Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/Partisan and extremist websites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)

1 Introduction
2 Consensus list
3 Discussions
- 3.1 http://www.answering-Islam.org
4 Nominations

[edit] Introduction

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan and extremist websites:

The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source.

Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals, and their activities, and even then should be used with caution.

}}

This sub-page of the MOS is aimed at identifying those sites. Here is the procedure.

Add a specific web-site, with url, to the "Nominations" section. Sign your name under the site if you agree that it should be evaluated.
If "enough" (not defined) people agree on the nomination, it will be moved to the "Discussions" section.
If and when consensus is added, the article will be moved to the "Consensus list".

Nominations that are not regarding a specific web-site will be removed.

[edit] Consensus list

[edit] Discussions

[edit] http://www.answering-Islam.org

Alright, considering that there are no established protocol, ill be bold and move this up to the discussion section.

Here are my arguments, the the site is:

mostly anonymous
not peer viewed
not scholarly
of course, a partisan and extremist websites

--Striver 16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also add some from WP:WEB, which are also valid for site notability:

The content itself has been NOT the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

--- ALM 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actualy, im not sure if web is applicable. Does a site need to be notable to be quoted from? I doubt it... this needs input from multiple editors. --Striver 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Site is partisan but not extremist. It is certainly not scholarly and written by unrecognized amateurs, and for that reason should be used very sparingly as a source. - Merzbow 03:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Extremist is something very strong. Trying to get Muslims to leave Islam does not fall under that category. Arrow740 03:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In your view, is http://www.answering-christianity.com a extremist site? --Striver 06:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with their arguments against Christianity, either personally or as a wikipedia editor, though they seem to rely primarily on the Old Testament, which I think is only effective with certain strains of Christianity. The denial of 9/11, however, puts them in a different category from Answering-Islam.org. I suppose that makes them extremist. Arrow740 07:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So, what would make an Islam-critical site "extremist" in your view? Care to give a direct example? --Striver 12:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying all anti-Islam polemic sites are not extremist. I'm sure you can find an example of one that is extremist, and when you do I'll agree with you. Arrow740 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)