Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Faith Freedom International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Discussion under Karl's "vote"

    • Where? All the media attention seems to be addressed by the "trivial coverage" clause of the WP:WEB guideline. BhaiSaab talk 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Click on the links and try to actually read the articles. They are absolutely not being covered by the "trivial coverage" clause in that guideline. Another fact that should be mentioned is that at least one other website has been created with only one purpose: Opposing what FFI says. That makes the organization even more worth mentioning. -- Karl Meier 17:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I've actually already clicked on the articles and read them, thank you very much. The trivial coverage clause states that articles that just mention the web address do not count as coverage of the website. That's exactly what the articles do and anyone who clicks on the links will see just that. BhaiSaab talk 17:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
          • One of them has an interview with Ali Sina [1], and the rest also offer some in-dept information about FFI. BhaiSaab, why are you trying to tell people here things that are simply not true? You are trying to insult everyone here? Or are you just so desperate to censor critical information about you favorite religion? -- Karl Meier 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Well let's see some of that in-depth coverage of FFI, Karl. An interview with Ali Sina that mentions the web address of his site is "trivial coverage" of the website itself. BhaiSaab talk 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Here's the extant of the coverage by the way:
            • "...Ali Sina of www.faithfreedom.org..." Asia Times (this falls under sites that simply report the web address under the "trivial coverage" clause)
            • "...Ali Sina, the founder of Faith Freedom International (www.faithfreedom.org), a movement of ex-Muslims created to provide support for those who want to leave Islam and give factual information about Islam for others..." FrontPageMag (this falls under sites that give "a brief summary of the nature of the content" under the trivial coverage clause)
            • The blog post by Spencer doesn't even mention the website, although some comments by users do. (not even trivial coverage here)
            • The editorial at the Post Chronicle attributes the site once for quotes. (I think this is trivial coverage, again)
            • So where is that in-depth information you were speaking of? Is it the one-sentence description on frontpagemag's website? BhaiSaab talk 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
              • I would appreciate to see evidence of those sites that mention FFI being notable in themselves. Im not stating they are not, i am simply requesting evidence for this. Is postchronicle notable? --Striver 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
                • If you cut what the sources says short, then of course it will be short. But doing that is simply dishonest. Here is just some of what Asia Times actually says about FFI and Ali Sina in their coverage: "Ali Sina of www.faithfreedom.org. Sina writes: "Islam is not a religion. Considering Islam a religion is a foolish mistake that could cost millions of lives. Islam is a political movement set to conquer the world. It is the Borg of the non-fictional world. Islam has one goal and one goal alone: to assimilate or to destroy." In an emotionally charged atmosphere, precise thinking is needed. Kant was wrong, but wrong in a way that helps clarify the problem. Ali Sina and other Muslim secularizers are just as wrong. I shall argue that Islam is both a religion and a political ideology. Religion is what makes Islamic political ideology so dangerous." Please stop lying and twisting the truth BhaiSaab. It getting more and more obvious that you are absolutely desperate to censor any critical views of Islam here on Wikipedia. -- Karl Meier 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
              • You say that Ali Sina from FFI is only mentioned in one sentence in the frontlinemag's article. That is simply not true. Ali Sina's and FFI's views regarding Islam takes most of space in that article, and I don't want to copy/paste it here, as it would consume too much space and would make this page more difficult to read and use. I suggest that anyone interested should click on the link and read the article. -- Karl Meier 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • You could say that he represents the views of any anti-Islam website. It doesn't really matter as it's presented as Sina's opinions, not coverage of FFI. BhaiSaab talk 18:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • I am not at all trying to cut what the sources say, but trying to keep it relevant to the website itself. Keep your personal comments at the door. BhaiSaab talk 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • Quit your Wiki lawyering BhaiSaab. You and your behavior is not above criticism, especially now that a one year ban has been suggested as a result of your latest ArbCom case. Anyway, the facts that the articles has an extensive discussion regarding FFI, Ali Sina and their views on Islam is what is important. FFI and Ali Sina has attracted a significant amount of media attention and interviews has been published and so on, and that makes the article's subject notable. -- Karl Meier 18:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
                      • Take it easy. As I recall you're already on probation. There is no extensive discussion of FFI as I see it. BhaiSaab talk 18:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
                        • The probation is not a problem for me as I edit according to policy. Getting banned by the ArbCom for anti-Semitic remarks and insults will be a problem for you, however... Anyway, again, I suggest that you actually read the links that I have provided. -- Karl Meier 18:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
                          • Isn't it a more important question if the third party is a RS? I still wait for evidence of that... --Striver 18:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
                          • I'm sure editors who edit according to policy are put on probation. Getting banned will be no problem - it will free up lots of time for me. And as I've stated before, I've read over the links and there is no extensive discussion on FFI. Striver, I think whether or not the other sources are reliable doesn't really matter, but I'm not sure of their notability either. BhaiSaab talk 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
                            • Striver: BhaiSaab is right about that. We are not going to use them as references. We are going to determine whether or not the media attention that FFI has recieved is enough to make the articles subject notable. -- Karl Meier 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
                            • I was only placed on probation because the ArbCom felt a was a little too active in dealing with a user that the same ArbCom accepted was editing against Wikipedias policies regarding neutrality. It was suggested that others should take the lead dealing with this specific user. You on the other hand seems to be having a lot more trouble... -- Karl Meier 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
                              • In all honesty I couldn't care less about getting in trouble for being provocative to sockpuppeteers. BhaiSaab talk 18:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
                                • You are very sensitive about "sock puppets", BhaiSaab. You forgot to answer my previous question though... Have you every used any other account than BhaiSaab? -- Karl Meier 19:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Do we have an article on WP on Front page mag MerryJ-Ho 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia_talk%7EArticles_for_deletion_Faith_Freedom_International_3612.html"