| Revision as of 04:35, 3 February 2007 editArrow740 (talk | contribs)7,908 edits →Sina not notable as per previous AFD← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:16, 16 March 2024 edit undoHarryboyles (talk | contribs)Administrators153,349 editsm →top: fixing Islam-and-Controversy parameter in {{WikiProject Islam}}Tag: AWB |
| (889 intermediate revisions by 98 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Old merge full |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
| otherpage = Ali Sina (activist) |
|
{{WikiProject Islam| Criticism of Islam=yes | class=B | importance=low |}} |
|
|
|
| date = 17-2-2021 |
|
{{oldafdfull |
|
|
| date = July 9, 2005 |
|
| merge = yes |
|
|
| talk = Talk:Ali_Sina_(activist)#Redirect_proposal |
|
| result = '''delete''' |
|
|
|
| URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Ali_Sina_(activist)&oldid=1010384084#Redirect_proposal}} |
|
| votepage = Faith Freedom |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{notaforum}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|Islam-and-Controversy=yes|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Websites}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;" |
|
|
|
{{Old XfD multi |
|
| width="48px" | ] || This article was nominated for ] {{#if:5 Dec 2006|on 5 Dec 2006|recently}}. The result of ] was '''no consensus'''. |
|
|
|}<!-- From Template:Oldafdfull --> |
|
<!-- 1st --> |
|
|
| date = July 9, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
| result = '''delete''' |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
| page = Faith Freedom |
|
==]== |
|
|
|
<!-- 2nd --> |
|
How does this website meet ]? ] <sup>]</sup> 13:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| date2 = December 5, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
| result2 = '''no consensus''' |
|
According to ] web-specific content is notable if: |
|
|
|
| page2 = Faith Freedom International |
|
#The content itself has been the subject of '''multiple non-trivial published works''' whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations, '''except for the following''': |
|
|
|
<!-- 3rd --> |
|
##Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. |
|
|
|
| date3 = October 2, 2010 |
|
##'''Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores'''. |
|
|
|
| result3 = '''keep''' |
|
#The website or content '''has won a notable independent award''' from either a publication or organisation.'''(If I start lying against the religions, like Christianity, I can also get this award! This is a notable criminal website. They just lie. Just see the Zakir Naik's debate with William Cambell and this website is protecting the William. The say that the William arguments were GREAT, yet they dont have the video on their website!!!)''' |
|
|
|
| page3 = Faith Freedom International (3rd nomination) |
|
#The content is distributed via a site which is both '''well known and independent of the creators''', either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.'''(The people who crusified the Jesus may be more popular then this group of liers. Have you any popularity award for them?)''' |
|
|
|
<!-- 4th --> |
|
|
|
|
|
| date4 = October 18, 2010 |
|
--]<sup>]</sup> 13:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| result4 = '''closure endorsed''' |
|
|
|
|
|
| link4 = https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_October_18 |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
::Agree -- not notable enough to merit this article. What do other people think? ] 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Copied|from=Faith Freedom International|from_oldid=967230865|to=WikiIslam|to_diff=967331649}} |
|
:::Im still waiting for RS that establish N. --] 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
FFI has received some media attention, and that makes the organization notable. -- ] 17:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:It would be "trivial coverage." See ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Links to criticism of Ali Sina not allowed due to undue weight. == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have removed the links (including a malformed one) that are focused on criticism of Ali Sina because as all have mentioned we are not focusing on Ali Sina - this is about FaithFreedom International and adding too many links critical of Ali Sina is an undue weight towards him. He is notable in his own right but that issue isn't the subject of this article. Criticism of him needs to be on his page. Oops hello thats right ''you'' got his page removed. That's a shame really so you can't deem him to be unworthy of a wikipedia page BUT then have the same people feel that it's worthy that many links are added back in that criticise him. ] 09:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Faithfreedom is nothing without Ali Sina. Actually, faithfreedom is the Ali Sina. Criticising Ali Sina is equivalent to criticising faith freedom. How many lies you want to know that Ali Sina and faith freedom tell you? r u interested? |
|
|
|
|
|
His own website,or website of his friends are not proof neither reflect his standing!!Quote authentic sites!!Outside critics have to be quoted.. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Faithfreedom is mentioned as a site for people trying to escape from Islam in the list that ] provides in his book ]. We need not establish the notability of Dawkins here in this field of analysing the delusion of religion from his scientists point of view. Ali Sina is a contributor to the Faithfreedom site so general critisisms of Faithfreedom contributions could be accepted but simple nonsense apologetics raving on about Ali Sina add little to Misplaced Pages. Ali Sina is only notable within Misplaced Pages when the site is mentioned on that articles page, or where he has contributed to other notable content e.g. any other book contributions, or as an example of someone notable who is apostate of Islam (because of his contributions to a book in this field of apostacy). Like I say when he writes a book on Pokemon which gets critically received we can refer to him out side of this field of apostatic Muslims so right now he stays in the field of apostacy and Muslims. The question is he critically received ? I think the fact that there are so many people wanting to add links to sites that criticise him means a yes. The desire to add a link to a site that criticises Ali Sina is a self-defeating assertion that Ali Sina is notable. This is my logic of saying that you cannot claim he is not notable and yet want to add critical links which indicate a degree of notability. Therefore only critisism of Faithfreedom can be added as that is the only article in which we have a clear ground for notability. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Misplaced Pages isn't about truth and lies but simply reliable sources. For instance we have loads on the Quran and that's more or less a complete fairytale same as the Bible and of an unreliable source (an angel !). We have loads on the Bible and thats an inconsistent mishmash of fantasy which borrows from an older Jewish minor faith, and then there is the old Testament which is only matched nowadays by books like Lord of the Rings in its bloodthirsty tales of woe. Give us a break on the truth and lies angle. ] 08:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Maybe we should take this page, its AfD, etc. to RfC== |
|
|
|
|
|
I have noticed numerous instances among us of failing to be ]. Why don't we take a breather, Muslims, Kaffirs, Jews, and Christians, and reason it out? FFI is notable because it is a nexus of criticism of Islam, especially through its message board. Should it matter that various pro-Islam sites overshadow it? ] is a useful guide, but sometimes it fails to truly determine notability, especially if smaller groups with unique arguments are involved. <nowiki></nowiki> — ] | ] 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==This article should be deleted(See this discussion please and give ur reponse)== |
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Guys i think this article should be deleted. it just shows a website and its motto. I think its not needed in wikipedia please lets discuss why its needed. if it is needed only because it was on alexa rankings in top 30000 website once in last yr. then please tell me, can i make articles on islamonline.net (which is in top 1000 ranking), islam-qa.com(top 10000),islamicity.com(top 10000) and many . I will start building article on this website organisation soon. ] 18:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for that update. I've updated the link to the new site ( now http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/ ) BTW: for a list of authors see, http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=4&page=1 so some work to backfill on who they are and get some summaries for the page. ] 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::"can i make articles on islamonline.net (which is in top 1000 ranking), islam-qa.com(top 10000),islamicity.com(top 10000) and many" Sure, please do that. The only thing is that I am afraid that you can't make a new article on ], because we already got one. -- ] 11:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"Faith Freedom" is an article which is not worthy to be rated as article. I think it is advertisement of a website. It should be removed. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 22:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Op-ed Author list link (need researching to help the article) == |
|
|
|
|
|
The link, http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&catid=&topic=19 , has a number of op-ed authors. Ideally we need to take each, check article and name and other sources for that name and see if its just page scrapping (RSS etc) or actual op-ed stuff (e.g. first Cinnamon Stillwell op-ed I saw looked like page scrape). And then the link http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=4&page=1 has author names who have contributed articles. Need to do the same and ideally post back here into talk what you find. That should (or not!) allow up to build up a inbound link from other notables sites back to faithfreedom and thus establish notability of faithfreedom. There is a lot of noise in those author lists but something should crop up though I think its just Ali Sina that is mainly verifiable (due to his contribution to Ibn Warraq's book Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out). Remember it is the "truth" but verify who said what and when and where. ] 21:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removing unencyclopedic tag == |
|
|
|
|
|
This was added on the 18:02, 5 December 2006 by an user Truthspreader and then at 18:38, 5 December 2006 a since-banned (1 year) user BhaiSaab added the AfD nomination. This thus allowed just 36 minutes for anyone to get the article up to scratch. Given this was fallout from the article delete of related article for Ali Sina very soon before the flow of tags from unencyclopedic to AfD was not made in good faith. I have removed the unencyclopedic tag as it states, "An editor has expressed concern that this article may be unencyclopedic and ought to be deleted. This is a primarily a statement about the article's subject, not necessarily its quality or veracity. Please review what Misplaced Pages is not and try to resolve the objections on the talk page." ...and yet the subsequent AfD which proposed deletion and was rejected with "The result was no consensus to delete, reasonable argument that the site meets WP:WEB... but please improve referencing in article." means that the previous unencyclopedic tag that predates the AfD has been proven to not be valid as the admin says it satisfies ]. ] 04:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removing notability tag == |
|
|
|
|
|
This tag was added by user Striver at 18:52, 5 December 2006 i.e. 14 minutes after the AfD and thus is related to the AfD. The admin closed the AfD with "The result was no consensus to delete, reasonable argument that the site meets WP:WEB... but please improve referencing in article." means that the previous notability tag that postdates the AfD and predates the conclusion has been proven to not be valid as the admin says it satisfies WP:WEB. ] 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Adding web links. Please talk first then add after consensus. == |
|
|
|
|
|
An edit, added a shedload of links to dodgy looking Islamic sites. Certainly not clear how they are notable. This adds undue weight to the opposing sites and less weight to what we are discussing which is Faith Freedom International and (indirectly the founder of that site Ali Sina). Ideally can we have a consensus that any link is first discussed here (each as a new subject) before it is added unless it is a reference used to add verifiability to the text. ] 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Karl, when the article is about site whats wrong in giving its opposing sites as well. this is bias mate. when u wrote about ali sina in that article. these sites will become relevant and its opposing sites for FFI so they should stay there. I am reverting it. i hope u will understand. and please dont revert it ] 01:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just looked at the site as it presently stands, and am suprised to find the external link from the notable independent online news site ] about FaithFreedom.org is gone. I would like to see it restored. Here is the address of the article entitled "TESTING THE FAITH: Ex-Muslim's site trashes Muhammad; Founder challenges: Prove me wrong and I'll take down page" http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 ] 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''This link was deleted by Mak82hyd''' - I'm not surprised. I dont feel like contributing until Misplaced Pages has policies that deal ruthlessly with this kind of POV vandalism. You could go ahead and add that link back in. Good luck everyone, with the revert wars. I really feel though something should be done about the phenomena of POV vandalism. This is common everywhere in Misplaced Pages on all controversial articles, not just on topics on Islam. My suggestion is that once a topic reaches a nice quality, editing should be locked and people should only be able to make suggestions and only a few people who are authorized to make the changes should change, based on consensus reached. This will prevent POV vandalism and the Edit Wars. --] 02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It was a revert and the web address got deleted anyways, the site worldnetdaily is american conservative website which is bias against muslims. ] 00:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank you, Matt57. It looks like ] handily accomplished the re-insertion needed. As for your suggestion, I hope you succeed in getting it put into policy. ] 06:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==From the old Ali Sina page== |
|
|
We should look at the old Ali Sina page. See . Not everything is relevant to this new page, but some of this stuff is. That stuff should be moved here.--] 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Maybe we should include the imformation about the debates on this article.--] 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree, some information should be imported because te site is by its founder and we can have information on the founder. Looks like an anonymous IP imported a lot of that stuff. Lets see how much of that is filtered/censored out later. I hope you get the Mecca page into the article drive. It would be nice to see a page on that city which doesnt show that this is an exclusively Muslim/Islam related city. It should look like a normal any kind of city plus ofcourse it should include its importance to Islam but to be exclusively about Islam as it is right now, is not the best way. It would be interested to see what kind of changes can take place in that page to further this mission. --] 19:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
matt, this not ali sina article, his views and himself are unnecessary and not notable thats why the page was deleted by admins. please respect their views and people who wants his views will go to his website from here which is shown. so le them decide to go and read if they think its something to read about. ] 02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Can you first explain why you deleted the link to WorldnetDaily as I pointed out in the above section? --] 03:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. Now I've added the parts from the old website that I think are relevant.--] 09:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I did not add the and sections, but I think part of them is relevant, but it needs editing. --] 09:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks, that was appropriate but we are back to the same old game Misplaced Pages is unable to handle. Edit wars and repeated POV vandalism; constant pulling of the article in either directions. This is just wrong, I mean Misplaced Pages's inability to handle this. Maybe it will help somewhat adding in materials little by little instead of in chunks to get past this constant censorship. --] 13:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== We have good external links for this article now == |
|
|
|
|
|
But we need more. Are there any more that can be found? This article is here to stay now. It was deleted in its prior ''Ali Sina'' form because of non-notability (no external links). I hope more links can be found to make this article comply even stronger to ]. If we had had those external links then, the article wouldnt have been deleted. I remember it was me who filled up somewhat this article with FFI's links - that was even pointed out by FayssalF. Now we need some more good links and references. --] 13:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== FFI's mention in Ibn Warraq's book - potential reference == |
|
|
|
|
|
In Warraq's book ], Appendex B titled "''Ex-Muslims of the world unite''", page 433, there is a whole 3 page section on FFI. It mentions its website URL and mission statement. This is a valid mention of FFI, so I think this could be a reference for the article. The page range is 433-436. Although this is FFI's mission statement from its website quoted in full and is not a description by Ibn Warraq. This reference can atleast be added to the references. Ali Sina's own testimony of leaving Islam is in page 137-157 of this book. This can also be a reference. The title of his testimony is: Why I left Islam-My passage from faith to enlightenment.--] 14:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:the part about FFI can be refrenced in this article, but the part about Ali Sina's testimony of leaving Islam is not relevant, as this article is not about Ali Sina, but about FFI.--] 06:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:As Ali Sina is the '''founder''' of FFI Then he can be mentioned. Obviously he can't be mentioned in other articles unless it is specific to the subject. He is notable. An example for you would be like saying that Bahá'u'lláh cannot be mentioned in an article on Bahá'í as the subject is only about Bahá'í. That doesn't make sense as the ideals and background of the founder of 'x' are relevant to an article on 'x'. Obviously I chose Bahá'í as they too are hunted and killed for some weird reason. ] 07:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Why is this on wikipedia? - ...because Misplaced Pages is not censored == |
|
|
|
|
|
I just came across this article and was surprised to find it. This site is not even a real legal organization and the guy, Ali Sina, is not anyone famous. Misplaced Pages is supposed to educate people about real things, not just little organizations. If faithfreedom were to become a widespread debate in the world, then it would be something important. But honestly, if faithfreedom is on wikipedia, it also legitamizes a lot of websites to be on wikipedia, hurting the quality of this project. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 01:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
:This has already been discussed .--] 06:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Your plea presents a fallacy and proposes self-censorship. Quoting Paine, “Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.”, the core principe of Islam is submission. Submission ''is'' the antithesis to reason. ] 08:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sartaj, it doesnt matter if Ali Sina exists or not. All you have to do is see whether the article meets the ] criteria.--] 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
How can you say that it doesnt matter if Ali Sina Exists or not. It does matter the revenues of the site go to him. Credibility is being obtained without references. Mass propoganda does not mean evidence. {{Unsigned|User:Created2}} |
|
|
:Sign your talk messages. What revenues? Why do revenues matter here anyway? Like I said the standard to be used on this article is ]. The references are there to see. See the last section of that page (links about..). This is mass 'propaganda' according to you. You're not supposed to put in your own opinions and conclusions in an article. You're a beginner here. Please see the standards used on Misplaced Pages and read a bit. --] 03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== New Development: Annual Awards == |
|
|
|
|
|
As announced yesterday on the FaithFreedom Forum in the Action section, Ali Sina and the directors of the site are instituting annual awards. Should this development be included in the Misplaced Pages article? ] 08:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I say lets at least wait until the awards have been announced. Whats needed the most right now is more links for FFI's notablity so no one dares to nominate this article for deletion again. --] 23:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Notability of Ali Sina and FFI == |
|
|
|
|
|
Now that the notability of FFI has been established (I hope more links will be brought in, the more the better), my question is: If FFI is notable, isnt Ali Sina too? If so, more information that existed on page should be brought here as Sefringle tried to do. Also actually under the new title, we can write more. Previously we could only include information on Ali Sina, but now we can also include other information on the website that may not be directly related to Ali Sina. I've also included a logo as you can see. The page looks better now. --] 22:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:matt, why is Ali sina views and debates are being written in FFI page. its not his page its about website so just write about website not about the founder. how can i write about yusuf qaradawi who made the islamonline.net website on the website page, its wrong. just write about FFI on the article what his founder said or thinks does not matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
**ffi is notable according to admins but not ali sina, remember his article was deleted because of notability* |
|
|
|
|
|
Thats why i am removing what ali sina said or thinks. i hope you can understand.] 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*point to note and remeber |
|
|
:In this article most if not all citations and references have been given from the same website but not from other neutral websites. websites which mentions ali sina or FFI are sister websites of ffi and one worldnetdaily is american conservative website(which is declared as anti islamic and biased, by many people). ] 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The two sections I added from the old Ali Sina page are because they can easily be related to Faith Freedom as well. Ali Sina's views are the views of Faith Freedom, mainly because Faith Freedom is Ali Sina's website.--] 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: how is FFi ali sina website? how do you know that Ali sina is human or something else can be a group name? whats the proof? can you take whatever in the name of ali sina is said...no.] 22:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::FFI is Ali Sina's website because he says so. Do you have proof that the website belongs to someone other than Ali Sina? No you dont. The Debates are a PART of the website and should be included in the article. I have given you the example - should I go ahead and delete information on Muhammad on Islam's page because the article is to be about Islam and not Muhammad? No. Muhammad was the founder of Islam and therefore its important to talk about him in the Islam page. In the same way, FFI was founded by Ali Sina and an article on FFI will have a lot of information on Ali Sina, due to this same reason. Ali Sina and FFI are both notable now that we have the external 3rd party links there now. --] 03:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== This article has a new scope now == |
|
|
|
|
|
Previously we could only talk about Ali Sina. Now we can talk about anything else in the website so hopefully the article can be expanded now.--] 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Alexa rankings == |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't care whether Alexa rankings are mentioned or not, but as long as they are not actually used to establish notability, there's nothing ''wrong'' with them. Even the article on ] mentions Alexa rankings. — ] ] — 16:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Articles about faithfreedom.org== |
|
|
Articles about faithfreedom.org that are not external links should be mentioned here instead of within the external links section of the artilce. For example, the mention of faithfreedom in Richard Dawkins' book should not be mentioned in the extenal links section of this page, considering it is not a link to any website. |
|
|
Specificly, I am talking about this: |
|
|
:Faith Freedom International is listed in the appendix of ] book ] as one of the few Islamic related "...Friendly address(es), for individuals needing support in escaping from religion" (page 379). |
|
|
--] 03:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Using copyvio claim for speedy deletion tag is wrong. == |
|
|
|
|
|
The speedy deletion due to copyright violation tag has been added by an editor who has had a long history of controversial edits with this article. It was reverted as suspected vandalism by another editor. I agree with them. The article fails to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion on the ground of copyright violation, namely, was the material was copied from another website which does not have a license compatible with Misplaced Pages, or was there no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving or was the infringement was introduced at once by a single person rather than created organically on wiki and then copied by another website such as one of the many Misplaced Pages mirrors or was the uploader not asserting permission (for images: no assertion aside from tags) or fair use, or the assertion is questionable. |
|
|
|
|
|
Given the history of the tagging editor with respect to this article I do not feel the tag was added correctly so I am reverting this edit. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please explain exactly where the copyright violations have occured. ] 10:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ali and Zakir Naik == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, |
|
|
|
|
|
In the Debates Section Regarding Dr. Zakir Naik, I noticed the claim: |
|
|
|
|
|
''' "Zakir Naik also replied to Ali Sina. But Ali Sina did not mention a reply, for unknown reasons." ''' |
|
|
|
|
|
Can whoever added this please clarify on these points: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. How do you know that Dr. Naik himself replied to Ali? |
|
|
|
|
|
2. That Ali did not reply? |
|
|
|
|
|
These claims need to be sourced in order to remain in the article (I think). One would think that since Ali has been candid on all communicae regarding this so far; in the absence of evidence that either of these claims is true, one could surmise that Ali 'did not mention it' because it did not happen? |
|
|
|
|
|
The Cited Source for this Claim (reference 12) makes '' absolutely no mention '' of Ali recieving a response from Dr. Naik himself; only that representatives of the web site replied to Ali Sina. |
|
|
|
|
|
Just after some clarifcation on this sentence. Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
|
|
Jigsaw_Psyche 03:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree these claims are false. Zakir did not reply to Ali. Only the following is known: |
|
|
::-Ali Sina wrote to Zakir's website email address (he published this email communication in his site and this is the only record of what happened) |
|
|
::-Zakir's team replied saying he doesnt have time and does not do internet debates |
|
|
:Thats the only stuff we know. Everything else should be taken out.--] 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== This article need cleanup per the AfD discussions == |
|
|
|
|
|
I added the {{tl|cleanup-afd}} template because (a) it is 100% true, and (b) most of the "references" in this article are just ] to the subject's website ... it is still lacking reliable 3rd-party coverage to meet ] for ] ... many should be deleted per ] - Links mainly intended to promote a website ... and the one for ranking.com requires registration to see the subject's ], so that one's Right Out per the same ... because of the plethora of self-references, this article has the appearance of simply being a vehicle to draw traffic to the subject's website. —{{user|72.75.85.159}} 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:This has been extensively discussed in the Afd debate a month ago. The sites mentioned now are acceptable, and prove notability. --] 06:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Adding a cleanup template is '''''NOT''''' "vandalism", and surviving an ] with '''No Consensus''' is certainly '''''NOT''''' the same as "''now are acceptable, and prove notability''" ... I am restoring the tag, and if you remove it again, we'll see what the closing administrator has to say about it. (They should have added the template in the first place.) --] 07:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Content Section == |
|
:::1) The decision was to keep the article, and there was no mentioning of any cleanup tag. 2) Please log into you main account so that we know who we are talking to. -- ] 12:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The external links present now are notable. They werent there before when the article was deleted. Notability has been established. --] 13:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 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 ] 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. ] (]) 22:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
==Recent changes== |
|
|
Please don't remove sourced statements made by Sina on his website. If you believe that they lack context, then feel free to rpovide context, I am not sttopping you from that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Jeff5102's revert to older version of the article == |
|
Also, please take a look at ]. It says "''...they should only be used as sources about themselves and their activities...''". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] to , undoing about 50 edits that occurred since then. Among other issues, the edit reintroduced: |
|
Thus whatever FFI says about the students of Javed Ghamidi, and letter to Dr. Zakir Naik is only an allegation. FFI is not a reliable source.] 19:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* content that belongs on the ] article. |
|
|
* content that has been moved to ] since it is out of scope here. |
|
|
* sources that have been deprecated/banned on ], such as ] and ]. |
|
|
* 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? ] (]) 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,] (]) 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? <br>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 by other long-term editors. ] (]) 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 with "use of deprecated (unreliable) source." ] (]) 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 ] and ] from the ]-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: ] 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,] (]) 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 ] 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.<br>"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." ] does not even contain a section on ] 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 ] for other articles.<br>"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 ] and ]. 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. ] (]) 14:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::], 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 ], 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. ] (]) 22:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::], "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 "" and |
|
|
:::::"" 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 ], 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,] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I'll help you. The ] page can help here--but next time, if you are going to make such drastic edits, please make sure the article improves from it. ] (]) 15:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::"Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam" does not mention Faith Freedom ''even once''. I'm happy to share the article with you if you'd like to verify. These were the secondary sources used in the "articles" section: |
|
|
::::::* https://web.archive.org/web/20131020210617/http://www.womenspeecharchive.org/women/profile/speech/index.cfm?ProfileID=172&SpeechID=788 |
|
|
::::::* http://www.investigativeproject.org/1858/combating-lawfare |
|
|
::::::* https://web.archive.org/web/20130213083645/http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/this-essay-overlaps-to-some.html |
|
|
::::::* http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20130227071602/http://frontpagemag.com/2011/robert%2Dspencer/egypt%2Dmuslims%2Driot%2Dover%2Dappointment%2Dof%2Dchristian%2Dgovernor/ |
|
|
::::::* http://www.pvv.nl/index.php/component/content/article/36-geert-wilders/4462-in-defense-of-hurtful-speech-.html |
|
|
::::::* https://archive.today/20130123233050/http://frontpagemag.com/2012/eric-allen-bell/when-the-first-amendment-died/ |
|
|
::::::Not only do sources like the Investigative Project have no reputation for reliability but multiple citations are to Jihad Watch and Frontpage Magazine, which are ]. Moreover, not a single one of them mentions Faith Freedom ''even once''. Going through the Faith Freedom website and citing articles from individuals that have Misplaced Pages pages and then citing written material by the same authors outside of Faith Freedom smacks to me of original research (particularly ]: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"), since Misplaced Pages is still not citing a single reliable source that states something to the effect of "Faith Freedom International includes articles written by these individuals..." ] (]) 15:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
], I did not make drastic edits. I reverted the text to what it was for a few years, before someone else started a massive rewrite. <br> |
|
|
And for both of my partners in this dialogue: as ] puts it above, the sites mentioned here should not be used {{tq|as a source for anything except the most basic details about itself that you can't obtain from anywhere else.}} These sites are used solely to show that the text and author on FaithFreedom are the same as on secondary sites. I would not use an article of ] for an article on Egypt. However, if Spencer himself is discussed, it is good to establish that his text on FFI is verified as his own by showing the same text on own website. The same goes for other writers, whose webites are regarded as "deprecated sources": if these links were not inserted, then we did not know if FFI was just making these articles up. That is why these references do not mention FFI: they were intended to show the texts of named authors on FFI were genuine. And as for the debates: as ] stated above: {{tq|Please do not restore this material until you've found secondary reliable sources supporting the material, as restoring it is also in violation of ].}} Therefore, the book of Edip Yuksel was inserted as a reference; if mr. Yuksel himself states in his book that the content is genuine, then inserting the book prevents us from violating the ]-rule. |
|
|
These actions are completely in the spirit of what ] states: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{tq|Material about web content that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone can be ] by adding it into relevant articles if it:}}<br> |
|
|
{{tq|* has the ] of detail and significance for that article;}}<br> |
|
|
{{tq|* ]; and}}<br> |
|
|
{{tq|* includes information that can be ] through ].}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, I do sense that recently, Misplaced Pages has become more rigidly in it's interpretation on what reliable sources are. If that is the case, I am ready to answer some questions on why it is written the way it is written, (short answer: ''''not'''' for spamming reasons), but for the rest: please see if this contribution in this dialogue can help in further editing. Regards,] (]) 13:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
== Reference to an Ex-Muslim's site== |
|
|
|
:I'm not sure that that section of ] even applies since we wouldn't have a separate article entitled ] anyway, but how does that section avoid self-promotion when it attempts to associate better-known figures with FFI without any reliable sources saying the same? Also, this doesn't address the problem that the section is original research, so it doesn't meet the third bullet point you provided above regarding verifiability either. If FFI does actually meet ] criteria, we'll have no issue finding reliable sources that describe its content. ] (]) 17:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
This line 'ex-Muslim's site trashes Muhammad' is simply a direct abuse of wikipedian so called scholaristic artical. The civilized words could be used such as 'rebuttals' or 'refutes'. And even these words also would be used as refuting some concept or providing rebuttal to some allegation and it could not be used something like "trashing someone". ] 09:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I am confused. Of every person mentioned in the article, whose articles were placed on FFI, there was an independent source (mostly from the person's own website) that established that this person took responsability for writing that article. I fail to see the problem: for example: ]'s article on FFI is identical with the same article on the website of his own party. For both, he is credited as the author. That passes the treshold regarding reliability for me on the authorship. |
|
:Factual accuracy is just as important. Tha article is titled "ex-Muslim's site trasher Muhammad". "ex-Muslim's site trashes" is therefore an inaccurate title.--] 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::After all, when we look for example at the ]-article, none of the mentioned episodes has any references to establish that those interviews really took place. The same goes for the claimed contributors for the ]-article. There, the unpaid bloggers are mentioned, and only sourced by a link to the Huffpost-site itself. Although a secondary source would have been fine over there, that is just describing the content of the site. And that is fine, even without a separate ]-article. And likewise, that goes for FFI too. |
|
::If you think that this is "abusive", what about his comments that Muslims are "bullies"?] 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::What's more: concerning such a "Content of website X"-type of article: I could not find any of such articles on Misplaced Pages, so I am confused why you brought that up. Could you show me such an article, so I know what you are talking about?] (]) 09:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I brought up the "Content of website x-type of article" because the portion of ] that you cited begins with "Material about web content that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone ..." from ]. I believe that portion of ] would apply to this discussion if, for example, we were considering merging or redirecting this entire article to another article.<br>At ], the individual episodes are not cited but I'm sure they could be. In other words, I'm sure there are reliable sources out there that could be used to support the material. At ], I'm not entirely sure that section passes muster. It does seem like a violation of ] as it's currently written. However, ] also states that "article must not be based primarily on such sources." On Huffpost, references to Huffpost articles themselves are not the majority of sources, whereas in this article such sources would be. Additionally, I'm not sure that ] even applies to ] since that section of the verifiability policy discusses "sources that are usually not reliable." ] (]) 16:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am sorry, but it is merely speculation of you that those episodes of ] can be found elsewhere. I DID source the names of those authors on FFI by references to other sites that establish the authors.That made the debates-part and the articles-part better sourced than the parts on the Red Table Talk- and Huffpost-articles, yet still you removed them.<br> Moreover, ] deals with "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Like I wrote above: ]'s article on FFI is identical with the same article on the website of his own party. For both, he is credited as the author. Thus, we have a published source that states Wilders wrote it. And Wilders's own party-website can be trusted on the authorship of his articles, and thus is, for this matter, reliable. Yet still you state "it seems" that I violated the WP:OR rule, because apparently "no reliable, published sources exist" on the authorship of Wilders on those articles? That still confuses me.] (]) 09:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Red Table Talk has received enormous media coverage. It's odd to think that those interviews ''could not'' be sourced. <br>If you don't believe that the content section was a violation of ] generally or ] specifically, what would original research on an article regarding a website look like? We can also bring this question to the original research noticeboard (]) and get additional thoughts. ] (]) 18:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"Thus, we have a published source that states Wilders wrote it." Sure, but we don't have a reliable source saying something to the effect of "Faith Freedom includes articles posted by authors such as Geert Wilders." That's a clear violation of ].<br>You'll notice that both ] and ], which are featured-level articles about websites, do not use milliondollarhomepage.com or 4chan.org as sources to describe the content of the websites in their respective articles. They use reliable secondary sources. ] (]) 19:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Hello, there are 2 points I would like to make:<br> 1. It is a good idea to bring this to one of the noticeboards: the more people look at it, the better. Such a step might be time-consuming, and such a discussion might fade away without a proper solution and/or consensus, but at least experts may take a look at it, which is a positive thing.<br> 2. I was unaware that the ]-article was recreated. I only knew it was ]. As such,the FFI-article seemed the best place to discuss that site. Now the article is recreated, we might include a subheader in the FFI-article, and a "main=article"-redirect, but I think we do not have to revert this section to the longer version. ] (]) 12:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Okay. Would you like to start the discussion on the noticeboard? ] (]) 20:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I am somewhat concerned that you were unaware of the existence of the ] article. This was pointed out in an edit summary from and was indicated above and by . If you did not take the time to review the edits closely, why did you make such drastic reverts and why did you me to justify what was already explained in edit summaries about the changes to the article? It seems that those reverts were done in a knee-jerk fashion. ] (]) 16:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I don't mind bringong this to a noticeboard. Please give me some time for this. On your second point: I saw the WikiIslam-article earlier; that is why I stopped mentioning it after 21 November. That said: edit summaries are not meant to discuss huge rewrites. Suchh things shuld be discussed on the talk-pages, as we do do now.] (]) 14:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Regardless of whether edit summaries are meant to discuss rewrites, one would think that you would at least review edits before reverting them (multiple times). of the page, which was how it appeared before you reverted, also contains a link to the WikiIslam article. Thanks for agreeing to bring this to the noticeboard. ] (]) 16:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Jerusalem Post Magazine Piece == |
|
== Sina not notable as per previous AFD== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are 2-3 sentences mentioning FFI in a from the Jerusalem Post. The piece is labeled "]" and is a ], which are not reliable sources. ] states the following: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news)." ] (]) 14:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
Sina not notable according to last AFD so i am removing his stuff only FFI stuff can be there. what he said or think does not matter, if its on his site let ppl go and read there plz. |
|
|
and how can we write from the same source of which we are talking about.???? ] 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:His website is about his views, so his views do matter. Instead of deleting, it might be better to rewrite this section trying to omit the words "Ali Sina."--] 04:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::this article seems to be about FFI in some areas, but then tries to mask content from the deleted article on Ali Sina as relevant here . i didn't know websites "believed" anything, and this may be an indication that content from Ali Sina has been replicated here, with his name simply substituted with FFI. the lead needs work too, as the lengthy quote describing itself is no more than self-adulatory. perhaps that block quote can be relocated elsewhere and we can concentrate on writing a brief and neutral lead about the website. ] 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The AfD regarding didn't say anything about the notability of Ali Sina. The article was deleted for other reasons, and the closing administrator mentioned that. -- ] 07:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:This claim of notability is nonsense and you know that as others have repeatedly reverted. Please read the closing comments of the AfD which specifically stated that the delete was due to lack of reliable sources and specifically,... "The issue is still reliable sources, and the project simply cannot ignore this fundamental requirement. If actual reliable sources can be found outside his own website which document his existence then by all means re-create." - the point was thus that if we had reliable sources that document his existence then we could re-create not that he was not notable. We have a number of articles that indicate his existence e.g. as a transcript makes me presume he is human and not a "ghost" as detractors are want to propose. We have not re-created the article so as to focus efforts on just the FFI article so please give it a rest. ] 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::er.. yes.. notability is established through independant reliable sources. it's clear what the closing admin meant, and admins Centrx and JzG among others understood it in exactly the same way at the ]: lack of reliable sources indicates non-notability, regardless of how many e-fans he has. as i said before: if you don't have enough independant sources assessing the individual (trivial mention is insufficient), then it suggests he is quite simply not notable enough a personality. when more 'reliable sources' do pop up, it may indicate that he has passed the threshold of notability. the above comments do not address my concern, this article should not be replicating material from the deleted Ali Sina article. you see, this is where the required reliable sources come in: we ''use'' them to build the article and provide relevant information about the subject. the discussion on "views on other faiths" is convoluted, confusing (the subject switches between the website and "he" i.e. Sina), and misleading: a number of FFI writers don't share the same views about ''other'' religions as Sina. the first two critiques actually apply to numerous sections in this articles. an easy solution to this would be to cease providing shelter for irrelevant material about Sina being presented as directly relevant to the FFI organisation. ] 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You seem to know a lot about Faith Freedom. Do you post to the forums? ] 04:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
However, I do sense that recently, Misplaced Pages has become more rigidly in it's interpretation on what reliable sources are. If that is the case, I am ready to answer some questions on why it is written the way it is written, (short answer: 'not' for spamming reasons), but for the rest: please see if this contribution in this dialogue can help in further editing. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=icon}
