| Revision as of 15:01, 22 November 2020 editDrmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators406,771 edits →Jeff5102's revert to older version of the article← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:16, 16 March 2024 edit undoHarryboyles (talk | contribs)Administrators159,000 editsm →top: fixing Islam-and-Controversy parameter in {{WikiProject Islam}}Tag: AWB |
| (22 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Old merge full |
|
|
| otherpage = Ali Sina (activist) |
|
|
| date = 17-2-2021 |
|
|
| merge = yes |
|
|
| talk = Talk:Ali_Sina_(activist)#Redirect_proposal |
|
|
| URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Ali_Sina_(activist)&oldid=1010384084#Redirect_proposal}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{notaforum}} |
|
{{notaforum}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|Islam and Controversy=yes|class=B|importance=low|}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|Islam-and-Controversy=yes|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Websites}} |
|
{{WikiProject Websites}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
{{Old XfD multi |
|
{{Old XfD multi |
|
<!-- 1st --> |
|
<!-- 1st --> |
| Line 22: |
Line 31: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Copied|from=Faith Freedom International|from_oldid=967230865|to=WikiIslam|to_diff=967331649}} |
|
{{Copied|from=Faith Freedom International|from_oldid=967230865|to=WikiIslam|to_diff=967331649}} |
|
|
|
|
== 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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Richard Dawkin's website no longer lists FFI == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can this be noted?--] 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. ] 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==is the website down? == |
|
|
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php |
|
|
|
|
|
I can't get in - anonymous <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:How the feck should we know ? - FFI isn't hosted here ! ] 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! ] 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::second time this year. We'll just have to wait.--]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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 --] 10:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You do realize that a blog isn't a reliable source to accuse someone of racism. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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. --] (]) 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. ] 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 ] another group. --] (]) 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:<br /> |
|
|
:::http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/EdipYukselp35.htm<br /> |
|
|
:::--] (]) 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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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 ], as an expert on ], 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 ] 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 ] in the ], ] 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.] (]) 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. ] 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. ] 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 ]. 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 ]lous "Opposing Websites"-chapter, as has happened at the ]-article. What do you think of that?] (]) 09:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Why does it violate ]? Do medical, scientific and scholarly journals hosted on ] 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). ] 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It does violate ], 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 ]. Besides, talking about islam-sites is no ], so the given judgements are opinions by definition. I had the same problem when I wanted to include conclusions from reports from the ] (of ]) on the ]-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.] (]) 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. ] 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 ], so the given judgements are opinions by definition." - you make it appear as if there's no academic field known as ]. |
|
|
:::<s>"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.</s> ] 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. ] 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 ], we shouldn't put a "similar football-stars-part in it either. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] 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.] (]) 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. ] 18:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That problem is solved!;)] (]) 09:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Okay, I've sent you the paper. Apologies if the tables aren't formatted correctly :o ] 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. ] 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.) --] 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.] (]) 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==External links=== |
|
|
Please people say what the problem with them and why you want to remove it?the up topic is mixing and confusing.] (]) 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:They are polemical and not considered reliable. See ]. ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] 21:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please, do. That would spare us a debate.] (]) 12:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:See: ]. ] 17:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks. Like I said: this saves us both a pointless debate.] (]) 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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::::See ]. You are highly inconsistent in your argument, especially as you do not restore the 'opposing websites' section alongside the 'similar websites' one. ] |
|
|
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!!!!! ] (]) 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
:<blockquote>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)</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
If you still disagree I'm interested in learning which edits you disagree with and why. ] 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,] (]) 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, ] is more specific than ], 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. ] 09:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I agree this article isn't perfect, but at least there appeared to be consensus. The category, ], 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 "]"-page uses 17 sources to support this claim, while at FFI, none (NONE!) source is present. So is there any consensus on this?] (]) 09:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Hate site=== |
|
|
|
|
|
All right, calling FFI a "]" without sources, and without consensus, that is both factual inaccurate AND NPOV. thus, I placed the relevant tags on it.] (]) 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 ] a hate site while FFI is labelled religious opinion. See ]. I am curious what ] thinks about this. I personally only discovered this page via ] while reverting vandalism, but I'm not at all comfortable with having such an accusation in place with a {{tl|fact}} tag, and the source previously cited did ''not'' use that term. ] (]) 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 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 13:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Several problems and cleanup... == |
|
|
|
|
|
# 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. |
|
|
# 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. |
|
|
# 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 ]. |
|
|
# I've removed an external link that contained no discussion of FFI. ] (]) 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??] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 00:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Hi, as you have already seen, I placed the discussion on ]. I hope I explained your point well. During the course of the discussion, I will not restore the material. Regards, ] (]) 09:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{discussion top|1=This discussion took place on ]. Following the advice of ], we kept out the debates-section out of the article.] (]) 10:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)}} |
|
|
== WP:SELFPUB on internetsites and -debates == |
|
|
|
|
|
See the latest discussion on ]. This article is about a website with, among others, debates of the site owner with several persons concerning the islamic belief. <br> |
|
|
I am discussing the following:<br> |
|
|
1) According to ], 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'')<br> |
|
|
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 ], the problem is that these debates "dealt with claims made of third parties. Self-references may not be used in such cases per ]." Furthermore, it should be a violation of ].<br> |
|
|
I do not agree with this reasoning, because:<br> |
|
|
a) The article is about the website, and not about the claims made in the debates;<br> |
|
|
b) Nobody contested elsewhere the statements made in the debates on FFI-site;<br> |
|
|
c) If the guidelines are interpreted the way ] does, a lot of articles concerning websites (and books) all need a major clean-up. <br> |
|
|
Please give some advice, and please also look at the discussions ] and ] for more information concerning this article.] (]) 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 ] for cases like this in the future rather than policy talk pages. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ], ], and ]). You should take that into consideration Jeff. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 last year. What ANI thread are you referring to? Thanks. ] (]) 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Gigs is referring to discussion no. 48 in ]. 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 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. ] (]) 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,] (]) 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. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{discussion bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposed merger == |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose merging ] 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. –] (] ⋅ ]) 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. ] ] 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. --] (]) 23:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' O dear. Here we go again. After unsuccesful campaigning to delete the ]-page, the same usual suspects take on the FFI-page. And ] 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?] (]) 09:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:*Read this: ]. And please avoid calling editors "usual suspects", it has a distinctly criminal connotation ;) ] ] 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.] (]) 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." –] (] ⋅ ]) 16:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I beg your pardon? ] 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 ] 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.] (]) 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. –] (] ⋅ ]) 22:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Actually, the ''first'' editor (]) who requested for a deletion of FFI is now banned for being a sockpuppeteer, the ''second'' requester (]) was banned indefinitely on March 15, 2008, after numerous instances of ban evasion for his ban in 2006. Only the ''third'' requester (]) has a clean record. Equally, the ''first'' requester of the Ali Sina-article (]) was blocked with an expiry time of indefinite. The second requester (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 (] and ]) 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I believe that only the !votes of editors in good standing have any relevance.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ], 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. –] (] ⋅ ]) 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. ] (]) 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. –] (] ⋅ ]) 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. -] (]) 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. –] (] ⋅ ]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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 ]. ] (]) 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. –] (] ⋅ ]) 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. ] (]) 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. –] (] ⋅ ]) 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. ] ] 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Good idea. focuses on Sina; it's the only ''reliable and significant'' source I can find on either thing. –] (] ⋅ ]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] in your inquiries? –] (] ⋅ ]) 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 ] the parent publisher of WND books or ] which does publish a wide range of topic but ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. –] (] ⋅ ]) 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. –] (] ⋅ ]) 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? (]]) 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. –] (] ⋅ ]) 17:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::OceanSplash's block log seems to indicate that those ideas are a common theme for his posts. ] (]) 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?] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ]]) 08:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::::::::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. ] (]) 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. ]]) 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 ] 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.] (]) 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"<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
When did Wikipida help contribute to organized Crime?<br /> |
|
|
--] (]) 01:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|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. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 15:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified {{plural:4|one external link|4 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|needhelp=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 09:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Content Section == |
|
== Content Section == |
| Line 322: |
Line 51: |
|
:::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. 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) |
|
::::"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) |
|
::::], 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 |
|
:::::], "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) |
|
:::::"" 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) |
|
::::::" 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) |
|
::::::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) |
|
|
: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) |
|
|
::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. |
|
|
::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. |
|
|
::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 == |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
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}
