Misplaced Pages

Dear AnonymousEditor, yes there are many death threats against Sina. This is no different. We just have to provide an example and this happens to be written in a relatively known Islamic forum by a senoir member. Has Sina considered this particular threat? It does not matter. He surely must have considered the threats in general for hiding his identity. The fact is that he hides his identity. Is there any reason for that or is he a paranoid? Is it just because he does not want to be exposed being found a Jew posing as an ex-Muslim or is there any legitimate reason for that? It is important to quote at least one such threat to show his fears are not unfounded. It is up to you to tell us why this threat does not meet the criterion of Misplaced Pages. If this threat does not belong to this section where we talk about him and whatever we know of his bio, where we should talk about it? Does it belong to his Views and Beliefs? Does it belong to Criticisms against him? This is not criticism. This is providing justification for him hiding his identity. Also I see no reason saying “Ali Sina is the pseudonym of a self-described Iranian Canadian Secular-Humanist ex-Muslim” He is an Iranian Canadian and he is a secular humanist. Even if he is not this not important. The only part that some Muslims are not sure about is his claim that he is an ex-Muslim. That is already covered in the next paragraph, where it says “His critics have on the other hand argued that he is hiding his identity, in order to make a false claim about being an apostate of Islam”. He is not claiming to be a prophet of God. In that case “self proclaimed” would have been needed. Once you alledge that he could be a fraudulent apostate, it becomes even more compelling to provide at lease one threat. We must not decide for others whether he is a fraud or a really is afraid for his life. It must be the readers to make that decision. By casting doubt on his credibility, it is incumbant that we also give one example of the threats. OceanSplash

My comments on the above talk and this dif. Firstly it is clear to me that without corroborating secondary neutral sources we must say that Ali Sina is "a self-described" XXXXX. Using a pseudonym only in an online scenario, even if your site has made you notable, does not make your site's data verifiable.

Secondly, in the debate about the forum thread. One who threatens does not have to be notable but the threat itself does. In this case the threat causes notability. I don't think Anon / Svest are correct in saying that it has to be notable like threat against Bush notable because, Sina is not notable and it might hit one paper or two if he was killed. However, I really do question how you can say a forum post is a notable threat. A threat from some semi-prominent Muslim site would probably be fine for me... but a forum ... and claiming that the title "Senior member" means something... well, I really don't think that means anything. It should not be used as an attempt to portray the average Muslim as such, and sadly, from OceanSplash's comments I can't be too sure. Also, if that quote does stay you have to quote it. That means doing "I would LOVE TO TORTURE ALI SINA TO DEATH." since it is in caps on the forum.

In regards to, "It is clear that Sina want to remain anonymous because he fear for his life" -Karl, I don't think we can assume that. We can't deny it either. However, that is his claim... I think it would also be a propaganda tool. You cant' reveal your true identity because you're afraid. It allows for two things -- the ability to demonize your oponents and justifies hiding your identity. In light of the fact that we know nothing about the guy outside of his network of sites. It's clear that we have no more evidence for one than the other and each are justifiable... so, we can't really say that as a fact, it's merely a claim. gren グレン 05:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gren,

I think I already answered your questions. “Self described” in what respect? Could it be that he is not an Iranian Canadian or a Secular Humanist? If he is not Iranian Canadian, does it change anything? Isn’t it clear that he is a secular humanist from his writings? These are not outlandish claims and they are insubstantial to who Sina is. The only claim that is controversial and some Muslims have argued could be false is his claim of being an ex-Muslim. This point is already covered. So what is the purpose of saying “self described”? The word “self described” is completely redundant in this case and serves for no other purpose than being derogatory. Can I say you are a self-described man? To what end? Wouldn’t that be an insult? You are either a man or a woman. Does it have any bearing on what you say? We already said that some Muslims suspect he is not an ex-Muslim in clear language therefore this pejorative atribute of “self described” is superfluous.

As for the threat; was Mohammed Bouyeri a notable person? Despite is un-notability he killed Theo Van Gogh. Ali Sina claims to hide his identity because he receives many death threats. Is he lying? Muslims say the real reason is that he is a fraud. If we do not quote at least one threat to back Sina’s claim we are actually giving weight to Muslims’ allegation. Can you prove that Sina is not an ex-Muslim? It is just an allegation. It could be only a slander. We let this stand despite the fact that there is no evidence to support it and you say we should not publish the evidence that Sina is being threatened? Allegations, and suspicions that could be slanderous should be posted but facts should not be? This does not sound logical.

You wrote: “In regards to, "It is clear that Sina want to remain anonymous because he fear for his life" -Karl, I don't think we can assume that.”

We are not assuming that. There are only two reasons why he wants to hide his identity. He is either afraid of ending up dead like Theo Van Gogh or he is a fraud. We covered both these opinions. So what is the problem?

You wrote: “I think it would also be a propaganda tool.”

One would suspect it is a propaganda tool if no evidence of the threat is given. But since there are many threats we must quote at least one of them if we want to be fair and not deliberately portray him as a charlatan. You may love to raise that suspicion, do that is an Islamic site but in Misplaced Pages we must be impartial and state the facts. If someone comes to believe Sina is falsely claiming to have been threatened that would be because we failed to give the whole truth. We have withheld some evidence dishonestly to portray him as a cunning liar. That is the job of the Islamic sites not Misplaced Pages. We must not hide the facts in order to intentionally encourage doubt.

As for demonizing the opponents, are you implying that no Muslim ever commits assassinations? This happens every day. Thousands of incidences of terrorisms and assassinations have happened only in these few short years of this century. Of course not all Muslims are terrorists but some Muslims do kill people. It is not that nobody knows this. What about the news of terrorisms? Should the newspapers stop reporting them because they demonize the Muslims? I do not understand what are you trying to protect? The Islamic jihadis have already demonized Muslims. This threat is only a drop in the ocean of the crimes some Muslims have committed against humanity. If you are concerned about what the terrorists do. If you are concerned about demonization of Islam, you better talk to your jihadi brothers and convince them to stop. Suppose you cover up this death threat, what are you going to do with all these news about Islamic terrorisms? This is nothing in comparison. It is just a threat that may never materialize. Nonetheless it is enough reason for Mr. Sina to go in hiding and that is an important part of his biography.

We already said that we don’t know anything about the guy. But we know that he claims to hides his identity because he is afraid of being assassinated. True or false this is what he claims. We also know that there are some death threats that corroborate his claim. So we must publish them, unless we want to deliberately portray him as a liar. Is this what you want to do? Is it your intention to character assassinate the guy by withholding key information? Muslims say he is an impostor. They do not have any evidence for this allegation but still we quote them. If Muslims bring evidence that prove he is indeed an impostor, would you not want to post that evidence in Misplaced Pages to back up that allegation? Would I be justified to oppose the publication of such evidence just because this demonizes Ali Sina? OceanSplash

OceanSplash, firstly please sign your posts, it makes them easier to read. The issue here is that we are purporting to be an encyclopedia, that is, a reliable source of information. When we are taking our information from one site it does not do that. The issue with users is assume good faith. You have no reason to believe that I am not male but that does not mean my word is a good enough source to use in an encyclopedia to say I am a man. Therefore, it is not the fact that it matters so much as is it true — and honestly we don't know from the sources given. As for his secular-humanism I don't think self-proclaimed is wrong or necessarily pejorative since do most notable secular humanists see him as one? However, that is a much more minor issue and since it is in the realm of ideology it is much more acceptable to take his word for it.

Mohammed Bouyeri's action made him notable, and that is why he has an article. That forum user has gained no notoreity because of this and in fact he was one of many forum-type death threats against Ali Sina. However, you then twist my words. I said that in light of there really being no verifiable second hand information about the man we cannot tell if his reason is to defame Muslims or because he is afraid. I never suggested posting one and not the other. I suggest that trying to make this sound conclusive is assuming something that we do not know. It is not that he is a fraud, it is that he has a reason to hide his identity and "being afraid of showing it" is a good excuse. My point is that I have been threatened on forums. It means very little. The issue is that we don't have facts. The only thing we have is what he says, these do not represent facts but a one sided history. I have no real urge to demonize him and I have not stated anything that would. I have stated that we cannot portray something as fact when we do not have reliable sources.

This article is about Ali Sina, not a forum to agree or disagree with him. I would not be stupid enough to claim that the news portraying terrorism is demonizing Muslims but Ali Sina trying to say that terrorism is very Islamically founded is trying to do just that and we are here neither to agree or disagree with him. If you could find a notable Muslim source talking about killing him that would be one thing but you have found a user on a webforum. Find me a quote on Sunni-Path or something similar about it and you'll surely have a right to link it, but you have given nothing like that. If I tried linking an forum MWU! member talking about how Ali Sina should not be harmed that is not notable and you would (rightfully) cry foul. The issue in that instance is notability, and none of this should be attempting to have a normative impact on wikipedia's portrayal of Islam as a whole.

I am not trying to portray him as a liar, it is, and should be, standard practice to not just trust what someone says about themselves. I do not visit http://www.isna.ir/ for objective news on Iran, if we did we would have a very different picture than reality. Ali Sina may be lying, he may not be... I really don't give a damn. In fact just read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Dubious_sources, it says, "Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website".

Please refrain from the tone you use. Saying that any user should talk to their Jihadi brothers to stop terrorism is completely inappropriate. gren グレン 07:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oceanview - please refrain from making personal attacks or lobbing insults at other contributors. →Raul654 07:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gren,

You seem to be contradicting yourself. On one hand you say we should not just trust what someone says about himself implying that Sina could be lying about the death threats. On the other hand you don’t want the threats to be published claiming they are not issued by a notable person. Doesn’t this mean you intentionally want to cover up the threat to make Sina look like a liar? If that suspicion can arise, it is more that necessary to give at least one example of the threats that Sina claims to have received.

The use of “self described” for mundane things such as nationality or beliefs are inappropriate and derogatory. If you claim to be a Muslim then you are a Muslim. Not all Muslims agree with each other. In fact some Muslims call other Muslims heretics and kill them. These Muslims who do not regard each other as real Muslims may use the term “self described Muslim” or “so called Muslim” when they talk about each other. This is intentionally done to insult. Ali Sina claims to be secular humanist. There is no indication that he practices any religion or preaches one. He also adheres to humanistic precepts. That is he puts humans and their values above religions. Not all humanists thing alike. Communism is also a humanistic doctrine but most humanists do not agree with communists and vice versa. The fact that some humanists may not agree with Ali Sina is irrelevant. In Islam all those who claim to be Muslims are Muslims despite the fact that other Muslims call them heretics. Ali Sina claims to be a humanist so he is. The adjective “self described” in this case is only used pejoratively. The only genuine doubt is about his claim to be an apostate and that is covered.

Asking you to convince your jihadi brothers to stop is not an insult. Aren’t all Muslims brothers? Aren’t the jihadis Muslims? So they are your Muslim brothers. You don’t agree with what they do and they don’t agree with you. But that is beside the point. Both of you call yourselves Muslims and the world accepts you as such. When these jihadis commit terrorism, they tarnish the image of Islam, just as when Doctormaybe issues death threats he tarnishes the image of Islam. No one says all Muslims are jihadis and no one says all Muslims are assassins. Nonetheless some Muslims are jihadis and some are assassins. None of these people are notable, but they inflict harm. The threat of Doctormaybe is insignificant in comparison to what the jihadis do. The sin of the Jihadis is like a mountain while that of Doctormaybe is like a grain of sand in comparison. It surprises me that you are embarrassed of what Doctormaybe says and want to hide it lest Muslims are dehumanized but are not embarrassed of what the jihadis do. If you are truly embarrassed of what these people do, shouldn’t you convince the jihadis to stop first? By not allowing the publication of this threat you are actually becoming part of the cover up system of lies. I don’t think you do that intentionally but that is exactly what you do.

Finally, if the FBI receives a threat of terrorism, the whole country gets mobilized and they talk about it in the news. They don’t dismiss the threat just because the caller was anonymous and not notable. A threat is a threat and generally it comes from anonymous people. The threats that Dr. Sina receives does not concern anyone. But they concern him and this is the reason he hides his identity. This information is important when we talk about him. Cheers OceanSplash

The issue of being a secular humanist is an issue now, I said some could agree that he is not but clearly said that is neither here nor there. Ali Sina's claims about being a Muslims talk about his realization of how horrible Islamic society is. You know damned well that it would matter if someone found out his identity and that he was a practicing envangelical Christian his whole life that it would make a difference. No that's not me trying to make him look like a liar, he probably is an ex-Muslim, I', sure there are plenty angry ex-Muslims. However once again the issue is verifiability. It's not the claim to be a Muslim ideology, it's the baggage that he puts with it. He has created an image of himself that we cannot verify. It's just a fact and writing this neutrally means that we cannot imply that he is correct or that he is incorrect. It is inconclusive.

It was used in a pejorative manner, whether you deny it or not is unimportant. Not to mention that I am not a Muslim so why would you possibly attempt to portray me as one? At least calling me an idiot would be a value judgment instead of something that is plain wrong. I'm embarassed of what Doctormaybe has to say and what you have to say as well, really, neither are encyclopedic and that's the issue here. I don't make any efforts to shut down FFI, in fact my view is incredibly pro free speech (along the lines of thinking NAMBLA has a right to publish what they do). Ali Sina should be able to go into Washington and burn as many Qur'ans as he wants. However, if he went to Britannica to talk about his article they should laugh in his face if he tried using any of the sources we use. The information is important that he claims it. I have written too much already. gren グレン 12:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, let's not turn this into a debate forum. Our personal opinions regarding if he's a great guy or - like Gren seems to think - is a very very bad man, like the pedophiles at NAMBLA should be of no interest to anyone here. Fact is that we already mention that he remain anonymous, and there doesn't seems to be much reason to repeat that fact all over the place. That some of his critics have said that they don't believe that he's an ex-Muslim, is also mentioned. -- Karl Meier 13:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Karl sums it up. Once we say he hides his identity and little is known about him publicly, anyone can understand everything he says about himself has not been verified by any other independent source. Any more elaboration on this point is just redundancy. It is up to the reader to accept his claims about himself or reject them. OceanSplash

Karl, my NAMBLA comparison was my aside about my views on free speech, not a comparison to Ali Sina. It would be completely misreading everything I have said to believe that I think he is a bad man. All I have said is that encyclopedic standards mandate that if we don't have reliable sources about him we cannot portray non-reliable sources as reliable. I am not advocating redundancy, the article as it is is badly written. I did not say to repeat the fact, I am just saying that his site about himself is not a reliable source. You may not agree with me but please at least understand my point because... what you said is not what I was saying. gren グレン 01:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

Dear SlimVirgin What is the purpose of blocking? This subject is exhaustively discussed and both sides have expressed their views. There is nothing else to add and I think the point is clear. OceanSplash

Hi Ocean, I protected because there seemed to be a lot of reverting, and possible sockpuppetry. Perhaps you could try to hammer out your differences here on talk first. Cheers, SlimVirgin 22:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin:

This subject is didcussed exhaustivley. There is nothing else to add. Please read the discussions. Both sides are only repeating themselves. I have made a request to unprotect the page and explained the reasons here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Ali_Sina

Regards (OceanSplash 19 Oct. 2005)

Hi again, Ocean, perhaps it would help if you could read our editorial policies. It'll take a bit of time but you might find it'll help to make your edits stick. Basically, they say we can only publish material that has already been published by reliable sources. Exceptions are made in the case of biographies like this, where if the subject is talking about himself on his own website, we may use that, but we use it with caution. Third-party sources are usually preferred. We can get into the specifics if you have queries after reading the policies. They are Misplaced Pages:No original research, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and a related guideline Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. That should keep you busy for a bit. ;-) SlimVirgin 23:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This sentence from Misplaced Pages:Verifiability goes to the heart of our policies: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." (my emphasis) SlimVirgin 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin,

I am familiar with these pages and rules of editing. Those were the first articles I read even before doing my first editing. They are great and I agree with everything they say. I don’t think our discussion is about any of these subjects. We are not certainly trying to write an original research, all the points mentioned in this article reflect both the views of the person we are discussing and his critics, all statements are linked to external sources. All the sources are verifiable. The ones about Mr. Sina are linked to his own site and therefore have his own seal of approval. Therefore when we say he said this or that we are not giving our opinion. I am not sure whether you had the time to read the article. But I believe it meets all the three criteria highlighted by Misplaced Pages. If you read and think it does not, I would love to hear from you. I am sure we can improve the article and fix the shortcomings.

The present impasse is about the inclusion of a certain threat. We discussed the cons and pros of this inclusion to exhaustion. I don’t know what else the Muslims or we can say that is not already said. If you can tell us your opinion that would be helpful. But protecting the biased version of the Muslims and the telling us sort out among yourselves is not helpful.

I would like you to read the discussion we had on this subject and tell us exactly why you think this threat should or should not be included. As far as the discussion is concerned I think both sides have said whatever had to be said and we have responded to each and every concern of the Muslims. Would you like to step in and read these debates and make a final decision and explain it why you made that decision?

I am afraid there is a lot of bullishness going on by certain group in Misplaced Pages. This should not be allowed to continue. Our Muslim editors are adamant to impose their version of fact but often fail to explain why. In this case, if you agree with their view, would you care to give some logical arguments why the threat should not be published? Please see our responses so you know the subjects that have already been raised and answered.

The threat comes from a fairly reputable Islamic site and the member is a senior member of the forum of that site, meaning he is active and has posted hundreds of messages there. Other Muslims in that site applauded his intentions. How much verifiable a threat should be to be taken seriously? Often it takes one anonymous call to make a whole country mobilized and get ready. Does an assassin need to be a notable to commit assassination? If the Muslim editors in this site dissociate themselves from such goons, why they try to cover up their crimes? Why they are not the first to denounce them?

In this article Muslims said that Mr. Sina hides his identity because he is fraud and not an ex-Muslim. Don’t you think the publication of verifiable threat such as this would at lease show his concerns for his life are genuine? He still could be fraud, nonetheless, we have some evidence to show that it is possible that he is sincere when he says he is afraid of being killed by Muslim jihadis. This is like writing: “the Critics of VirginSlim think she is dishonest” and deliberately withhold the piece of evidence that shows you are not dishonest. Would that be fair?

The only logical conclusion here is dear SlimVirgin that Muslims are hostile to Ali Sina and are doing everything possible to vilify him. Is that the standard that Misplaced Pages wants to set? (OceanSplash 00:46 Oct. 20, 2005)

FFI

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12838 Here we go again :) gren グレン 07:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That's why forums are considered notable resources of information for some! Thanks Gren. Svest 22:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)