Talk:Muslim Association of Sweden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muslim Association of Sweden article.
Article policies
WikiProject Sweden The article on Muslim Association of Sweden is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Islam
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.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Ian, please dicuss any change you want to make to this article before you do it. Thank you.

Then please explain how you know that this is material from the Swedish Muslim Association and that it's a reliable translation from the Swedish. The source is not reliable and blogs should not be cited in Wikipedia. --Ian Pitchford 15:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The source is not the blog but the Swedish Muslim Association letter. The blog only translted the source. It is prefect to use info from an organization to describe it own actions. Since ources in other languges are fine for wikipedia this means that any editor can provide translation and thus nothing is wrong with a wikipedia editor or a blog to provide a translation. Zeq 15:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words you don't speak Swedish (and in fact can't even spell the word) and you don't know whether this unreliable source - a mere blog - is accurately reproducing what the Association said or whether they are just making it up. BTW the blog didn't translate the letter they say they "found it on the Internet". How reliable do you think that makes it? It might be a perfect translation for all I know, but I want verification from a reliable source and that's what Wikipedia demands. --Ian Pitchford 17:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
the source for the letter is given (the Sweedish Muslim association) why don't you go to them to check ? In any case this comply with Wikipedia polict which is VERIFICATION not truth.
So if you are saying that the translation is a fake, that the reprt about it in the press is fake say so. If not than what you are trying to do is use your interpretation of wikipedia policy (a wrong interprestation I might add) to either harrase me or hide information which is not convinient to your POV. Nither of them will work. If you want file a mediation request cause it seems I can not convince you we need someone to mediate. Zeq 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a poor attempt to change the subject Zeq. What you're trying to do is cite stuff "found on the Internet" in a Wikipedia article. --Ian Pitchford 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

File a request for mediation and let's deal with that there. If you are right and the translation and news reports are fake I will be the first to remove them. Zeq 18:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Use a verfiable source and remove the link Zeq. Blogs claiming to have found something on the internet are not sources for an encyclopedia. --Ian Pitchford 18:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If it was the source it was a different issue altogether. A link to the source is attached, this is the original. Do you contest the original or only the translatrion ?
A link to a translation is also attached and a alink to multiple news reportss, all describing the EXACT same thing. All together I would say this is more then enough for Wikipedia verifiablity policy, anyone can see where it came from. The fact that you don't like what you see is your own problem. Zeq 18:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether the "original" or the "translation" are authentic and neither do you. They were found by someone on the Internet. That's the point. They could be authentic/accurate, but we need a reliable source to say they are so that they can be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. As for the news reports they were already cited and linked and now you've just duplicated them. --Ian Pitchford 18:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources are provided per Wikipedia verifiability. AP report is good enough so you don't doubt that this is a fake. Zeq 19:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The news reports say nothing about this blog and its "translation". --Ian Pitchford 19:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The news reports confirm the letter is not a fake. I asked you a simple question:

Do you doubt the letter was written ? Do you doubt the text provided ? Do you doubt the accuracy of the translation ?

I suggest we go to mediation on all 3 issues and we will bring exptrets in Swedish. I have asked Swedish Wikipedia to help. But let;s cut to the chase: You know this is true and you are trying to use "process" to hide the truth. (and in any case since we are not dealing with "truth" all that important is that the sources are verifaible and they are. Zeq 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We need to know whether the Swedish document on the web is that produced by the Association and, if it is, whether the translation of it is accurate. The news reports don't help with this as they say nothing about the blog at all. Blogs are not reliable sources. What do you not understand? --Ian Pitchford 19:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I presume you are the 85.65.25.55 who posted the request on the Main Page Talk of the Swedish Wikipedia. (For future reference, the Embassy is probably a better forum.) I would be happy to assist if I can. What are the specific issues? —LX 10:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
After reading the discussion here (which would be easier if everyone indented their entries properly), it seems that the contention is over whether [1] is an accurate translation of [2] (pdf). Having read selected sections side-by-side, I would say that it is. That said, the original is peppered with mistakes in grammar and spelling, and the translation does not reflect this, but rather interpolates the intended meaning, which is generally pretty obvious.
There are also a few minor discrepancies between the texts. For example, the sentence "Det innebär att man lyfter hemspråket och religionen i schemat som ett vanligt ämne, där muslimska barn får möjlighet till undervisning i homogena grupper i eget hemspråk och egen religion i de kommunala skolorna" is translated as "This includes elevating native language and religion [Islam] to the level of normal subject in the curriculum, where Muslim children have the possibility of being educated in homogenous groups using their own native language and their own religion in the County schools." I see no indication that the original specifically refers to Islam when speaking of religion (which should probably be read as "religious studies", and which is indeed a "normal subject" in the fixed curriculum of compulsory education in Sweden). While, "County schools" is not an incorrect translation for "kommunala skolor", the Swedish administrative subdivision kommun is generally smaller than counties, and what is really meant is "public schools".
"Många muslimska flickor avslutar sin gymnasieutbildning utan att kunna simma alls" is translated as "Many Muslim students finish their High School education without being able to swim at all", whereas it should read "Many muslim girls…" (emphasis mine).
The conclusion is that, while not entirely accurate at every turn, it is a relatively accurate translation and can hardly be seen as "pushing an agenda" or misrepresenting the original (apart from giving a better impression by correcting spelling and grammar errors). I would also judge the Liberal People's Party as a credible source, if there were any doubts of that.
If you have any questions regarding specific parts of the translation or any other further questions, please let me know.
—LX 11:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Big Thank you . We have the source (and nothing in wikipedia policy say sources must be in english) we have a translation which is accurate and now we can move on. Zeq 11:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Then in your view all blogs and bulletin boards are reliable sources for Wikiepdia? --Ian Pitchford 12:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Even individual editors can do the translation for Wikipedia. The accepted practice on translation is that it is accuracy that matters rather than the source. If we can link to a free resource with a translation of the text in question, then it's even better. Pecher Talk 12:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is that we can use bulletin boards and original research? --Ian Pitchford 18:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
No Ian, the argument is simple: A source in any languge can be used. Translation is something anyone can check, any wikipedia editor can verify translation and this is what was done here. If you still have problem with the translation, you will need to add a swedish speaking person who would say that the translation is not accurate. So far all the info we have in front of us is :
  • The translation is accurate (see LX above)
  • It does not fit your POV and you want to hide the issue from the rest of the world
Clearly what you are doing is against the whole idea behind wikipedia and I will go to arbCom about this if needed.
Do you prefer to try mediation first ? Zeq 19:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thew news reports and the blogs are saying the same thing. It is just that the Blog have the complete text of the letter. That is all. what do you dispute ? the news reports ? Zeq 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the blog says it has the complete text and that might be true, but blogs aren't reliable and Wikipedia shouldn't have links to them. You don't really believe that anybody should be able to link to anything they find on the web do you? --Ian Pitchford 19:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
So there is now a different source for the exact same info. Clearly some blogs carry reliable info. Zeq 18:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No doubt Nazi blogs have some correct information about Judaism and Israel, but we don't want them in Wikipedia either. We still need a good source for the English translation. --Ian Pitchford 20:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No doubt you have just ended this discussion. To learn more why check out Godwin's Law. Zeq 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid blogs are not acceptable sources and sophistry doesn't alter that fact. --Ian Pitchford 11:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Accuracy

  • "Muslimsk kritik mot krav på egna lagar" - Muslim critic against demand on own laws
  • "Gårdagens krav på särskilda lagar för Sveriges muslimer får kritik från andra muslimska organisationer." - Yesterdays demand on special laws for Swedish Muslims receives critic from other Muslim organizations

[3]

If i don't recall wrong, they even distanced themselves from the demand, and it is possible that some asked if the guy acted on his own behalv.... dont remeber. Slopy research, you shoul have contacted somebody that at least can read the sources posted on this article. --Striver 00:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"-Jag känner inte till några muslimer som står bakom det här förslaget, säger Svenska islamiska samfundets ordförande Abd Al Haqq Kielan till Ekot." - I don't know any Muslim that backs this proposal, says the director of Svenska islamiska samfundets, Abd Al Haqq Kielan to Ekot. [4]

--Striver 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"...men har ingen förankring i rådet..." - but does not have any support(?) in the association(?). [5] --Striver 00:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That concurring Muslim orgs claim to not support the demands, and that according to some wikipedians shaky and unsourced recollection, unnamed others -possibly- distanced themselves from it, neither detracts the factuality of the demands, nor the fact that they had been issued by the MAoS. --tickle me 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Section must be splited out, it gets way to much undue weight on a stub article.--Striver 00:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To stubbify, or not to stubbify

Please explain decisions to include details on Aldebe's "open letter" here. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


I have used this article as an example of the type presently indef. banned editor Zeq started, see here:[6].

In the Swedish Wikipedia they refer to this article. In the article Idriz Karaman, chief Imam for all the Bosnian Muslims of Sweden (which constitute more that half of the members in the Muslim Association of Sweden) states that "it is serious that Aldebe has done such an initiative without basing it on a [decision in a] council meeting. (="Det är allvarligt av Aldebe att göra ett sådant här utspel utan att förankra det på ett styrelsemöte"). Karaman further states that "It is only Mahmoud Aldebe who is behind this initiative." (="Det är enbart Mahmoud Aldebe som står bakom det här utspelet.")

The very last bit of that article says:

Aldebe skickade igår ut en ”rättelse” till massmedia och partiföreträdare där han betonar att han inte på något sätt krävt särlagstiftning för svenska muslimer. Han betonar dessutom för Sydsvenskan att det brev som skickats i väg från Sveriges muslimska förbund varit ett personligt brev från honom själv – inte ett brev som skrivits på vägnar av förbundets 70 000 medlemmar. – Det är mina personliga åsikter som ordförande som jag för fram i brevet. Jag skrev det personligen för att lyfta fram problem som mina medlemmar upplever, säger Mahmoud Aldebe.

My (imperfect) translation of the above passage into English goes something like this:

Yesterday Aldebe sent out a "correction" to the mass media and [political] party leaders where he underlined that he in no way was demanding separate laws for Swedish muslims. He also underlined to "Sydsvenskan" [=the newspaper which has the article] that the letter he sent from the Muslim Association of Sweden was a personal letter from himself - not a letter that was written on behalf of the 70.000 members of the Muslim Association of Sweden. -It is my personal opinions as chairman which I put forward in the letter. I wrote it personally to bring forward problems which many of my members experiences, says Mahmoud Aldebe.

Oh, and btw, Aldebe is no longer the chairman of the Muslim Association of Sweden, AFAIK. Regards, Huldra (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Huldra: yes, I saw your note on the Wikilobby Arbcom case; I've asked User:Tickle me to say here why he restored the material someone else had deleted. I think it should remain deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think we possibly could have one sentence on it, making it very clear that this was one man´s opinion, and that the other Muslim representatives were against him. Also, googeling for them it seems as if they have had opinions about the latest cartoon controversy; that should probably go into the article, too. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Controversy" violates wp:undue

If no one has anything to add about this organization, then I intend to pare down the "controversy" section significantly. As the article stands, the "controversy" overwhelms the article. Perhaps this incident can be discussed more on the article about Aldebe - but it doesn't really deserve this much emphasis here, especially given that it originated with Aldebe and was rejected by the membership. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)