documents the endeavors of FFI. Secondary sourcing would be preferable to give the events more context, but primary sourcing is fine for basic facts. Since the article merely summarizes and does not analyze the primary source, it seems to be sufficient for now. Considering using WP:3O for cases like this in the future rather than policy talk pages. Gigs (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Considering the extreme rhetoric used on the website (e.g. Obama being similar to Hitler, etc.) there's no reason to give any credence to the claims presented on it regarding third parties (e.g. "this person responded in so-and-so manner" and "this person refused to respond"), unless it's presented in a reliable source. Also, Jeff, your point on the articles of books doesn't follow. Most of the book articles on Misplaced Pages are not self-published. Oore (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary sourcing is heavily used in articles about works of fiction; I think that's what he's referring to. I don't see any problem in a primary source reporting on its interactions with third parties (and us using that factual information in articles). If this source was making claims about the third parties on matters outside of its own interactions with them, and we were reproducing them in the article, that would be a different matter. As always, we must be careful not to add our own analysis to such primary sourced material, but I don't see that happening here. Gigs (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I am more inclined to agree with the material's inclusion as long as it is qualified, but the other problem I have with doing that when we do that, we're making our own assessments of what is and what is not significant about the website when we choose what to include in the article. Furthermore, after reading past sections of the talk page, several editors have contested the inclusion of the material on the same grounds as I have (as can be seen here, here, and here). You should take that into consideration Jeff. Oore (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We have to make those assessments about what to include every day. We've never been able to come up with a community standard on what constitutes relevant information, however. As long as the picking and choosing isn't designed to paint a false picture, I don't see a problem there either. As for the old conversations, if you look at the ANI thread that resulted, there were several neutral editors who were saying things very similar to what I am saying here, which is why the material has remained for over 3 years since the last discussions. Gigs (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I believe that the material has been largely absent for these past years, until those editors went inactive or ceased editing this article and Jeff later reinserted it last year. What ANI thread are you referring to? Thanks. Oore (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Gigs is referring to discussion no. 48 in this archive. In it you see the contributions of the three involved editors. One involved editor was defendinding the inclusion, while the other two were the same "several editors who contested the inclusion of the material" Oore is refering to. However, you will also see that the neutral editors have no problems with the inclusion of the debates-section.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just read over that. Let's proceed with the inclusion then, but I think the text needs to be more qualified to make it more clear that the information is being presented as provided by the primary source, as those editors suggested. Oore (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember dealing with that website a long time ago as an admin, and it did include a lot of personal attacks on third parties. It's the kind of website we should avoid using as a source—even as a source about itself—as far as possible, in my view. These sites can be used as a source for basic details on themselves, but they shouldn't be used to turn Misplaced Pages into a platform for information that no independent source has been fit to report. SlimVirgin 04:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That has been my point precisely - the website is very extreme in its use of language and can hardly be used as a reliable source particularly for any statements on third parties. Oore (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I guess we can agree to most of what you are saying. I only wonder if you see the disputed text concerning the debates at FFI as "basic details on themselves," or as "information that no independent source has been fit to report." Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Jeff, I just noticed this. I didn't look at the disputed text. I would say be wary of using this as a source for anything except the most basic details about itself that you can't obtain from anywhere else, and which are harmless. SlimVirgin 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger

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

Support per my comments in the recent AfD. The bio article currently only contains at most three sentences of verifiable info; the rest is bloat sourced to primary/unreliable sources. The Interior (Talk) 23:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article closed no consensus, default to keep. One option of course would have been -- had it received consensus support -- to close it as a merge (or, had it received consensus support, any other way for that matter). It did not receive consensus support for a merge. This isn't a deletion review page. It closed as no consensus, support to keep, not accepting the merge suggestion. In keeping with the close, that's how it should be. This close just took place today -- let's stop the tendentious battleground wikilawyering that marked the AfD. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment O dear. Here we go again. After unsuccesful campaigning to delete the Ali Sina (activist)-page, the same usual suspects take on the FFI-page. And Epeefleche is opposing again. I wonder, if there was no consensus there to merge the article, how could there ever be consensus here if the same editors are discussing it again?Jeff5102 (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Read this: Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Ali Sina (activist). And please avoid calling editors "usual suspects", it has a distinctly criminal connotation ;) The Interior (Talk) 10:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented at that suggestion at that page. I'll see what the motives of that administrator are.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, it's almost as though the AfD closed with the suggestion to discuss a merge. But no, clearly taking the very suggestion made at the AfD and which accommodates the views of most of the participants is a "here we go again." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? At Ali Sina's deletion page you were VERY eager to place a banner saying "consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not ' by counting votes." And now you are talking about a suggestion "which accommodates the views of most of the participants." I honestly thought that a majority vote wouldn't matter for you. Anyway. Let's have a look at the history of the Ali Sina and FFI-requests for deletion and deletion reviews:

• 9 July 2005 ; FFI; result: delete.
• 29 November 2006; Ali Sina; result: delete
• 5 December 2006; FFI; result: no consensus
• 5 December 2006; Ali Sina; deletion review ; result: delete
• 7 January 2006; Ali Sina; result: no consensus
• 2 October 2010; FFI; result: keep
• 18 October 2010; FFI; deletion review ; result: closure endorsed
• 22 January 2012; Ali Sina; result: no consensus

Is it then strange that I say: "here we go again?" For some reason, Ali Sina and his website got a great attraction to people who want to delete the articles concerning them. There are lots of other articles on Misplaced Pages which are concerning less notable websites which are less referenced. There are articles on persons without any reference in it, which still are here. Anyway, please have a look at WP:WEB and see what you all can make of it. I am still considering my position, although I am inclined to state thate the fuzz around the articles alone already justifies them.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, it accommodates the views of most of the participants because it preserves the content, poorly sourced though it is (thus suiting the keep and merge !voters) while not having a separate promotional article with mostly duplicate sourcing (thus accommodating the delete, redirect, and merge !voters). You are free to nominate other Misplaced Pages articles for deletion if you feel that they are not notable; the repeated attempts by users to keep agenda-based non-notable articles for no policy-based reason doesn't stop you from doing that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the first editor (User:La goutte de pluie) who requested for a deletion of FFI is now banned for being a sockpuppeteer, the second requester (User:BhaiSaab) was banned indefinitely on March 15, 2008, after numerous instances of ban evasion for his ban in 2006. Only the third requester (User:Oore) has a clean record. Equally, the first requester of the Ali Sina-article (User:م) was blocked with an expiry time of indefinite. The second requester (User:Utcursch) was a barnstar-winning administrator, and you were the third one. If you consider the views of a group of which 50% is banned as "the views of most of the participants", then I guess you are mistaken.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What do the records of the nominators have anything to do with this discussion, unless you're saying that the nominations were made in bad faith? Besides, if you're going to include the previous nominators, you might as well go ahead and include all of the other participating editors in previous discussions. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment! I just looked at the first AfD-procedure, and it appears that both other voters against the article (User:Blu Aardvark and User:JamesBurns) are banned for sockpuppetry as well. On the other hand, The other AfD-discussions seem to be more interesting to read. Maybe we can use the arguments from those discussions for a well-evaluated decision.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the arguments are what should be focused on. Whether editors were subsequently banned for whatever possible reason is irrelevant, unless the reason for their banning also affected the AfD debate, which is not what you've been asserting. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that only the !votes of editors in good standing have any relevance.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure all editors mentioned had accounts in good standing when they participated, and when the debates closed. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, and it doesn't matter. If so, it was only because their misbehavior had yet to be revealed. In any event, the conversation is today -- and their views are the views of what are today blocked "bad standing" accounts. Completely irrelevant -- other than to show that a position has been driven by bad faith accounts, which certainly does nothing to support it, and only heightens the sensitivity to SPA editing/commenting.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize that, in the previous AfD debates, there were plenty of comments made by SPA accounts that went the other way? I'm not sure what point you and Jeff5102 are attempting to make by this demonstration. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

All accounts that are not now editors in good standing -- whatever their position -- that have !voted have made !votes that are of zero value at this point in time. If and to the extent that bad faith accounts !voted, it is of zero importance now how they !voted, whatever their position. Notwithstanding your suggestion above that their !votes before they were caught are of some value now. They aren't.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

So do you propose that, for all editors who are now banned, they could not have made any edits in good faith prior to their ban? If so, that's a bit ridiculous. But anyway, I look to the persuasiveness of their arguments. FFI has only received substantial coverage in one article linked on this article page. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course we don't today consider the views of those we know to be sockpuppets and their masters, and other indef blocked editors for that matter. Are you seriously suggesting that a blocked sock and its blocked puppets should have their views considered? That is dumbfoundingly peculiar -- if it were true, one could just create 100 socks and IPs and SPAs, have them blocked, and then say their views should be considered. Zero sense to that, obviously.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If that is your concern, which user do you suspect "voted" multiple times in the previous discussions? If it's genuinely problematic for the sake of this discussion, then either find the manipulation that occurred (via sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet tags) and is thereby influencing our talk here, or drop the subject and focus on the arguments. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that blocked users and sockpuppetspuppeteers came up after Roscelese stated, when I complained about the large amount of AfD's, that it thus "accommodates the views of most of the participants." THat is why I checked the reputation of those initial requesters, and discovered that they were not that respectable.

But on the arguments. 24.217.97.248, could you explain to me why on one side it is a problem that there are two articles (FFI and Ali Sina), which are closely related, while on the other hand it is a problem that "FFI has only received substantial coverage in one article linked on this article page." It sounds a bit contradictory to me.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. If I understand correctly, it's quite possible that only one of two related topics merits an article on Misplaced Pages based on the (lack of) coverage that it has received. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

IP seems to have the right idea. Based on the paucity of coverage, it's possible that neither may belong, but certainly redundant for both to be here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think it may be more sensible to merge this page to the Ali Sina page, rather than vice versa. While both pages have fairly meager coverage in secondary sources, Sina's coverage is slightly more in-depth in a few of the sources. 65.254.110.217 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Either is fine by me, it's just that having two pages on the same thing, particularly when neither can be appropriately sourced, seems promotional and redundant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like we are back in square one! Obviously Ali Sina is getting under the skin of a lot of people. Merging is the same as deleting. This motion was defeated and a few of those who supported the deletion were banned because their accounts were fraudulent (sockpuppeteering). Ali Sina’s latest article "How the West Is Fanning Islamic Extremism" is reprinted in 1590 sites. (Do a Google search). That is enough notability. But of course nothing will satisfy those who rather see him dead than alive. It isn't good for Misplaced Pages to allow the religious zeal of some of its editors to dictate which subjects should be covered and which ones should not. That is a policy practiced in all Islamic countries. Misplaced Pages is not an Islamic site. -OceanSplash (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Again, "Muslims are awful" is not a keep rationale, and notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources, not on random blogs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose a merge - I haven't bothered with Muslim-related articles for a while (got side-tracked on Landmines of all things) so rather surprised we actually had an Ali Sina article at all and what's more it isn't a stub. Other editors have spent some time gathering a nice list of references. Ali Sina and FFI are very much linked but as a rough glance at the Ali Sina references there are enough ISBNs and some well known publishers so I think he's encyclopaedia enough to stay. There are very few vocal apostates from Islam. We're not comparing Ali Sina with Anime characters (of which there are how many hundred with pages of text ?) but with the category of apostates from Islam and of those he is notable with these mentions and I'll explain why: someone could no doubt go through each reference and show how it is a "trivial" mention but by what standard ? Any mention at all is non-trivial in Islam when it comes to Apostacy: it is a death sentence in places. If one tweet is all it takes to get extradited then even the most trivial mention is a serious matter. The standards of what is "trivial" are actually set so low with Islam that this list is incontrovertible evidence for a death sentence for Ali Sina and so these are all non-trivial mentions by the standards that critics of Islam are judged. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Won't comment on your assertion that we should set the bar the lower for critics of Islam in terms of coverage, but do note that an ISBN has no bearing on the quality of content. Obtaining an ISBN is simply a matter of registering (free in my country) and the issuance bodies make no review of the quality of the items they are registering. The Interior (Talk) 19:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know (I think Canada does that and obviously Createspace issues them) - heck I have my own registered block of 10 issued to me - the point is that these are not just BLOG links and so unless someone wants to spend the time picking apart all the references to show they are one-off self-published etc that have been used then there is no need to merge. The AFD didn't find that. It is not actually us that sets the bar low though - it is the Islamic community itself. Rather than ignoring apostasy they kind of go nuts and end up providing the publicity. In the end the Ali Sina article has enough to keep it around. If there is a merge then it would at worse be the FFI contents into the Ali Sina i.e. keep Ali Sina. But given that the FFI article has survived a number of AFD you would have to wonder what would be the WP:POINT. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Better idea: could you tell us which references you believe support notability? The number of bad references available is very large, but of course they're useless. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We're not discussing notability though - the Islamic community has guaranteed notability - but if a merge of Ali Sina into FFI is desired. I've disgreed and given why and at worse think it should be the other way around i.e. FFI merged into Ali Sina. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Islamic community" doesn't guarantee notability - coverage in reliable sources is what establishes notability. I think a merge of FFI into Ali Sina would also be acceptable - the problem is that given how little reliable coverage there is of either of them, two articles are certainly superfluous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a good approach would be to start a subsection (here, I guess, since this is where we're talking) where we can collate the reliable sources in use in the two articles, then look at whether they cover FFI or Ali Sina primarily. We'd be a bit closer to figuring out what content is supported by RS, and which article should be merged to which. From my reading so far, I'd be leaning towards FFI -> Ali Sina - the website is the platform, but it's the message/messenger that gets the press. The Interior (Talk) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. This piece focuses on Sina; it's the only reliable and significant source I can find on either thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the several books on the Ali Sina page aren't valid sources. It seems he is a significant figure among critics of Islam. I certainly would want to come to Misplaced Pages for information on the fellow. I think the Ali Sina page should be maintained. I can't comment on the Faith Freedom International page because I still don't fully understand the criteria for giving a website a page in Misplaced Pages. I'll have to read more on this matter. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The books cited on Sina's page are either unreliable (because they are from vanity presses like Academica Press or other non-RS publishers), affiliated with Sina (Sina's own books can't establish his notability because notability is determined by independent coverage), passing mentions (notability guidelines require coverage to be significant), etc. Have you checked out WP:GNG in your inquiries? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The publishers seem to range from those with a conservative and Christian focus to those that have a wider product line. I’m not that familiar with Thomas Nelson the parent publisher of WND books or Academica Press which does publish a wide range of topic but Macmillan is a familiar name. In any case, the references seem to be adequate, in most cases, to the limited purpose of providing information about Mr. Sina. I found the article on him useful as I was trying to dig up info on the fellow. I’m opposed to losing that article. This article, on the FFI website, seems to be the weaker of the two. Perhaps a merge into the Ali Sina article has merit but I’m agnostic. The WP:GNG is helpful as is the rest of the page but such general guidelines don't always give me a clear idea--that comes with time. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Macmillan is a fine publisher, but as I said, a passing mention can't attest notability. Academica has a reputation as a vanity press; the topic range is irrelevant. Etc., etc., unreliable sources and passing mentions don't attest notability, per GNG and other guidelines which require significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. "I admit that there are no sources, but I don't like Muslims" is not a keep argument. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No it is not and so the argument to remove the article because the subject is hated by Muslims. Judging from the number of your comments you seem to be quite eager to remove this article. Is there any personal reason that you’d like to share? (OceanSplashtalk) 08:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing how I point out half a dozen times that he and his organization haven't received coverage in reliable sources, and you just hear "Muslims are trying to censor Misplaced Pages." Don't waste my time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

OceanSplash's block log seems to indicate that those ideas are a common theme for his posts. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Block log? As far as I can see OceanSplash has a clean record for the last six years (and please help me if I got it wrong), while for example Roscelese was blocked only a month ago. I do not see why there is a reason for a personal attack on him. What happened to your stance that "all editors who are now banned could have made any edits in good faith prior to their ban", by the way?Jeff5102 (talk) 09:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What does it mean to have a clean block log over a period of time when you barely have any edits over that time? i still stand by what I said regarding banned editors. Unless you can demonstrate that a specific edit was made in bad faith, there is no need to presume that. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This is like saying we must trust all dealings of an individual prior to him being caught and convicted as a con artist. OceanSplashtalk) 08:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.118.30 (talk)

Actually, it's not, OceanSplash, and perhaps you shouldn't mischaracterize arguments. A more appropriate analogy would be failing to infer that the all actions of a con artist are part of a con, when in fact he was jailed for a con that was limited in scope and time. 12.49.107.186 (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Experience shows a crooked person is generally crooked in all his dealings. Once a person is proven to be dishonest, everything he has done prior to him being caught become suspitious. OceanSplashtalk) 11:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the new anonymous user (welcome!) as well. The reason for this is that "editing wikipedia" IS an action "limited in scope and time." To put it sharply: I wouldn't do any financial dealings with Bernie Madoff because of his financial record; I do not care if he was a good husband, or never cheated when playing golf. Thus, if an editor is blocked for bad editing, I have less trust in his/her intentions when editing.

And to answer the other anonymous user of his/her comment of 6 March: 1) it was not me who started to discuss someone's block log; it was you. 2) I do believe that the average person betters his/her live more in six years than in one month. I have no clue why you are defending blocked editors, except the one whose ideas oppose yours.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121021141325/http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/islamic-jihad-articles/fighting-islamist-%e2%80%98lawfare%e2%80%99/ to http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/islamic-jihad-articles/fighting-islamist-%E2%80%98lawfare%E2%80%99/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121023112412/http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/political-islam/wilders-in-defense-of-%e2%80%98hurtful%e2%80%99-speech/ to http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/political-islam/wilders-in-defense-of-%E2%80%98hurtful%E2%80%99-speech/

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

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

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

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=17623&hilit=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101216052427/http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org:80/2010/01/recent-attacks-on-%E2%80%9Ccounter-jihad%E2%80%9D-websites/ to http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2010/01/recent-attacks-on-%E2%80%9Ccounter-jihad%E2%80%9D-websites/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://icssa.org/yameendebate.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016170648/http://www.faithfreedom.org/category/features/debates/ to http://www.faithfreedom.org/category/features/debates/

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

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

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

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

Content Section

The section on the website's content lists several third-parties and is sourced entirely to FFI itself. This seems to be a violation of the verifiability policy. Specifically, it violates WP:ABOUTSELF where self-published sources may be used only when "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" and "it does not involve claims about third parties," among other requirements. Snuish (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Jeff5102's revert to older version of the article

User:Jeff5102 reverted to 02:25, 24 June 2020, undoing about 50 edits that occurred since then. Among other issues, the edit reintroduced:

• content that belongs on the Ali Sina (activist) article.
• content that has been moved to WikiIslam since it is out of scope here.
• sources that have been deprecated/banned on WP:RSPSOURCES, such as Frontpage Magazine and Jihad Watch.
• misrepresented sources, such as Ibn Warraq's book.
• self-published sources, such as Edip Yuksel's book.
• numerous sources that do not mention Faith Freedom at all.

How do you justify the revert? Snuish2 (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You are reversing the rules. All those edits were done by anonymous users, without gaining consensus on the talk-page first. And as you can see, some attempts were made by long-term editors to restore content, but the anonymous editor deleted it anyway after that. That is not how Misplaced Pages works. Moreover, it is rather unethical to delete all the sources first, and then put a notability-tag on the article afterwards. Because of that, repairing it to the version of June was the best step to take. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

What you seem to be doing is restoring sources that, e.g., violate Misplaced Pages policies or that do not relate to FFI, claiming that notability is satisfied by those sources. Is that not "unethical," as you put it? Why is it that you have addressed absolutely none of the issues identified above with the sources and material?
Editors do not need to seek advance permission to make changes to articles and you're mischaracterizing the edit history of the article. The two "long-term editors" you identified in the edit history seemed to be reversing what they thought was vandalism, which clearly was not the case which is also why they did not make more than one attempt to revert those changes. In fact, they were also reversed by other long-term editors. Snuish2 (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not difficult to see that your reversion back to June is problematic due to the sources you're re-inserting. Even MediaWiki is automatically tagging your edit with "use of deprecated (unreliable) source." Snuish2 (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, it is not me who as to make arguments for not changing the article, it is you who has to make elaborate arguments for changing the content of an article. To me, removing texts concerning Ali Sina and WikiIslam here is like removing content concerning Mark Zuckerberg and ] from the Facebook-article, which is silly. As you can read in the discussions above, the use of deprecated sources is allowed when it is done by "using this as a source for anything except the most basic details about itself that you can't obtain from anywhere else," as which is done here. Meanwhile, you are right on one point: User:Drmies removed 539 bytes, after restoring 3,083 bytes. Therefore, I do not mind if we restore the article to . Can we agree on that? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"Again, it is not me who as to make arguments for not changing the article, it is you who has to make elaborate arguments for changing the content of an article." You are unequivocally incorrect. Here's what WP:BURDEN has to say: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Each removal was supported by an edit summary in the edit history. Can you specify any problematic edits and the reason why it is problematic under Misplaced Pages policy? I've provided plenty of reasons why your reversion to June is wrong above. You have not responded to most of those issues, and the two responses I've quoted below are entirely inadequate.
"To me, removing texts concerning Ali Sina and WikiIslam here is like removing content concerning Mark Zuckerberg and ] from the Facebook-article, which is silly." Facebook does not even contain a section on Instagram and only discusses the development of Instagram in relation to Facebook as appropriate (when the sources cited discuss Instagram in relation to Facebook). The same applies to Zuckerberg. We don't need this article to be a coatrack for other articles.
"As you can read in the discussions above, the use of deprecated sources is allowed when it is done by 'using this as a source for anything except the most basic details about itself that you can't obtain from anywhere else,' as which is done here." That's not at all relevant to this discussion. You are re-inserting multiple citations to Frontpage Magazine and Jihad Watch. How are either citations "about itself" when this is an article on FFI, a separate organization? I do not agree with your proposal to revert to 02:41, 11 July 2020‎. Snuish2 (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Jeff5102, your claim, "removing texts concerning Ali Sina and WikiIslam here is like removing content concerning Mark Zuckerberg and ] from the Facebook-article, which is silly", lacks something essential to any encyclopedic article: one would assume that content in a high-traffic article like Facebook, especially content about Zuckerberg etc., has secondary sources. You chose to leave that bit out of your statement. In particular, that section "Articles", that's really just linkspamming. There is no reason to include that content, and the only warrant you have is "notable authors"--but that they're notable doesn't mean we should link their articles and summarize them here. And looking at the rest, I wonder to which extent you take that requirement of secondary sourcing seriously. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, "Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam" is an excellent academic, secondary source on these matters. The sections "Articles" and "Debates" were inserted to show both the notability as the content of the site. As you can see, both the articles had references to it from at least two sources. The debates were sourced by the websites/books of the other person in the debate, just to establish that mr. Sina was not making things up. For the history how and why it was formed this way, I would like to refer to the lengthy discussions "Several problems and cleanup..." and

"WP:SELFPUB on internetsites and -debates" above. The consensus after those discussions were incorporated in the article, and stood for ten years. I might expect that this consensus is worth more than the opinion of the series of anonymous IP's from DuPage County, Illinois, that all of a sudden popped up last July. So, Drmies, please take a look at the 2010 discussions above, and the page's editing history and see what you think of it. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

" The sections "Articles" and "Debates" were inserted to show both the notability as the content of the site"--one shows notability by having secondary sources. You're going for spamming, it seems to me. The WikiIslam section, I suppose part of that can stay--but it should be rewritten. For starts, it should be made clear what on earth it is and what its relation to the subject of the article is. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll help you. The WikiIslam page can help here--but next time, if you are going to make such drastic edits, please make sure the article improves from it. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class Islam-related pages
• Low-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• Redirect-Class Websites pages
• NA-importance Websites pages
• Redirect-Class Computing pages
• NA-importance Computing pages
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles