Talk:Faith Freedom International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for general discussion of Faith Freedom International. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Faith Freedom International article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	Islam Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 9, 2005. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 Dec 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives

Dec 06-Jul 07

.

Contents 1 Primarysources tag 2 BLP 3 From WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves 4 Seperate page for the founder? 5 is the website down? 6 Confused 7 Richard Dawkin's website no longer lists FFI 8 No longer indexed by google =) 9 views on islam 10 Consensus 10.1 Support 10.2 Oppose 10.3 Comments 11 Recent removal of content 12 Islamophobia 12.1 RFC 12.1.1 Support 12.1.2 Oppose 12.1.3 Various comments and other discussion 13 What is the evidence that "Ali Sina" is an ex-Muslim? 14 Category: Anti-Islam sentiment 15 Proposal for new start of the lead section 15.1 Support replacement 15.2 Oppose replacement 16 Proposal to add Islamophobia in the 'See also' Links 16.1 Support 16.2 Oppose 16.3 Comments (See also) 17 Remove protection

[edit] Primarysources tag

Templates such as {{Primarysources}}, {{Unreferenced}} go at the top if the tag applies to the whole article or in the section it applies to. Moving the the {{Primarysources}} tag to the References section is illogical. I also could find no discussions in the archive where this was discussed. → AA ^(talk) — 00:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

i concur, {{Primarysources}} does not appear to stipulate placement in the ref section. the rationale behind placing it at the top was to bring more attention to it, as it's an issue that: a) is systemic; b) has been ignored thus far. ITAQALLAH 01:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a waste of space at the top, and it makes the article look worse. This tag is to alert editors, not readers. Especially since this issue is as disputed as it is.--Sefringle^Talk 02:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'untidyness' of its usage can be said for all the templates that produce big banners (e.g. {{Unreferenced}}, {{Cleanup}}, etc.) It has been used in other articles also at the top of the page (e.g.Ecologyfund.com, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Anarchy Online) and various other articles in the relevant sections. In terms of alerting only editors, I would argue it is also the case of alerting the reader to note only primary sources have been used. Additionally, all readers of Wikipedia are potential editors too since they may have come across secondary sources and may feel inclined to add it when seeing the notice. I therefore think it needs to be at the top of the article and have moved it back there. Cheers. → AA ^(talk) — 09:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Those templates are there as much to warn unediting readers that the information they read may not be reliable. Primary sources on FFI do not necessarily mean the content is unreliable information about FFI, but rather that the content is mainly from the FFI writers themselves. Not all readers are potential editors. The vast majority of the people who read wikipedia will never edit a single article; this is evident by comparing the number of editors on wikipedia to the number of viewers, which is clearly much larger considering wikipedia is one of the top 20 websites. So for the purpose of this article, the tag belongs in the references section. I think this is a fair compromise, since I'd prefer it be removed.--Sefringle^Talk 20:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

placing the tag in the 'References' section shouldn't be seen as compromise between placing it in a more clearer location (i.e. where it is less likely to be ignored) or removing it altogether (which cannot be justified considering the current state of the article). ITAQALLAH 22:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And why is that?--Sefringle^Talk 04:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it really doesn't belong in the reference section either, and putting it there seems designed to downplay the problem being pointed out. The Behnam 04:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur - all "article" level tags are placed at the top. → AA ^(talk) — 06:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[1] Sefringle, I'd appreciate it if you would not act without regard for this discussion. Your argument supporting hiding the tag at the bottom is "It is a waste of space at the top, and it makes the article look worse. This tag is to alert editors, not readers."

"It is a waste of space at the top" - How does this at all support hiding it at the bottom? Does it not waste space there as well? Is it really justified to call the tag a "waste" of space when it is designed to alert the reader to potential unreliability/lack of notability of claims made in the article? It is our obligation to alert the reader of possible unreliability.

"it makes the article look worse" - That's purely subjective and uninformative. While I don't disagree (aesthetically), it is unfortunately an issue that must be pointed out until the problem is resolved. In order to point out something that needs to be pointed out, the tag must be located in a highly visible location seen by reader before doing any actual reading. As this discussion has shown, I and others are concerned that placing it in the references section itself is not visible and appears designed to downplay the problem being pointed out.

"This tag is to alert editors, not readers" - This is just wrong - it alerts both as it should. The text of the template itself says that an articles resting too much upon primary sources "are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article." As such, this is a potential accuracy issue - you wouldn't actually try to hide something like that from the reader, would you Sefringle? The Behnam 05:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How does this at all support hiding it at the bottom? Does it not waste space there as well? Is it really justified to call the tag a "waste" of space when it is designed to alert the reader to potential unreliability/lack of notability of claims made in the article? OK, now we are getting into the real issue here. It isn't reliability; it is notability, which has already been discussed. The site is notable, for wikipedia standards, and if you disagree, you can try another Afd, but expect it to result in keep. This has already been discussed many times. It is our obligation to alert the reader of possible unreliability. Exactly. However primary sources in itself does not mean unreliability.

In order to point out something that needs to be pointed out, the tag must be located in a highly visible location seen by reader before doing any actual reading. However, this isn't really something that needs to be pointed out. It is more of a minor issue.

this is a potential accuracy issue No. It is not an accuracy issue. Primary sources alone do not equate to accuracy problems alone. It is more of a notability issue, but I already explained this above.--Sefringle^Talk 06:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The tag appears to suggest all three possibilities (unreliable, nonnotable, inaccurate), though accuracy is really the only one mentioned by name. As this article has a heavy primary source issue, according to this tag there is a possibility of compromised accuracy, and this, of course, must be noted to the reader. Don't you agree? The Behnam 06:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, accuracy and RS are the only potential problems pointed out directly by the tag, so neither of us should dwell upon notability, which isn't mentioned by the tag. My bad for bringing it up - I suppose that I often question notability when reliability and accuracy are both in question. The Behnam 06:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"However, this isn't really something that needs to be pointed out. It is more of a minor issue." - articles largely failing to comply with WP:V is a pretty major issue. "This tag is to alert editors, not readers" - if i recall correctly, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. all readers are potential editors, and are invited to help resolve the sourcing issues. heavy reliance on primary sources raises neutrality issues and brings into question the relevance of a lot of its material (who, for example, cares about this "$50,000 challenge"? it is clearly a ruse). ITAQALLAH 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Edip Yuksel, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, Dr. Zakir Naik[11] and Reza Pahlavi are all alive and well. WP:BLP:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles.

I am being very kind by discussing this. FFI is not a reliable source. Also the three-revert rule does not apply to the removal of such content.Bless sins 06:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The key word is contentious. Sina did clearly state that he at least claimed to have debated them, it isn't really a violation, which is stated within the article. Nowhere does it state that he actually debated them, only that he claims to have stated that. No vio here. Besides, the part about Edip Yuksel is even sourced to his own website, nothing contentious about his claim.--Sefringle^Talk 08:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Though I can't speak for Bless, my understanding of the BLP argument is that faithfreedom is not an RS, and so cannot be used to project the claimed debates as 'facts' about FFI. Earlier I addressed a specific case, that of Montazeri, which at the time I adjusted to attribute the claim to Sina. Whether or not that is a solution suitable for the rest of the claims, or if the Montazeri note should also be removed, is worth discussion. For now, perhaps you should adjust the statements under discussion to attribute them properly and then we can see what we should do from there? The Behnam 03:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been brought up to WP:AN/I#WP:BLP_and_Faith_Freedom_International--Sefringle^Talk 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem I'm having is that while we oughtn't use FFI as a source for the claims, it is hard to write good substitutes that do not commit OR by modifying that which is expressed in the source. The thing is, none of the FFI pages say that "Sina says that he debated with X." While it is better to attribute to Sina than to present the claimed debate as a fact, it is 'original' to change something like "Sina debates with X" to "Sina says he debated with X." FFI presents its own claims as facts, but we cannot do the same not only because it is non-RS but also because it is the subject of the article (hence the primarysources tag), and yet we cannot properly cover the information without committing OR by making an original evaluation of the statement as it appears in the source (by adding "Sina says" and whatnot).

If the current setup is not appropriate because FFI can't be relied upon to state such claims as facts, and the solution (explicit attribution) is also not appropriate (slight OR), then the situation is unworkable. This is probably just another example of why its not good to rely upon the primary source so much (esp. a non-RS primary source). What do you all think should be done? The Behnam 04:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

As I expect is clear to regular editors here, this article is very much in violation of this policy. For starters, we should only mention those aspects that are noted by RS - to act upon this criterion alone should cut out much of the article. The debates and similar claims are to be removed in accordance with the 2nd and 4th points. There is certainly more to address along these lines - any statement kept must not violate any of these criteria.

Maybe I'm a tad optimistic, but I feel that if we bring the article into compliance with policy, it may be more acceptable and see less disputes. The removal of the primarysources tag may also be warranted. Let's work, note/discuss, and see how this goes. The Behnam 14:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"it does not involve claims about third parties". Thus even if FFI does say something about Zakir Naik writing to him (or some scholar debating with him), we shouldn't be publishing that on wikipedia.Bless sins 03:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The debates are affected, as well as much else in the article at this time. Very little appears to satisfy these criteria. I'd act but I'll give some more time for discussion before fixing the problem. When I do act, I'll leave a note for each change here on the talk page. The Behnam 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets start with how the content is contentious and how it is making claims about third parties. Prehaps you can explain this? Sefringle^Talk 02:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, "so long as" followed by the list of criteria suggests that any bit of content must satisfy all criteria, so we shouldn't dwell on just a few of them. WP:V asks that we not include content unless all criteria are satisfied. The Behnam 03:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a fine reference to a policy but "Self-publish" is when we have claims by Ali Sina in the Ali Sina article. Such an article does not exist because that wasn't deemed notable enough for its own article. What we have here instead is claims by Ali Sina on the FFI web site and within the FFI article. I don't think it exactly matches the criteria for purely self-publish and it is really related to WP:RS. Reliable sources are very much relative rather than absolute: in some articles only references from top-of-the-range sources will be allowed whereas with others blogs, partisan sources and primary sources are fine.

Now if we had an Ali Sina article then we could cull out what Ali Sina is supposed to have said on the grounds of self-publish, but we don't. This article called "Faith Freedom International".Ttiotsw 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina is the founder of FFI, and is publishing his opinions on FFI. There is no way to genuinely look at them as 'separate' - in fact that is pretty much the definition of "self-published." Sina used the web organization he started to publish his opinions online. We can't use anyone who is a part of FFI either (such as the other contributors). To treat them separately would be akin to, in an article about a company, treating individual employees and the director as 'separate' so that their spam and promotional claims could be projected into the article. As for RS, they aren't anyway. What we need to do is cut out most of the FFI-based or FFI-affiliated publications from the article and stick to sources that comply with WP:RS and WP:V. The Behnam 14:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate page for the founder?

Right now the founders page redirects to this page. But the founder is important enough to spedn a page on; particulairly about the person behind this. Who is the founder, peronal life, development and origines of these beleifs? 201.237.112.206 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see a reliable source that discusses the founder. Just like Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four) we don't know if he exists or is an imagination of a group of people.Bless sins 01:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No please do not confuse other editors with your own content disputes but answer the question clearly: the reason is on "notability" not views on reliable sources. Ali Sina is notable only with respect primarily to Faith Freedom International and secondarily to Apostacy from Islam and so until Sina is notable in his own right away from those areas his content should stay here. That is what we do on Wikipedia i.e. add the text to the notable article page rather than creating new articles and that is why Sina redirects here and not in his own article.

It also works the other way in that sometimes someone is notable but not everything they write is notable for its own article. For example the article on Faith-sufferer, a concept attributed to an essay by Richard Dawkins was merged and redirected [2] to Viruses of the Mind even though Dawkins is a very well known author but the notability of "Faith-sufferer" as a concept wasn't high enough for its own article.

On the other hand, as Bless sins has mentioned, Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four), *is* sufficiently notable as a concept separate from the book or author.

It doesn't matter if it is a concept that is real or imaginary - is it notable ? If not then merge (and redirect) to the related article or delete if there is no related article. Ali Sina was merged and redirected here. Ttiotsw 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your right. If someone is sufficiently notable + there exist reliable sources on him/her, then we can have an article. But are there any reliable sources on Ali Sina at all?Bless sins 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As you know, yes there are (books plus other articles) BUT insufficient for an own article to survive against demands for AfD/prod separate from this one on FFI: we've been through that loop. Ttiotsw 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes we should have a seperate page for Ali Sina , he is quite notable , as an author and founder of FFI . He is also mentioned in many books and is one of the most notable ex-muslims voices in the internet.User:CltFnCltFn 18:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt if an Ali Sina article would survive an AfD without a result of merge content to this FFI page as Ali Sina is only really notable with respect to FFI. We've already been through this loop and he hasn't published much new stuff to change our stance. I too would also propose merge. Ttiotsw 18:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is the website down?

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php

I can't get in - anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.131.182 (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How the feck should we know ? - FFI isn't hosted here ! Ttiotsw 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! The Behnam 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

second time this year. We'll just have to wait.--Sefringle^Talk 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 See fourth paragraph --Street Scholar 10:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that a blog isn't a reliable source to accuse someone of racism. Sefringle^Talk 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. --Street Scholar (talk) 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. Epa101 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 flame another group. --Street Scholar (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

[3] - This battle with Bless sins is confusing me and hasn't yet been explained. Sefringle, can you explain the BLP issue? The Behnam 23:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source states that self published material can only be used if:

• it is relevant to the subject's notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This material is obviously contentious and unduly self-serving, as it is libalrous material about Ali Sina. It is clearly negative and selective to promote a certian view of Sina. Not to mention it is self-published, so it is selective quoting meant to promote a view. Sefringle^Talk 02:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I believe I pointed out this very thing in an above section: Talk:Faith Freedom International#From WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. WP:V has the same standard. You don't mind if I clear out the article of violating statements then, do you? I never got any responses on the above section - I think all of us may benefit from a bit more communication. Regards, The Behnam 02:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, what about the quote is "obviously contentious" (do you dispute Sina wrote it?) or "libalrous" ("Ali Sina" is a pseudonym and these are his own words)? you have, until now, had no problem with pushing Sina's views on particular subjects. the change of hats is quite spectacular. in any case, all sentences based on primary sources should be excised, the usage is far too excessive. ITAQALLAH 11:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you explain how that section violates Wikipedia's BLP policies. Radical controversial statements meant to defame Ali Sina and make him look like a hate monger are obviously BLP violations. His views, however are not radical controversial statements meant to defame Ali Sina, thus they are not libalrous. Sefringle^Talk 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So we can only include his words if they make him look good? Wouldn't that be "unduly self-serving"? That's just another reason we shouldn't rely so heavily upon the primary sources. In any case, WP:V has the same criteria and forbids much of this material from inclusion. For starters, much of it is not relevant to his notability - he isn't known primarily for his views on communism, faiths aside from Islam, non-religious views, etc. The Behnam 02:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that. What I said is it is a clear violation of policy to selectively quote controversial statements from Sina, good or bad if they make him look bad. Including his views in general doesn't violate BLP. I have no opinion on the removial on his views on communism and other faiths. Non-religous views is relevant, however, as non-religion is a clear part of what he is known for, so that section shouldn't be removed. Sefringle^Talk 21:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll then remove communism and the like, since you (seem to) agree that he is notable for "trashing Islam" or whatever one of the few third-party sources said. Are you sure about "non-religious views" being pertinent to his notability? I don't notice any of the few third-party sources caring at all about, for example, his view of "America's role in the world." Perhaps you mistakenly thought that "non-religious views" referred to his views of "non-religion" meaning atheism? The actual section on the page is simply talking about his views that aren't directly related to spirituality. These non-religious views seem just as inappropriate to include as his views on communism (which actually is something of a non-religious view, were it not for the fact that he happens to hold the fringe belief that communism is an atheist religion or something weird like that). The Behnam 03:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Why don't you explain how that section violates Wikipedia's BLP policies" - it doesn't (and neither does the extract you are intent on removing for that matter), it violates content policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:RS. i assume that you have actually looked at the tag you have been continually relocating.[4] ITAQALLAH 10:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is where you are wrong. The quote I removed did violate WP:BLP, as it was libalorus, contentious, and unduely self-serving, unlike the other parts. Sefringle^Talk 03:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you perhaps explain? What you said is essentially a repetition of your original vague claims.

• Is he libeling himself?
• Isn't pretty much anything Sina says "contentious", "involving or likely to cause controversy"? I don't understand why you have singled out the passage that you have.
• "Unduly self-serving"? We are talking about "self-published sources" - the "self-serving" refers to Sina serving himself. How does this passage serve Sina any more than anything else here?

Not to say I support the passage. Rather, I think we should remove it and the rest of the quote farm. I don't think any bit of it passes all of the WP:V criteria. If anything Sina said is notable, one of the third parties will note it, and we can use the third parties as the sources. I've started on this with some recent edits (including better referencing), so hopefully we can work from there so as to eliminate the primary sources problem. The Behnam 04:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, have you reconsidered the inclusion of the "non-religious" views? I stress again that these are not his views of "non-religion" but rather his views of things not very related to religion at all (American foreign policy, etc), and I think it is safe to say that his views on those things are not relevant to FFI's notability. The Behnam 03:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Dawkin's website no longer lists FFI

not listed here

recently removed by popular demand

Can this be noted?--71.141.118.69 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. The Behnam 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No longer indexed by google =)

try it.--71.141.118.69 11:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's quite interesting, but how is this to affect the article? Notability was established based upon a few fairly trivial references, but the Google index is not among them. The Behnam 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

it's back. Yahel Guhan 06:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Kind of shows the importance of FFI in the eyes of the public at least though this hasn't yet got as far into the mainstream press. If we consider that the site had gone down for whatever technical reason and for the vast majority of web sites no one would normally notice BUT we actually get people posting here not only that it has gone down but that Google has aged out the cache. Truthfully I wouldn't have noticed and wouldn't care less.

We also have people watching other web sites and noting how FFI is viewed on those web sites and posting that here. I think this shows that though we have enough references for notability it certainly is supported in reality by the fact that other people watch the site so closely and go out of their way to advise others. This certainly shows strong grassroots support for notability and it is a pity that other articles don't get such dedicated followers to help clean up stuff. I guess they only have time to focus on what is important to them. Thanks in order I think. Ttiotsw 06:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] views on islam

His views on Islam are what he is notable for. These shouldn't be censored or removed. Yahel Guhan 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

His views on Muslims are notable too. These shouldn't be censored or removed.Bless sins 02:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about different material here. I am including material which isn't contentious, unlike your addition. Yahel Guhan 03:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How is the material I add "contentious" but what you add isn't? Bless sins 03:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Where in the material I added is he making contentious statements? It is obvious how the material you added is, as it is clearly an attack on sina using self-published sources. What is the name of the person the material I added is attacking?Yahel Guhan 03:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You added "Ali Sina"'s views in this edit.[5]

And in a later edit ([6]) I added some views regarding Muslims. For some reason you think that you have the right to add content, by I don't. Both content has to do with the views of "Ali Sina". Both content have been published by "Ali Sina" himself.Bless sins 03:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, both content might be the views of Sina, and both content is self published, however both content is not contentious. If it was sourced to reliable secondary sources, I would not have removed it. But as it is now, it is a BLP violation. Yahel Guhan 03:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't pretty much anything Sina says "contentious", "involving or likely to cause controversy"? I don't understand why you have singled out the passage that you have. The Behnam 03:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sina's contentious views on muslims is what he is notable for. Therefore, it is not a BLP violation to include self-published material on himself. → AA ^(talk) — 04:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Sina attacking himself? Is he violating himself? How are we libeling him? Are these not his words? I don't see why it should be treated different from any other of these quotes that aren't directly related to the specific ideas for which he is noted (Muhammad-bashing, etc). Still, I think that it should be removed again, along with the stuff you restored. I tried to keep the quotes that directly touched the reasons he is noted. Nobody (meaning the third parties worth looking at) cares about his views of the Balkans, or Muslim immigrants, or scapegoating of America. Just look at the sources:

• Asia Times - challenges his claim that Islam is a political movement disguised as a religion -> In my version, I kept "The founder of Faith Freedom International, Ali Sina, believes that Islam is not a religion but a political movement,[23]"
• WND - Notes Mohammad-bashing, roots of terrorism in Islam, Islamic miracles, the unwillingness of Muslims to accept defeat -> In my version, I included the rest "that among other things allow the Muslims to wage war against the non-Muslims.[2] He describes Islam as "unflinchingly violent, extremist, reactionary, intolerant, anti-Western and misogynistic" and "as the disease of mankind, and the source of all these wars, terror attacks and human miseries".[24] ... He believes that Islamic holy war, Jihad, is never done by Muslims when they are poor, as "they have instruction" to wait until they are rich enough to win.[25] ... Muhammad: Sina describes Muhammad as a "rapist", a "pedophile",a "monster",[26] and mass murderer".[1]"
• FrontPageMag - the only thing FPM itself actually offers is a description of FFI which I used in the lead to define FFI. Doesn't give us any topics for the quote farm.

Anyway, it should be clear that I chose position statements to keep based upon what the third parties actually noted about FFI/Ali Sina. In the current version (your version), we now have all sorts of primary-sourced position statements that don't seem to reflect that which is relevant to his notability, since the third parties don't note his view of the Balkans or scapegoating or Europe immigrants or any of the other stuff you restored.

Can you please make a clear defense of the inclusions, along the lines I've just made for mine? The Behnam 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Behnam. If we don't use Behnam's criteria for inclusion (namely that the view must be documented by a third party), we might as well copy and paste FFI onto this, because the entire website constitutes the view of "Ali Sina"/FFI.Bless sins 17:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A slippery slope argument; we should at least have some primary sources which present what Ali Sina claims regarding various relevant topics and Sina's claims regarding the Muhammad as a rapist/pedophile etc are topical as claims about Muhammad are core to Islam whereas Sina's views on modern politics are less relevant. Ttiotsw 18:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I kept the Muhammad and Islam views quite plainly because third parties noted his views on those subjects. I don't know about these new additions (BBC, etc) - while interesting, I think that they need to defended as I defended mine above. Whoever added them, can you please show the third parties that care about his views of immigrants, BBC, and Muslims specifically? The Behnam 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends on if you consider Viva Oriana! as a third party source.Bless sins 19:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

[edit] Support

• Bless sins
• The Behnam
• Mostargue
• AA

[edit] Oppose

• Yahel Guhan
• C.Logan
• Prester John

[edit] Comments

Clearly consensus is against you, Mr. Guhan.--Mostargue 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, lets make some more corrections before you turn this into a vote. First of all, The Bahman retired, second, you forgot to include Prester John. Third, as a sock, you are not supposed to be editing this page, so your vote doesn't count. And forth, wikipedia is not a vote. Yahel Guhan 23:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan read WP:NPA. Your allegations, clearly to stifle discussion, are disgusting. Don't make allegations without evidence. If you have evidence, report the user. Secondly, Prester hasn't participated in the discussion.Bless sins 05:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, follow your own advice, and stop making personal attacks, like you just did. Yahel Guhan 06:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I call you a sockpuppet? Did I refer to you as a banned editor?Bless sins 06:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Your allegations, clearly to stifle discussion, are disgusting." constitutes a personal attack. Yahel Guhan 06:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

First, let me note that you should really post a summary of the topic being voted on here. It's a little unclear as to what this "consensus" is even about. In any case, considering the above discussion, I'm currently in opposition to Bless sin's own addition of overly contentious quotes from Ali Sina, which seems to violate WP:SELFPUB/WP:BLP in a few ways (correct me if I'm wrong). Of course, this means that existing quotes within the article may need to be assessed as well against these standards.--C.Logan 06:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are my addition's violations of WP:SELFPUB/WP:BLP? Please quote parts of both policies that suggest this. Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of the explicit double standards and censorship here.Bless sins 19:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I said "correct me if I'm wrong". Secondly, it depends on whether Iranian is a "questionable source", or whether Sina's contributions there could be considered "self-published". Note that if either is applicable, then the statements would appear to be contentious and involving claims about a third party, which are 2 prohibitions on WP:SELFPUB. It's interesting the note that the e-mail link in Sina's name leads to Ardeshir Mehrdad's email address. Presumably, this is for the sake of personal anonymity; any messages would be forwarded by Mehrdad to Sina. You never know, of course- this could be a Jekyll and Hyde scenario (joking, though stranger things have happened).--C.Logan 19:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

C. Logan, pretty much most of what Sina says (especially about Islam and Muslims) is "contentious". Would you not agree that calling Islam "as the disease of mankind, and the source of all these wars, terror attacks and human miseries" is contentious?Bless sins 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As I'd said above, "Of course, this means that existing quotes within the article may need to be assessed as well against these standards." Therefore, these quotes must also be assessed in light of this policy, and if this means that proper judgment shows that they should be removed, then I would support this. Additionally, the quotes that can be used must be from reliable sources. If the reliability of a source can be proven, then it would seem that contentious quotes can remain from that particular source.--C.Logan 20:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning this voting process, I believe you should keep this in mind. Additionally, according to WP:PRACTICAL (official policy): "So in summary, wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se" (sic).--C.Logan 07:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove, therefore it stays.--Mostargue 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent removal of content

This is copied and pasted from Yahel Guhan's talk page, after he/she removed it from there

Regarding this edit. He does say this. Also, most of his other views are also self-published, so I don't understand why Yahel Guhan removes this but not the other views.Bless sins 04:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a cherry-picked, unencyclopedic quote. - Merzbow (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

i don't agree with the insertion of the quote. at the same time, i don't agree with the presence of the parts of the section which are primary sourced. if we are going to keep a limit on which views of Ali Sina we are to represent (and i'm not certain that 'palatability' is a criteria here), then the limit should be decided by what is mentioned in third-party independent sources. ITAQALLAH 19:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess so, since that seems like a fair compromise.Bless sins (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - Merzbow (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that some editors here want to remove valid information from Iranian.com and add biased claims about what Sina "wrongly" believes. That is not acceptable. -- Karl Meier (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

the article on Iranian.com (a generally unremarkable website) is written by Ali Sina and is, like his material on his own website, a primary source. we are not to decide which of his views are noteworthy, whether it be his rantings about Islam or some of his more extreme views (all of which fit the vague notion of 'valid information'). the agreement here has been to stick to what third party sources have said about him/his views, so your straw-man about adding biased claims can be dismissed. ITAQALLAH 19:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The "rantings" as you call them have in this case been published by a notable secondary source. Please accept that fact and don't waste our time with your personal opinions about Ali Sina or the opinions he express. -- Karl Meier (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

iranian.com does not count as a secondary source here, because they aren't describing what Sina believes. in fact, the link is an article by Sina himself and his comments, and is thus a primary source for his views. so this isn't a "notable secondary" source as you claim. please refer to WP:PSTS. ITAQALLAH 14:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

can you also clarify what you what "biased claims" you are removing in this edit? ITAQALLAH 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

Apparently some users haven't read the following paragraph:

WikiIslam is the subject of an article in the 7/2007 issue of the journal Contemporary Islam, entitled "Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam",[17] which argues that the website commits selection bias by collecting only negative or critical material.[17][18] The article states that "In relation to the criteria set up by the Runnymede Trust... ...it should be quite easy to label most of the material published on WikiIslam as expressions of Islamophobia."[19][17] Because of the presence of material obtained from other websites, such as MEMRI, the article notes that "it becomes much more difficult to argue that all information posted on WikiIslam is Islamophobic by nature."[17]

Clearly there is discussion of Islamophobia. No one is saying that FFI is Islamophobic. We are only saying that discussion of FFI sometimes falls into the discourse on Islamophobia.Bless sins (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me why the category was originally nominated for deletion. You seem to have ignored the following: ""it becomes much more difficult to argue that all information posted on WikiIslam is Islamophobic by nature." Therefore, it isn't completely islamophobic, and thus the category becomes a POV label that doesn't belong. Yahel Guhan 03:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse the topic is not Islamophobic. But it relates to Islamophobia. That is why it is categorized that way. Many topics in Category:Antisemitism are not antisemitic, but only relate to antisemitism.Bless sins (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The top of the category concerned says "This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is opposed to Islam or Muslims."Bless sins (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It most certianly is intended to imply it is islamophobic. What other connection does this website have to this topic. It isn't like Runnymede Trust, who coined the term. The clear and obvious intent of adding the cat is because you don't like the websites message, and want to label it as a bigotic website, when that is not the purpose of it. Criticism of islam is not islamophobia. Yahel Guhan 03:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? The anti-Islam sentiment category says "This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is opposed to Islam or Muslims."(emphasis added) Do you understand now?Bless sins (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A mention of a category does not make it relevant. Especially a category like this one. Look at what is in categories like this; stuff that is generally considered to be bigotic, something this website is not (although you may feel it is). See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic

In general, categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life, such as his or her career, origin and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have may be considered trivial. Such things may be interesting information for an article, but not useful for categorization. If something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely not a defining characteristic.

Yahel Guhan 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We have major reliable sources discussing the topic of Islamophobia. The fact that there are multiple reliable sources makes it quite notable (that's how notability is defined).Bless sins (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The website is not notable for being "islamophobic." It is notable for being critical of islam. There is a big difference. Yahel Guhan 04:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly the above comment applies to a person's life. Secondly FFI is notable for a lot of things. Who said that something could only be notable for one thing? Its notable because reliable sources have discussed it.Bless sins (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is notable because multiple reliable sources have discussed it. Not just one. One single source does not make it notable, nor does it make him notable for islamophobia. In fact, the source implys just the opposite. Yahel Guhan 05:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad is in [[Category:Antisemitism]]. Does this mean that all of the Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad are related to antisemitism? --Be happy!! (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but enough are. And he clearly is notable for his antisemitism, among other things. Yahel Guhan 05:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside Iran he is known for his comment about Israel and that is indeed one of the controversies. But there are a lot of controversies and conflicts between him and the Iranian congress regarding his economic etc etc policies. He is a president after all.

The author of the article has mentioned "Cyber-Islamophobia" in the title of his article.--Be happy!! (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note how most of the original material from WikiIslam is declared Islamophobia. It is the material obtained from other mediums like MEMRI which the source doesn't class as Islamophobic, on which basis it says not everything on WikiIslam can be classed as Islamophobic (precisely due to this foreign material). ITAQALLAH 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the source specificly say "wikiislam is an islamophobic website" or something with the same meaning? The answer is no. So to label it as such would be to push your personal POV. Yahel Guhan 02:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is my last attempt to explain the issue to Yahel guhan. The category says (near the top) "Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is opposed to Islam or Muslims." What don't you understand about that? The category doesn't imply the subject is Islamophobic but only that the subject is related to Islamophobia.Bless sins (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying quite clear. There is no relation to islamophobia and the website. It is not an islamophobic website. The only reason to add the categry is to push that POV. Yahel Guhan 04:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do reliable sources mention "Islamophobia"? Yes or no. If they mention it then the website is in some way connected. "It is not an islamophobic website." It shows you still don't understand the simple English sentence I keep on repeating.Bless sins (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer is no. One source mentions Islamophobia. I understand exactly what you are saying. It is just wrong. Yahel Guhan 04:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Yahel Guhan, you make me really frustrated. There are two sources that mention Islamophobia:

• Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All, p. 5, Runnymede Trust (1997).
• Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam, Journal: Contemporary Islam, publisher Springer Netherlands, ISSN 1872-0218 (Print) 1872-0226

Can you not see those sources? Should I call for an RfC to clarify this matter?Bless sins (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You use the title arguement again. The sources don't call it islamophobic. Yahel Guhan 05:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What about bringing this to a broader audience for comment (e.g. requesting for comment (RfC)?)--Be happy!! (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Yahel Guhan 05:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you won't agree that this is anti-Islam sentiment, will you atleast agree that this website is prejudiced towards Muslims. This is also mentioned in the sources.Bless sins (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't agree with that. And that is not in any source mentioned in this article. As I have stated already. Criticism of Islam is not prejudice against muslims. Are you deliberately trying to be disruptive with your editing because you passed the 3rr[7]? Yahel Guhan 06:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess this will have to be solved at an RfC. I have repeated again and again my position. I've even tried to use a compromise category. It appears all you want to do is make silly and false accusations against me (e.g that I've violated 3rr).Bless sins (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you are a comedian with your idea of a compromise? Purposefully choosing categories that label the website as bigotic?Yahel Guhan 07:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yahel, you're well of the mark here. Are the Runnymede Trust, EUMC, Islamic Human Rights Commission, or other articles being called "Islamophobic" due to the presence either of the Islamophobia link or Category:Anti-Islam sentiment? Please think about whether your presumptions are sound and consistent before setting up such baseless non-sequiturs.

We have a scholarly journal talking about a FFI proxy comprehensively with regards to Islamophobia. It doesn't need to say that "WikiIslam is an Islamophobic website" - it explores the relationship between Islamophobia and WikiIslam and concludes that most of the material is easily labeled Islamophobia. So the relevant categories/links are appropriate.

And there is no such word as "bigotic." ITAQALLAH 09:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The article Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad is in [[Category:Antisemitism]] while it is not true that all of the Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad are about anti-Jewish sentiment nor does the person in question himself admits the validity of the relation. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Do you think you are a comedian with your idea of a compromise?" I don't appreciate you calling me names and/or making fun of me. If you continue this, I don't see how this discussion could continue. Bless sins (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you make disruptive edits, they will likely be pointed out. Yahel Guhan 07:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

O RLY? thestick (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

The proposal is to place the article in Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, which recently was nominated for deletion , for which the result of the [[8]] was: keep. Please note the following "disclaimer" in that category, which parallels a disclaimer at Category:Antisemitism:

This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is opposed to Islam or Muslims.

No consensus could be reached on this proposal.

---

Current count, since 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC):

Support: 5

Oppose: 2

Note: this also includes editors who have expressed a clear position in the preceding discussion.

---

[edit] Support

Note: Amongst the involved parties, User:thestick, User:Bless_sins, User:Aminz and User:Itaqallah have supported the inclusion.

• Yes. For one thing, the article states, in the section on Wikiislam: 'WikiIslam is the subject of an article in the 7/2007 issue of the journal Contemporary Islam, entitled "Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam', which argues that the website commits selection bias by collecting only negative or critical material." (My underlining for emphasis. L.) This by itself should already be conclusive (the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment). Furthermore, here are some quotations lifted from the page "About Faith Freedom International" on the FFI website, signed "Ali Sina": All Muslims, to the extent that they follow [the Prophet], are terrorists • Islam induces hate backed by lies • Islam is indeed a satanic cult • Muhammad was a terrorist • Umma [the Muslim world] is fascism.[9] If this is not Anti-Islam sentiment, then what is it? A "neutral point of view summary" of the objective facts?  --Lambiam 14:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yes thestick (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

Note: Amongst the involved parties, User:Yahel Guhan has opposed the inclusion.

• I oppose this category here too. Just because a sub site or associated site of FFI is 'Islamophobic' (and even then you have to name of the author who is claiming the site as Islamophobic because this is a controversial neologism as we all know), it doesnt mean that FFI is Islamophobic. When you put a category in an article, it applies to the subject of the article (FFI), not a small sub-section of the site or one of its associated sites (wikiislam). For example if Quran talks about wife beating which it does according to many reliable sources, you wouldn't want me to put a "Wife beating" category on the Quran article, would you? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Various comments and other discussion

Just because it's "Oh so innocently" critical of islam doesn't mean it isn't islamophobic too, please remember your personal opinion is absolutely worthless to the article so don't remove the relevant cats and "See also" links, more than enough sources indicate that it warrants inclusion by wikipedia policies in those cats, whether it's islamophobic or not - it is connected to this topic thestick (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you state here what the issue is for which the comment is requested?  --Lambiam 12:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please add "Islamophobia" in the See Also hotlinks, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. thestick (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

N Not done - seems to be part of the edit war; admins aren't supposed to decide which side's version should be used - whichever one happens to be there when the page is protected remains unless it can be shown that consensus is against it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The 'edit war' is about the category, the poor "See also" link is just caught in the 'crossfire'. thestick (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• From RfC: Both views are valid here. I see that Yahel has a valid point in that seeing the category tends to imply that the organisation is considered Islamophobic by RSes. I see what Bless Sins is trying to say, in that the cat specifically says "issues etc." There isn't any direct solution because the cat is named poorly. Create a cat for "Islamophobia-related issues", place it in a subset of cat:Islamophobia, and we're done. (Incidentally, I think that's a solution that works for many such problems of categorisation.) Relata refero (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • May I draw your attention to category:antisemitism. The category says "This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. It does not imply that the subjects of any biographical articles are antisemitic." A similar statement can be found at category:anti-Islam sentiment. While both categories maybe in the wrong, (or maybe both are right), we have to recognize ensure that we are consistent in our approach.Bless sins (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Some of the articles in that cat could also benefit from a similar recategorisation. We have to start somewhere, and why not here? Relata refero (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• (RFC Response) Two of the articles currently in the category are Islamic Human Rights Commission and Muslim Action Committee which are certainly not anti-Moslem organizations. I'm not convinced of the merits of the category in general, but I also don't see including it here should be problematic given that the category exists. GRBerry 19:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is the evidence that "Ali Sina" is an ex-Muslim?

The lead states, without source citation, that Ali Sina is the pseudonym of an ex-Muslim. Is there any reliable evidence for this?  --Lambiam 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ali Sina" wrote an article in a book called "Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out.". I feel it is clear what "Apostate" means here. Not every word in Wikipedia need be tagged with a reference unless the claim is contentious. For example all the lead paragraphs of Adolf Hitler have no references. The claims are all derived from the other text. I don't think this claim is contentious unless "Apostate" has some other nuance. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The correct way of putting it is then: "Ali Sina is the pseudonym of a person who says he is an ex-Muslim"--Be happy!! (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. How do we know Ali Sina is not Bob Smith, raised a Christian, who happened to become very familar with Iran and Islam, an uses that to pose as an ex-Muslim in order to give more weight to his attacks on Islam? How do we even know Ali Sina is a single person?  --Lambiam 08:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, as we already use pseudonym in the text and we have 3rd parties that report the apostasy therefore it is cumbersome to add the weasel word "who says he is an...". Ttiotsw (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out which third parties report the apostasy, and where that is documented? I don't see this mentioned in the article.  --Lambiam 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ali Sina" wrote an article in a book called "Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out." is a good start. OK it doesn't explicitly say "ex-Muslim" but it isn't clearly synthesis to associate apostasy with meaning ex-Muslim because it is common to stick in "ex-" in front of 'x' when it is clear that someone isn't 'x' any more. Then there is the rather low-brow WorldNetDaily.com says "Ex-Muslim's site trashes Muhammad...". Ttiotsw (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He is a self-claimed apostate. Is there anything more to it? --Be happy!! (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess not. He says he's apostate and we have 3rd parties that call him "ex-muslim". The text should thus stay as it is and it addresses the original poster. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The WorldNetDaily.com article just parrots the information from the FaithFreedom.org website. This is not in any way an independent confirmation. When JT LeRoy published Sarah, the reviews dutifully copied information from the blurb that the author was a 20-year old male who grew up in rural West Virginia and later on the streets of San Francisco, and started publishing at 16.[10] We now know that all of that is false. When someone is hiding behind a pseudonym, they can basically claim anything, like that they were abused by the Pope, locked up in a convent but miraculously escaped, with no way for us of verifying or falsifying such stories. In this case we do not even know whether there is a real person behind the pseudonym. It could be an organization intent on spreading misinformation to be parroted by gullible listeners. So no, it isn't "over yet", and we cannot yet "move on".  --Lambiam 18:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your example isn't related to this article but another far removed and just shows that the press gets stuff wrong: so tell us something new !. It make no difference if it's a real name or a pseudonym. A name is just a key we use to reference a particular human. "Ali Sina" is a unique key especially when combined with "ex-muslim".

We're arguing if it should say "ex-muslim" or that he "claims to be ex-muslim". This same weasel wording could be used with many articles and it would appear right but it dilutes the message. Islam has very little process for both becoming a Muslim and for dropping it. There is no clear process of baptism or communion nor a central body to decree heresy. In fact it appears that every muslim simply claims to be muslim in that I don't know of a certification body that issues anything to prove this. To stick "claims" in this article would imply that the very basis of claiming to be a muslim should be qualified also by the word "claims". We don't do this in Wikipedia articles on Muslims and so we needn't do this for ex-muslims. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not an example of "weasel words" because it is neither vague, nor misleading; exactly to the contrary it is making the statements clearer and less misleading (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words). --Be happy!! (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As we have a 3rd party that says this we need not use the word "claims" as we reference the 3rd party in preference to the self-published i.e. we prefer secondary sources over primary sources. So it is clear that Ali Sina is an ex-muslim and we have a 3rd party that says this. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ali Sina's chapter in Ibn Warraq's book (Leaving Islam) is in a section titled "Part 3: Testimonies of Born Muslims: Murtadd Fitri". Of this section, Ibn Warraq writes in the Preface: "After the name of each author in Part 3 I have added in brackets the author's country of origin, to give an idea of the geographical range of the apostates and their cultural background." Ali Sina is thus annotated as being from Iran. rudra (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to think that Ibn Warraq bases the notion that Ali Sina is Murtadd Fitri on more than the fact that the FaithFreedom.org website states this? I don't doubt that "Ali Sina" has a good command of Persian, but do not consider that in any sense conclusive. Iranian Christians, for example, are usually native speakers of Persian.  --Lambiam 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very likely that Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina are personally acquainted, and Ibn Warraq has been associated with the Faith Freedom Foundation for a long time. (e.g. [11], other, earlier, copies of which can be found by googling.) rudra (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq does not count as a reliable source per WP:RS. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq is notable enough. You have to be a little bit more precise than a throwaway claim that 'x' fails 'y'. Ttiotsw (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The best way to put it is that "FFI was founded by a person with the the pseudonym of Ali Sina. According to the FFI website, Ali Sina is an Iranian ex-Muslim residing in Canada, who has issued a standing challenge that he will remove the FFI website if proven wrong on a number of issues."--Be happy!! (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an improvement, but we do not even know, from reliable sources or otherwise, that "Ali Sina" is a person! Even better:

Faith Freedom International (FFI) is an Internet website that is critical of Islam.^[1][2] According to the website, FFI was founded by an Iranian ex-Muslim residing in Canada, going by the pseudonym of "Ali Sina". On the website, Ali Sina has issued a standing challenge that he will remove the FFI website if proven wrong on a number of issues.

This should solve the verifiability problem. Note that I have also removed the qualification "secularist organization", for two reasons. Just like we don't know if Ali Sina is a person and not an organization, we don't know if FFI is an organization rather than a one-person run website; forum members do not an organization make. Furthermore, "secularist" is not supported by reliable evidence; there is even some reason to suspect there may be something Christian behind this.[12].  --Lambiam 13:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there objections to changing the first sentences of the article to th text above?  --Lambiam 21:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. ITAQALLAH 01:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I object. Ali Sina has a remarkable grasp of multiple languages and has quite a remarkable ability to manage multiple web sites in different languages e.g. English (the default site), Dutch, with the Dutch sub-domain [13], Italian (e.g. list of articles here in Italian [14] and others. It stretches incredibility for FFI to be just "Ali Sina" and so it is an "organisation".

The adjective: is it secularist ? I hate "-ist" words as they are usually imprecise but how would FFI be described else wise ?. The root of "Secular" is to mean temporal things in a religion but secularist generally means restricting or delimiting religion from unwarranted interference in society. An alternative word could be "humanist" or "rationalist" but FFI self-identifies as "secularist" plus "secular" and "secularist" is more commonly used for anti-fundamentalism of religion. Thus the opening paragraph should stay.

On the question of Ali Sina being multiple people: it would seem unlikely given he has appeared in public and interviews e.g. the transcript of Frontpage Symposium with Mr. El-Mallah, Robert Spencer, Julia Roach and Ali Sina in it which we have referenced. Now it may be that there is an "Ali Sina" team that goes around getting in the rare interview and updating websites but given that the number of interviews is quite low wouldn't it be more parsimonious for Ali Sina to be just one person and that the web sites are updated by many rather than "Ali Sina" to be many people ? As a conspiracy it lacks credibility. Ttiotsw (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not appear very willing to understand that my concern is the presence of unsourced and unverifiable information delivered as a fact. I am not stating the information is false; instead, I'm trying to draw attention to the fact that this information is unsourced and unverifiable, yet presented as a fact. Applying Occam's razor and other facilities of ratiocination I can conclude all kinds of things myself that are very likely true, but putting them as content in the articles requires not that they be true, but that they can be verified in reliable sources. Conspiracies may be rare, but they do happen, and in this case the number of people involved does not need to be so large as to make it totally impossible. JT LeRoy also made public appearances and had regular telephonic contact with many people for years before someone blew the whistle. It is not clear to me from the Frontpage article that the participants had a meeting in which they were physically present in one locality. From reading it, my impression is actually that these "symposia" are telecoms or even conducted by e-mail.

Does the suggested replacement become acceptable to you if the beginning of the second sentence is changed into:

"According to the website, FFI, which calls itself a secularist organization, was founded by ..."

?  --Lambiam 13:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is you that has failed to present a clear case for your original query, namely that is it creditable "that Ali Sina is the pseudonym of an ex-Muslim." ? Now, tediously I feel, you are nit-picking out word by word the opening paragraph. I have presented that "secularist" is as good a word as any to describe FFI and that is an uncontroversial description of the role of the site. Yes, I use self-published sources BUT these are allowed when the site is describing itself but not other things. Where something is obvious we don't put cites and refs else every word in Wikipedia other than "the, that, he, she and it" and the like would end up tagged with refs ! That would be crazy. That's why it's tedious. So I don't agree to the change as it grates and its a waste of time. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ttiotsw, you are the only person here who is going against consensus. All the information we have should be qualified by "according to the website". According to the website, FFI is a secularist organization that was founded by an Iranian ex-Muslim residing in Canada, going by the pseudonym of "Ali Sina". On the website, Ali Sina has issued a standing challenge that he will remove the FFI website if proven wrong on a number of issues." is accurate and perfectly acceptable. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your text you double-quote above differs from that of Lambiam and it differs from the original topic that this talk section started from. If you are going to make an appeal that we have consensus then can you please be consistent in what you think we have consensus on !. Consensus is not a vote. It is not a rule of the majority. It is a mutual agreement as to what is a suitable text.

You are proposing a new version and Lambiam has introduced another version. Not your unusual consensus, thus the current text is the current consensus view after many hours of editing by many editors. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the different proposals, I think most people here believe that the current presentation is inadequate. I would much prefer something more specific such as "Faith Freedom International is an anti-Islam website" or "Faith Freedom Internation is an Internet website which is critical of Islam." Including the phrase "secularist organisation" is quite misleading since a) it doesn't meet the conventional definition of an organisation (it's just a website acting as a soap box). Having multiple language compatibilty doesn't make you an "organisation," so I don't really buy that argument; and b) it's defined by its anti-Islam, not by its secularism - so the website's being secularist or otherwise is not of primacy (also note it hosts many articles from a variety of perspectives and that it has a large evangelical Christian contingent). Given that most of the information we're using is from the website itself or sources closely affiliated to the website (I still believe this article topic lacks the fundamental non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources), I think it's perfectly reasonable to include attributions such as "According to the website..." in the lead. ITAQALLAH 23:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You write:

No, it is you that has failed to present a clear case for your original query, namely that is it creditable "that Ali Sina is the pseudonym of an ex-Muslim." ?

I assume that by "creditable" you mean "worthy of belief, credible" – "creditable" usually means "deserving credit, praiseworthy, meritorious, estimable, honorable".

Your statement completely misses the point.

I have asked a simple question, namely what the evidence is for a specific statement made in the article. This is a completely legitimate question in view of the nonnegotiable Wikipedia policy on verifiability. There is no need for me or anyone to "present a clear case" in order to ask this question. I have not asked whether it is "credible". I think it is quite credible, but that is besides the point. We must not include content in the articles on the basis of credibility, but on the basis of verifiability.

From the start, you have been giving non-answers in the style of "How can you ask such a question? Stop bothering us with this nonsense." As I've said before, the point is not whether it is credible that Ali Sina is the pseudonym of an ex-Muslim, but whether it is verifiable, and if so, what the evidence is. I repeat, since that seems to be necessary:

From the answers given I can only conclude that it is not verifiable. You appear to be happy to let it stand at that, and in fact obstructing something being done about it. A majority of discussants disagrees with you. Moreover, your position is against Wikipedia policy.

Which formulation should be chosen from the many versions that will remove the unverifiability is in comparison a minor issue, about which, in all likelihood, the discussants who agree on the desirability of remaining within policy can easily and quickly agree. Your point of there being too many versions for consensus is a red herring. There is no difference of substance between these versions. I offered a second version to accommodate you by removing the basis for the (in my eyes irrelevant) objection you had voiced, but it is increasingly clear that whatever we do, you will always find another objection.  --Lambiam 23:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

After all that exactly which version are we agreeing to ?. I'm simply supporting the current article content rather that proposing a new unverifiable copy. This article has been subject to a large amount of drive-by vandalism and that it why it's on my watchlist. If people didn't vandalise this (and others e.g. Martti Ahtisaari, Tennis ball, Wafa Sultan, Sea cucumber, Melania Trump‎, etc) then I wouldn't be here.

Make it easy by just pasting in the old and new text under new sections in talk. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Anti-Islam sentiment

Is anyone interested in quickly getting it over with or not ? Here is the reliable source - http://www.springerlink.com/content/p02g0g86387j4t62/

Or are some people allowed to ignore wikipedia policies and act like they believe their own propaganda ? thestick (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more explicit? What is the "it" I may or may not be interested in quickly getting over with?  --Lambiam 12:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people don't want this article to be included in Category:Anti-Islam sentiment even when it's very relevant to it and all WP policies are satisfied. thestick (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't "very relevant". In fact, it is just the opposite. It is hardly relevant, and the category would promote exactly the opposite view the RS presents. Yahel Guhan 19:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think anyone who reads the source knows precisely what it says. And that is: most of the material on WikiIslam (a FFI proxy), especially its own original material, is easily classed as Islamophobia. Secondly, please explain why you believe the Anti-Islam sentiment category is "hardly relevant" to an article about an anti-Islam website? ITAQALLAH 19:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So is this page now indefinitely protected? thestick (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The RFC about the issue that led to edit warring is still open. I don't know how it is supposed to reach closure; the page on RFCs does not explain the procedure. I asked a question about that here a couple of days ago, but did not see a reaction yet. Perhaps, next time you open an RFC, you could also explain the issue on which comment is requested, like I finally did above.  --Lambiam 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, Wikiislam is not a "FFI proxy". You dont put categories on an article because of a small sub-section of the article. That would be equivalent of putting the category "suspected pedophiles" in the Muhammad article. If there was an article on WikiIslam, you could argue the addition of the category there, certainly not here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course WikiIslam is a FFI proxy, why would you even deny this? It was set up by the members of FFI, FFI has a sub-forum dedicated to collaboration on it, and I believe even has Sina's stamp of approval. If it's not a FFI proxy, why have you never questioned its presence in this article? Secondly, as requested above, please explain why you believe the Anti-Islam sentiment category doesn't belong on an article about an anti-Islam website? Do you deny it's an "anti-Islam" website? ITAQALLAH 23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Islam sentiment is the same as a prejudice against Islam, or at least that is how the category is used. If you dispute that, remove all statements stating that anti-islam is a prejudice (the main article for the cat. should be changed to the Anti-Islam disamb. link, and the Category:Religious discrimination should be removed from the anti-islam cat.) Second, just because Ali Sina may have given approvial to wikiislam doesn't mean it is a proxy. Wikiislam is just one small part of FFI, and it is not the same as most of the entire website. One part from a barely reliable source that doesn't even fully state it is islamophobic does not justify the inclusion of the category. Yahel Guhan 05:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already included in category:prejudices, category:anti-islam sentiment is even more specific. thestick (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for new start of the lead section

As requested by Ttiotsw[15], I am starting a new section with the current version of the first two sentences of the lead, and a proposed replacement, which addresses an issue raised about verifiability (see #What is the evidence that "Ali Sina" is an ex-Muslim?). If we can agree on the principle, further minor changes can be realized through the usual Wikiprocess (assuming this page will ever get unprotected again).

Current version:

Faith Freedom International (FFI) is a secularist organization which is critical of Islam.^[1][2] FFI was founded by Ali Sina, the pseudonym of an Iranian ex-Muslim residing in Canada, who has issued a standing challenge that he will remove the FFI website if proven wrong on a number of issues.

Proposed replacement:

Faith Freedom International (FFI) is an Internet website that is critical of Islam.^[1][2] FFI identifies itself as "a grassroots worldwide movement of ex-Muslims and all those who are concerned about the rise of the Islamic threat". According to the website, FFI was founded by an Iranian ex-Muslim residing in Canada, going by the pseudonym of "Ali Sina". On the website, Ali Sina has issued a standing challenge that he will remove the FFI website if proven wrong on a number of issues.

[edit] Support replacement

•  --Lambiam 01:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
•  -- thestick (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
•  -- Ttiotsw (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
•  -- Yahel Guhan 16:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose replacement

•  

---

{{editprotected}}

It appears that consensus has been reached to replace the first two sentences of the lead by a new version, given above under Proposed replacement. Please apply the change.  --Lambiam 09:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Happy‑melon 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to add Islamophobia in the 'See also' Links

I request the addition of a link to the Islamophobia article in the list of 'See Also' links. As per the discussion on this page, I think it has been established one would be interested to read the Islamophobia article too, the website also discusses the subject.

[edit] Support

•  -- thestick (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
•  --Lambiam 13:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
•  -- Support, the two concepts are related.Bless sins (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

•   For the same reason as I oppose the inclusion of the Anti-Islam cat. It is POV, and is an attempt to label the organization as islamophobic when it is not. Yahel Guhan 06:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? Since when did "See Also" links become labeling? Did you go through the FFI website, do you not see articles about the subject, what about that 3rd party RS which calls wiki-islam islamophobic? thestick (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See also does not imply causality nor correlation. It only says that readers who came to this article may find information in other articles also useful.Bless sins (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You all dislike/disagree with the content of this website, and want to label it as an islamophobic hate site, something I intend to not let you do. First by insisting on a greater connection that really isn't there, then adding POV links. The website is not islamophobic, so nothing is added by making that connection (except the presumption that the website is islamophobic). Yahel Guhan 03:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh and your POV is NPOV? thestick (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Islamophobia" does not apply because criticism and prejudice are not the same. rudra (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A "See Also" link doesn't change that - however, I would be very grateful if you could show me a site which you consider prejudicial and islamophobic if you say this site is only 'criticism' . (Although the proposed edit makes no judgment or allegation whether this site is islamophobic or not. )

I personally haven't found such sites, probably because I haven't really gone out looking for them. If I do run across one, I'll be sure to let you know. Meanwhile, I would draw attention to the meaning of the term "prejudice" (essentially, passing judgment before or to the exclusion of relevant facts), and if you think it applies, you are free to debate your understanding of this failing on that site. Who knows, you may even win yourself $50,000. Go ahead. rudra (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I already know what prejudice means, and I don't need the money. thestick (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd think that if they genuinely had $50,000 that they would have spent a bit of money on a better web design ;-). But anyway, a See also for 'Islamophobia' may not be completely necessary as it's already linked in the article. ITAQALLAH 21:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

•  -- The article has link to Criticism of Islam and that article already has a link to Islamophobia. FFI is critical of, but AFAIK doesn't ask for prejudice of muslims and so the See also links should reflect this network weight and they do.Ttiotsw (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I disagree with such an inclusion. The topic of Islamophobia does not correlate with the subject enough to be included in the "See also" section (the opinions of some users are not entirely sufficient, and we have two third party sources which seem to disagree on the matter). Additionally, the link is already included in a paragraph which provides proper context. If I recall correctly, we are discouraged from adding links to the "See also" section which were already mentioned earlier in the article.--C.Logan (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

---

[edit] Comments (See also)

I really wonder where the opponents would place the following statements on the scale from Islamophilia to Islamophobia:

• "All Muslims, to the extent that they follow [the Prophet], are terrorists";
• "Islam induces hate backed by lies";
• "Islam is indeed a satanic cult";
• "Muhammad was a terrorist";
• "Umma [the community of Muslims] is fascism".

 --Lambiam 19:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

...then you should wonder in private because this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Faith Freedom International article and it is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Ttiotsw (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But does it make you reconsider your statement "but AFAIK doesn't ask for prejudice of muslims"? Also there aren't any sources about this site (supporting neither - whether it's just criticism or prejudice) so you should go by the listed pages, from which you can conclude it's anti-islamic. Anyway, don't see this going anywhere.. thestick (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because I have no idea who has made those claims nor where this is recorded. If you are going to cite some evidence to support some point then reference where and when it is said because those criticisms could have been said by anyone from any Christian Pope onwards. About the only people I wouldn't expect such criticisms from are the Bahai, which, even though Islamic states seem to want to kill off Bahai anyway for some bizarre reason, seem like nice people. What is it with Muslims and the Bahai ? Now that is prejudice. Your examples about Muslims or Islam ?. That is criticism. Ttiotsw (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Those statements are all made on the page About Faith Freedom International of the FFI site, which is signed at the bottom: "Ali Sina".  --Lambiam 11:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I must commend you on your most excellent quote-mining. Again, though this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Faith Freedom International article and it is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Ttiotsw (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was pretty much about this article and it's relation with the article Islamophobia and category:Anti-Islam sentiment and I think what Lambiam found was a justified response to ""but AFAIK doesn't ask for prejudice of muslims" ? thestick (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And I replied back to show that the examples that were quotemined were criticism and by example I showed you what prejudice really is with the Bahai faith. The Bahai have been shown institutional prejudice by Islamic states. FFI is not a sovereign nation, nor a business nor service provider. It is only a private web-site and so it can only criticise as it has no other power. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone were to state that all Jews, to the extent that they follow the Mitzvot, are terrorists, that Judaism is indeed a satanic cult, that Moses was a terrorist, and that the people Israel is fascism, would you then also say that this is not prejudice but criticism? Then I think that your notions of what is prejudice and what is merely criticism are totally out of sync with how these terms are normally understood – and, moreover, that you yourself are in the grip of anti-Judaism sentiment, or Judaismophobia, or however it should be labelled.

In general we attempt to assign the most appropriate categories to articles, and the most obvious place to discuss the categorization of an article is on the talk page of that article. Such categorizations depend on the topic of the article. If there is some disagreement about the categorization, it is rather natural that the topic of the article is an aspect of the discussion. That should not be confused with a general purposeless discussion of the topic. This is a discussion with the purpose of improving Wikipedia by assigning the appropriate categories to this article. A statement such as that all "true" Muslims (those who follow the Prophet) are terrorists is pure, unadulterated, 100% Islamophobia. If that is not Islamophobia, then no statement is, and the concept of Islamophobia is void.  --Lambiam 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said, this was evident when no-one who was so vehemently opposed to including even a See Also link failed to provide even a single example of a site that they consider islamophobic ( Bias? ). thestick (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove protection

I'll ask whoever is protecting this page to please unlock it. It has been frozen since January and that is unacceptable. It is, for all intents and purposes "an endorsement of the current version". The major discord was over a cat tag which does not warrant full-protection in the first place, much less for over a week or two.{{Editprotected}} Lixy (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. In the future, these requests should go on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --- RockMFR 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Lixy (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)