Talk:The Religious Policeman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Religious Policeman article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Notability

I don't believe this article passes wikipedia's criteria for notabilityWP:WEBof web specific content.Paul E. Ester 21:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not? This is one of the few English language dissident Saudi blogs, which in itself it notable. It is also notable for the ferocity of its attacks on the Saudi Regime, attacks which are not allowed with the heavily censored Saudi society.--Phasis 21:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I really don't think you've done your homework here. This page is about a website which has been widely quoted in various media and is highly controversial in the Arab world (it's been the subject of editorials in the Arab press, for instance). I believe this makes it notable under item 1 of WP:WEB. Hell, you only have to read this talk page to figure out that he's controversial as well. I rather fear there's a "because I haven't heard of it" thing going here.. however, if it makes you happy I'll add a couple of URLs to the page. --Mike 22:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


please review the wikipedia criteria for what makes a ""website"" WP:WEB notable. It is very specific for websites. I cannot find any references to this website outside of other blogs. The notability criteria requires more credible references than the blogsphere.
Regarding your reasoning for how this could be notable. There is no factual documentation to establish that it is in fact a saudi who is responsible for this web site. Anyone can create a blogspot blog and claim they are from country X. Seriously lacking documented facts it's another example of why this article is not appropriate for wikipedia.Paul E. Ester 22:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The identity of the author is irrelevant to WP:WEB. I've added some references from a quick Googling - an article from the Guardian, an Arabic newspaper editorial that is highly critical of the author, and a reference to a (not available online, alas) article in the Sunday Times. This guy has definitely had mainstream media coverage. Therefore, I've removed the deletion tag. To be honest, this article is not about promoting a web site (which is the main purpose of the policy - Wikipedia is not a web directory), it's about documenting a controversial and popular writer. Unfortunately, as we don't have his name all we can do is to refer to him by his nom de plume. --Mike 23:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Good job on the external sources. I agree that this article should not be deleted. --Danny Rathjens 23:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This website has also been written about in the British Press. --Phasis 23:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that the Guardian references are technically "blogs" - the website refers to these pieces as "articles." I think that they would be more accurately called on-line commentary or something similar. It has become very common for major newspapers to add online content to which readers may respond in real time, similar to blogs, but different in that they are subject to genuine editorial oversight. I won't change it now, as I would like to hear some other feedback about this. --Phasis 00:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I did, however, revert the assertion that the al-Hayat piece was a letter to the editor rather than an opinion piece or an editorial. That was pretty absurd. --Mike 07:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
There is also a reference in a Reuters article - ""The Religious Policeman" -- the most outspoken of all the Saudi bloggers" - which I have added. PJO'M 08:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have also corrected the references to "Guardian Blogger". Both the people in question are full-time salaried Guardian journalists and columnists, writing in the online section of the Guardian newspaper. Brian Whitaker, in particular, is a noted and widely-respected expert on the Middle East and Saudi Arabia in particular. To describe them as "Bloggers" is akin to describing Condaleeza Rice as a "pianist" or President Bush as a "rancher". PJO'M 08:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have also now published Brian Whitaker's correct job title of Middle East editor of the Guardian. He is not to my knowledge a blogger, but does in his spare time run the very authoritative al-bab "The door(way)" website. PJO'M 11:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have also described Glenn Reynolds correctly. He is a blogger, but of the prestigious Wikipedia-listed Instapundit where he is referred to as "The Blogfather", and is commissioned by the Guardian to write articles for them. So, to pursue my previous analogy, describing him as "a blogger" is like describing Michael Jordan as "a former basketball player". PJO'M 11:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The identity thing

"Alhamedi has tried, and failed, to convince his readers that he is a bona fide Saudi. Not only is he wholly ignorant of basic Arabic and Islamic terminology, but he has also been discredited by other notable Saudi bloggers. For instance, Alhamedi thought the name Farah is a male name when in fact it is only used by females in Saudi Arabia. In addition, he once blurted out that he was going out for lunch during Ramadan, a month when Muslims are expected to fast from dawn to dusk. There is overwhelming consensus among those familiar with Saudi society that Alhamedi is simply a fraudster with insincere motives. His mainly Western audience, ignorant of the Saudi way of life, laps up what he has to offer, and in doing so, deprive themselves of a chance to learn about a society from authentic sources."

This is meant to be NPOV? <_< --SohanDsouza 18:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is meant to be NPOV as references to overwhelming consensus are being made here. However, the last sentence sounds like POV. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
That whole section was an addition from a user who, according to their IP, is in Saudi. I've moved the question-of-identity bit to its own section (in the right place under Biography, for starters), found a conflicting view, and tried to balance it up a bit. It's an interesting question that needs to be asked, and I should probably have put something about it in the original page. --Mike 18:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I just editing "The identity question" part of his bio, adding in some more evidence against his "Saudi" identity, and I also added the word "claims" in several spots. Since he's an anonymous blogger, I think this is perfectly NPOV.

Okay, but sign your comments. I think you've tipped it a bit far towards the sceptical viewpoint, though - lots and lots of evidence against but very little for. NPOV means balancing the two viewpoints, not just mentioning them both. --Mike 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, consider this to be my retroative signing. :-) I'm sure someone else will add more "pro" evidence. Also, I think "blasphemous" wasn't really biased, as that's the exact word that they used to describe him. YMMV.

D'oh! Previous comment was me. Sorry, I'm new at this. :-) --Chaotic nipple 23:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries - The point I was trying to make is that you should try and keep the article itself NPOV as a whole. I think it looks pretty good at the moment - while it's important that Alhamedi's detractors be heard, it's also important that the detraction doesn't swamp the whole article. See WP:NPOV for some of the details. --Mike 23:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Just some general comments: If you read the comments on the most recent post at the blog Farah's Sowaleef, it appears that the recent additions to this entry are being made in accordance with expressed intent of several commenters (including "Michael Crichton" of http://chaotic_nipple.livejournal.com/) to hijack this Wikipedia entry as part of a concerted effort to discredit the author of The Religious Policeman, apparently for political, religious and/or personal reasons. http://farahssowaleef.blogspot.com/2006/05/my-kingdom-for-some-porn.html http://www.haloscan.com/comments/farooha/114786820591184895/ Other equally anonymous Saudi bloggers have offered Mr Alenazi their congratulations for this Wikipedia entry, such as "Aya" at Alien Memoirs (http://alienmemoirs.typepad.com/) in the comments of the TRP blog.

oh, shoot, you're onto me. I'd better go back, delete that comment, and then edit every comment on _this_ page so it looks like people agree with me. :-p
Anyway, I thought that the _real_ conspiracy was that there was a concerted effort by his fans to hijack this entry so the truth won't be revealed? ;-) --Chaotic nipple 02:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The word blasphemous shows a religious bias.

Telling someone to shove a holy book up their ass is pretty blasphemous, by _anyone's_ definition. --Chaotic nipple 02:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

He never used those words. He never told anyone to shove anything anywhere. If you are referring to the words "If you've still got a problem with that, take one of these minature Qurans and place it somewhere where the sun won't bleach it and the rain won't soak it.", then that is your own interpretation, the words themselves are far more ambiguous. PJO'M 19:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. He didn't intend for anyone to make that interpretation at all. I am SO convinced.--Chaotic nipple 04:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
An athiest might consider it rude but not blasphemous.AnFu 12:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
the NPOV policy also says "Let the facts speak for themselves". Given that it's a verifiable _fact_ that he can't spell in arabic, that he's been caught posting under an assumed name, and that he edits comments, and that all of those would tend to reflect on his credibility, I think it's acceptable, under both the "NPOV" and "Verifiability" policies, to mention those facts in the article. --Chaotic nipple 23:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you're also posting your own opinions, from your own blog, which is an inherently POV thing to do. --Mike 23:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Point. OK, I'll buy that. The other two should be acceptable, though. --Chaotic nipple 23:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I've trimmed it again. That section already has a whole bunch of attack and about one sentence of defence, and whether he's posted under an assumed name elsewhere isn't too relevant anyway (he posts under an assumed name all the time, after all). Reverting anything again will, I think, put me in violation of the WP:3RR, so I'm going to leave it to others to decide now. Generally, two people reverting each others' edits is a sign that someone else needs to take a look.. --Mike 23:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I think his assumed name is relevant, because it was a _different_ assumed name. Posting using 'sockpuppets' is generally considered dishonest. --Chaotic nipple 00:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
As I understand the Wiki guidlines, an entry needs to basically be the same as a college research paper. Each statement needs to be sourced to an authoritative work that can be traced by anyone. A statement needs to be backed up not by a plausable argument but by an 'authority'. However, due to this topic, 'authoritve' may be relative.If the statement is an opinion then it may be plainly declared as such, such as "In Melvin's opinion...", and a citation given. The writer's opinion must be kept out of the paper. A writer's opinion probably influences a paper but it should be kept under control and subdued or the paper will be biased and receive a bad grade. Also the reading audience must be kept in mind, that is, do most readers CARE about the controversy? If so, then do they really, really want to wade thru a morass of point and counter-point? A short discussion is usually more appropriate. Also the topic must be kept in mind. The entry is not the "Controversy of the Religious Policeman's Nationality, Honesty and Blasphemy." If the entry becomes too contentious, biased, or off-topic, then others in Wikiland may take steps including subdividing off the "Controversy" part where it may die 'a slow and withering death'.(see discussion of "The Story of Adam and Eve" and "Carbon Dating"). By the way I participate in both Wikipedia and The Religious Policeman's comments section.AnFu 12:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

the phrase "coupled with his audience being overwhelmingly Western and conservative" is impossible to verify and shows bias.--Phasis 23:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC) (just figured out the signature bit)

Yes, the "conservative" bit in particular. Huh? --Mike 23:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the statement "overwhelmingly conservative" is not an accurate description of what he is being criticized for by his detractors. "Abu Sinan" has stated in the comments of Chaotic_Nipple's blog he holds "ultra liberal pro-Western ideas." I have changed the phrase to reflect this more accurately. --Phasis 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, I guess I better delete that comment immediately! IMO, a radically liberal Saudi might just be easily mistaken for a radically conservatve American. Probably why so many Republicans hate middle easterners. :-) --Chaotic nipple 04:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "overwhelmingly" was a bit strong. However, his site counter ( http://www.onlinecount.com/lreport.php?site=ss02074 ) _does_ show that the majority of his viewers are from western countries, and most of the blogs that link to him are noticably rightwing. --Chaotic nipple 23:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Then again, the majority of Internet connections are in western countries, and I'd be kind of surprised if the Great Firewall of Saudi Arabia didn't block muttawa.blogspot.com. You'll need to do some research if you want to back up the right-wing claim. --Mike 00:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
But it _does_ show that it is, indeed, objectively verifiable to claim that most of his readers are in western countries. :-) Gimme a minute, I'll see how I can rephrase the "conservative" part. --Chaotic nipple 00:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have rephrased this section, because although his largely western audience is a demonstrated fact, their politics can only be a surmised. I've also added references to his stated liberal positions on Iraq and Guantanamo. The comments that followed the latter posting suggested a fair balance of liberal and conservative opinion.PJO'M 10:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased the spelling claim a bit, as it seems to me to be based on transliteration differences. The claim wasn't that Alhamedi can't spell Arabic, but that he sometimes spells Arabic words transliterated into English differently to how people think he should. This isn't really a very good argument either way, as my own observations of, e.g. road signs in the UAE is that transliteration often isn't even consistent in a single country. The whole Koran/Qu'ran thing is also an example of this. --Mike 00:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who speaks arabic, raise your hand (raises hand). Everyone who spent 8 years as a translator for the US Army, raise your other hand (raises other hand). How am I typing with both hands in the air? It's a mystery... Anyway, no transliteration system that _I_ know of spells "Qahwa" as "Qawfa". When he makes that claim, that's what's technically refered to as a "bald faced lie". --Chaotic nipple 00:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Differences in transcription are usually because arabic doesn't usully write down short vowels, there are two letters representing glottal stops (Well, OK, the 'ayn is a "laryngeal fricative", but close enough), and there are several cases where arabic has 2 or 3 consonants for the same english letter (seen and sad, dal and dad, etc). There is not an arabic transliteration system out there that will put _extra_ consonants in the middle of a word. --Chaotic nipple 00:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me that much of this transliteration may be chalked up to typos. Type "she" fast and you will get "he," sometimes. And this is in english. I typically type teh when I mean the. Mispellings on a computer keyboard - if they are mispellings don't prove a whole lot, especially since there is not ONE standard way to transliterate Arabic, as anyone who has read Arabic - English translations (like count the ways to spell Mohamed, er Muhammad er...) will atest. chaotic nipple makes a good case why some people believe he is a fraud, but has not suceeded in doing anything other than showing why some have reached a particular conclusion, which agrees with the one he comes to on his blog. --Phasis 00:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That might be plausible if he hadn't then claimed "Farrah is a common men's name! Really it is!" or "'Qahwa' is commonly transcripted as 'qawfa'!" He _could_ have chalked either of those mistakes up to tryping too fast, but he didn't. --Chaotic nipple 00:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding spelling errors: The word "implausible is POV. There are several possible reasons why people might or might not agree on a particular Arabic transliteration. The word implausible doesn't take into account the possibility of typographical errors. --Phasis 14:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not a typographical error when he says "Yes, that really is how it's spelled!" when questioned. --Chaotic nipple 04:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Some web pages that give information about names. Farah is listed as "feminine" http://www.behindthename.com/php/view.php?name=farah http://www.babynamenetwork.com/baby_names/detail.cfm?name=Farah&gender=Female http://www.sudairy.com/arabic/fem.html#F http://babynames.indastro.com/muslimonefF.html http://www.godweb.org/muslimbabynames.htm http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Farrah There is even a "Farah" talking Muslimah doll. Anyone think they'd make a common male/female name into a female hijab wearing doll's name? http://www.hilalplaza.com/browseproducts/Little-Farah-Talking-Muslim-Doll-!.HTML If anyone can gives links that show "Farah" as a common FIRST name in the Arabic speaking world, especially the Gulf where he claims to have been raised, I would love to see it. Maybe 1 in 10,000 Farah's out there might be a male. Kind of like the name John in the West. I am sure there are some female Johns, but no native English speaker would make this assumption. In the Arabic speaking world it is almost exclusively a female's first name, or a last name, as in George Farah, Douglas Farah http://www.douglasfarah.com/ or Joe Farah www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1183929/posts .

I have provided links from more than a half dozen sites, Muslim and non Muslims, which make it clear that Farah is a female name. Unless anyone can provide links/proof of something to the contrary, it would seem that it must be admitted that RP's assumption that Farah was a male's name was a catastropic mistake for some claiming to be Arab to make.

 I have just posted that Wikipedia itself gives the name "Farah" as a female name.  The only usages of the name as a male name(first name) are in East Africa and other areas outside of the Middle East.  Last name usage is common in the Middle East.  Can someone provide any links to prove that the name "Farah" is used as a male name in the Gulf?  If not, the entry must stand by evidence rules.  I have provided numerous links, including Wiki's own entries about the name.  I think you all are missing the ball.  The idea is what would the average Arab think the gender of someone named "Farah" would be.  It is clear, given the proof provided, that the average Arab would think someone with the name "Farah" is a female.  --Abu Sinan 20:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article and removed the whole Farah section. The argument has no evidentiary basis and is an issue that could only be resolved by designing an objective test, that when taken by a significant number of native Saudi Arabians (complete with the required "control" group of subjects) could definitively determine that NO Saudi Arabian would EVER mistake Farah for a man's name (as Abu Sinan and Farah claim). Such a test would be extremely difficult to design and administer leaving the entire premise as complete conjecture by HIGHLY predjudiced individuals. In fact, the idea that NO Saudi Arabian would EVER make that mistake simply ignores the Laws of Probablity. Even placing the issue in the article triggers a violation of the Wikipedia NPOV mandate.Mirandawrites 17:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)mirandarights

 You guys are honestly going way too far here.  Listen, I provided links that would be accepted, and have been accepted, by univeristy professors.  Yet you guys, because you blindly support the RP, are willing to discard them.  It is very clear to people who speak Arabic that Farah is a male's name 99.99% of the time.  I have provided numerous links to prove just a fact, one of the links being from Wikipedia itself.  Okay, so there might be 1 Saudi in 8 million that would confuse Farah as a male, probably drunk on homemade wine.  So that means that you disregard all links provided?  Man, I bet you guys think we have never been to the moon because there is a probability that the whole thing has been faked!

 If you have been to the Middle East, if you know Arabic culture and the language it is a clear cut case.  Not only that, but when I provide numerous links to prove such a thing you dismiss them.  Can any of you provide ANY link ANYWHERE that shows that the name "Farah" is even a remotely common male name in the Middle East?  Just one please?  But you cannot, yet you insist on removing links that prove my case.  --Abu Sinan 16:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 Also, you try to bring up that I have an axe to grind with the RP, nice way to justify your inability to prove that the name Farah has any sort of a common use as a male's name in the Middle East.  The fact is RP banned more than just me off his blog.  He banned other people who posted in Arabic.  I posted in Arabic and he removed the posts, yet there was nothing offensive in my post, he just couldnt read it, so he had no clue about what it was, so he/she HAD to remove it.

 You guys go to extremes to try and prove he is Saudi.  You state he has to have linguistic skills to be able to look at a site about Arabic and explain how to use the article "al" in Arabic.  But this is complete and utter nonsense and either shows your complete ignorance of Arabic or your complete bias on the part of RP.  The usage of "al" in Arabic is a very simple idea, one that anyone could get.  Anyone after reading an article about the use online could explain it five minutes later yet you seem to think that this most basic of things amounts to intimate knowledge of Arabic.  In my Arabic class at university this subject was talked about for a whole of about five minutes, that was it.

 You need to ask yourself why he REFUSED to post in Arabic?  Why did he go out of his way to delete comments in Arabic?  Even look at a site like Mahmood's Den, whom you point to for support, he POSTS in Arabic, he actually has a seperate site in Arabic.  He allows Arabic comments, both positive and negative, and often responds in Arabic.  This is common for most all blogs from Arabs that post in English.  I have never seen a blog, besides the RP, where comments in Arabic are almost completely deleted, and where the blog owner refuses, point blank, to post anything of his own writting in Arabic.

 Do you guys realise that in the years he blogged he never wrote one piece in Arabic?  He never responded to any post in Arabic?  Who are you guys trying to fool?

 There are MANY people out there who dispute the RPs identity, they just dont come here because this entry is long forgotten. --Abu Sinan 16:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't go to any extremes to prove ANYTHING about the Religious Policeman. It's people like Abu Sinan who go to extreme lengths to discredit the author of the blog. Those of us here that dispute these anti-RP tirades, do so from the standpoint of a desire that readers be presented with an OBJECTIVE viewpoint as opposed to a radically-biased viewpoint. The article states, in an objective fashion, that because the RP remains anonymous, there can be no conclusive proof as to his nationality or ethnicity. That is indeed the case. No one on this discussion page, or as far as anyone can tell, within the entire internet/blogging community can actually verify whether the RP is authentically Saudi or not. The same can be said about every other Saudi blogger or every other anonymous blogger for that matter. But to invade a Wikipedia article site to make unsupportable and hostile allegations against an author of a notable blog is something that consciencious readers feel they should mitigate.

And that leads one to ask the question WHY these commenters feel the compulsion to derail an article giving credit to a blogger who, by most accounts, achieved his recognition through the quality of his writing and witty commentary, NOT because of his nationality? Whether one agrees with the author as to his/her opinions is beside the point of this article. Whether he is Saudi, East African or Western is beside the point of this article. The reason this author was made the subject of this Wikipedia article was due to the enormous success and popularity of his writing and that can be disputed by no oneMirandawrites 18:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)mirandawrites

Course, as anyone knows who has spent any amount of time in the Magic Kingdom (as Saudi is often called) willknow that any self-respecting Saudis will never ever admit he or she has made any kind of error, ever! Following that line of logic, one could argue that what you consider nonsensical excuses actually provide evidence that he is Saudi. Point being that even though it may be to some a compelling theory, it is still just that, not fact. BTW - Farah is a man's name. Wouldn't go so far as to say it is common, but ... common to one person is overlooked by another! --Phasis 01:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So, if I were to assume that the next time I read the name "Sue", it was referring to a man, that wouldn't be suspicious. Gotcha. OTOH, there isn't a Arabic transliteration system in the world that will render the word spelled "qaf" "ha" "waw" "Ta marbutta" as "qawfa". [Neither did Alhamedi spell it that way. If you look at the original LGF thread, you will see he spelt it as "qafwa", not "qawfa" as claimed here. If trying to discredit him based on the spelling of one word, be sure that you are spelling it correctly yourself! PJO'M 17:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)] Ana a'rif hatha, lianna atakalam al lugha. Hal tatakalam al 'arabiya? Na'am aw la?!?

Regarding transliteration errors. The whole issue stems from a disagreement between Arabic speakers about the transliteration for the Arabic "coffee" word. The simple thing is that there is no one correct answer, it's all a matter of having a word that is easy to pronounce and produces the required sound. Arabic speakers will often disagree, as they are doing here. Want an example of that closer to home? Look at the paragraph above. "Ana a'rif hatha" - "I know this". The Arabic word for "this" is هذا or هذه . Its correct transliteration is "h a d(underscored) a" or alternately "h a dh a". So strictly speaking, the transliteration should be "hadha" not "hatha". But English speakers would make that "hadha" sound like "harder", when it should really sound more like "harther". And what chaotic_nipple has done above is to change his transliteration, from "hadha" to "hatha", to make it pronounce more easily and correctly. He has eight years' Arabic experience in the Army, so he obviously knows what he is doing, and he is quite correct to do so. EXCEPT - he has done exactly the same thing that Alhamedi did. He has changed a transliteration to make it more pronounceable. Yet he is right but Alhamedi is wrong? Please explain how this is so? PJO'M 17:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Go to the link I posted for transliteration systems. You'll find several in which my spelling was acceptable. You won't find a single one where there's an "f" in the word for "coffee", though. _That's_ why I'm right. --Chaotic nipple 04:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Though Chaotic nipple, when I e-mailed an Arabic friend with a request for a translation of your sentence above "Ana a'rif hatha, lianna atakalam al lugha. Hal tatakalam al 'arabiya? Na'am aw la?!?" His translation was "Me, I know this, because I speak the language. Is it so, that you speak Arabic? Yes or no?" His determination was that although your sentence was grammatically correct, it appears to be straight out of an Arabic phrase book. Not the way a person that has spent a lot of time in the Middle East would speak, especially if they were professional translators. Rather like what saying "Excuse me, may we converse in English?" would sound like to your average street-wise American. So it appears, there is now substantial evidence you might not be the authority on Arabic that you profess.


In none of those ten systems referenced, is ﺫ shown as th. It is either d(underscore) or dh. Stating "_That's_ why I'm right." does not make something right, instead it requires the hard work of using evidence and logic. On a wider point, this identity question is becoming a nonsense. It's right to raise it, but only in passing and as something inconclusive. There must now be hundreds of posts he has made, read by Saudis amongst others, yet what errors have been spotted in them by people who live and work and raise families there? That he admitted eating during Ramadan? Perhaps he is diabetic. Perhaps he just thought "to hell with it". How many Catholics admit to eating meat on Good Friday? Does that make them heretics, or apostates, as opposed to just slightly sinful? It's time to bring out more of what he's actually saying! PJO'M 09:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC) The question of Mr. Alanezi's (debatable) errors in spelling several Arabic words (like that for coffee) is non-conclusive, since spelling/grammatical errors frequently occur in English-speaking blog writer's and commenter's text. If the criteria for granting citizenship of a nation to a person, was solely dependant upon whether they could spell all words in their national language correctly, there would be very few people able to claim citizenship to any country. The incidences of Mr. Alanezi using Arabic either in explaining terms or guiding readers through Arabic websites are numerous on his blog and within his comment threads. Two such examples follow: [1] and [2]. He did on one comment thread dispute an Arabic reader's claim that he had spelled Wahhabi incorrectly and should have spelled it Wahabbi. Wherein Mr. Alanezi posted the Arabic caligraphy for Wahabi, pointed out and translated each Arabic letter exactly to spell out W-a-h-a-b-i. Then argued that it may be up to the interpreter whether they wanted to translate the word into English by either adding an additional h or and additional b. (Mirandarights 19:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)mirandarights)

"Sue" is a red herring in the above comment, an obvious girl's name. Farah is an Arabic equivalent of the Western names Evelyn, Robin, Michael, Lee, and so on. I have corrected that sentence to reflect that fact, unless someone can find a survey of Arabic first names to demonstrate otherwise.PJO'M 10:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. I guerantee you, if you go out and ask 100 random Arabs "Is Farrah a man's name?" they'll all say "Nope, not usually." --Chaotic nipple 04:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

When I read something of Farah's without knowing who she was, I thought she was a man too. Her language was angry and she used crude expletives and coarse descriptors, more typical (usually, as far as my perception goes) of a male writer. I saw the name, and figured I must be mistaken about Farah being always a woman's name and expected a man. So I'm not sure what that makes me. But it does put me in exactly the same catagory as Mr. Alanezi (whatever that is). And as I wrote in another forum, despite using my real name which is feminine, the other commenters kept referring to me as a guy. They thought the analytical influence in my comments was too masculine. Some even accused me of pretending to be a woman after I'd told them I was one. The whole Farah issue is an non-issue. (Mirandarights 16:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)mirandawrites)

The question of whether Mr. Alanezi's mistaking Farah as a man's name appears to be the weakest argument surrounding the allegations that he is not Saudi or Arabic by nationality or ethnicity. The mistaken commenter in question; Farah Sowaleef appears to have also posted her name with a spelling of Farooha. The assumption is made that the mistaking of Farah for a man automatically disqualifies Mr. Alanezi as Arabic with the implication that he is then classified as an english-speaking Westerner. However the failure of that argument logically, is that in Western societies, while Farah is chosen as a first name for a woman, it is virtually never chosen as the first name for a man. In one particular literary reference where Farah is a Muslim man's first name, can be found in the memoires of Baroness Karin Blixin during her residence in Africa. Her male house foreman, though not Arabic, was a Muslim, Somali man named Farah. Also, the name Farrad is commonly recorded as an Arabic male name in many references. If one were to apply the logic of detractors that mistaking a name is an automatic indicator of cultural origin, it could be argued that a person from a culture (Arabic)accustomed to seeing a male name of Farrad may be more likely, if reading hastily, to make the error of perhaps mistaking a commenter Farrah or Farah for Farrad or Farad, than from an Anglo culture . (Mirandarights 17:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)mirandarights) To reinforce that point, an english-speaking Westerner, having probably only come across the one name name of Farah Fawcett in their lifetime, would automatically assume that Farah is a woman's name. I would contend that the argument is nort only weak, it is illogical and contradictory. PJO'M 19:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 Again, I have posted half a dozen links above clearly showing that the name Farah, in the Arabic speaking world, is almost exclusively female in use.  The only instances that people here can show us where a man uses the name is outside the Middle East, specifically Africa.  No Middle Easterner would assume that someone named Farah was a female.  It just wouldnt happen.  Kind of like the name Christy in the USA.  No American would think someone named Christy is a male, yet it is common useage for males in Ireland, ie Christy Moore, the famous male folk singer in Ireland.  Pointing to a foreign land, in this case Ireland, to try and make a point about the USA would make as much sense as pointing to Africa to try and make a point about name useage in the Arabian Gulf.  The name Farah, for us Arabic speakers, means "Joy" and like in the West, such a name is common in useage amoungst women.  The wrong useage of names outside of the Arabic speaking world does not prove anything.  If anything, it lends credence to the idea that RP comes from an area where the name "Farah" is assumed to be a mans name, ie Afria.  As there are many African ex-pats who work in Saudi Arabia, and many share his passion for Cricket, it would make sense.

There are very few "Africans" who work as expats in Saudi Arabia, unless you want to count Egyptians and Sudanese as Africans. If you do, then the sad fact is that they have zero interest in cricket. The only other Africans you will find are the South Africans, who do enjoy cricket. However their only idea of "Farah" will be based on Farah Fawcett, so they will automatically assume it's a female name. Oh dear, another hypothesis deflated. PJO'M 19:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you make conjectural statements that you assert are FACT simply because you believe it to be true. You don't KNOW every Middle Easterner, so you can't possibly know what every Middle Easterner would assume. And as far as I am aware, there is no right or "Wrong usage of names".Mirandawrites 17:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)mirandrights

And again I show you that your logic fails in at least three or more fallacious logic catagories: 1. Affirming the Consequent Fallacy. 2. General Rule Fallacy 3. Non-sequitur Fallacy

Starting with General Rule Fallacy; The fallacious arguer tries to make the argument that if something is generally true, it is always true. For example: Dogs have tails. While it is true that MOST dogs have tails, it is a fact that not all dogs have tails. Some are born without tails and some lose their tails through accident or having them cropped. Therefore the basic assumption that all dogs have tails is not true. Your basic assumption is that because of the predominance of Farah as a female name in the ME is your experience, it must follow that ALL first name Farah's are female. That is not a provable fact as you do not know all first name Farah's in the ME. In fact a commenter on Mr. Alhamedi's blog stated she had met an Egyptian male sailor whose first name was Farah. If we can accept her testimony as true. Then your basic hypothesis of ALL first name Farahs in the ME as being female has been disproved. An extension of that logical fallacy includes your statement that "No Middle Easterner would assume that someone named Farah was a female. You again make the fallacious assumption that because most would not, means ALL would not. To prove that you would then have to test every native living in the Middle East.

Your next fallacy is that of Affirming the Consequent: Example: If all Murphy's are Irish, and Cian is Irish, his name must be Murphy. However, Cian's last name is Byrne, so your premise is incorrect.

In your case, you start with a fallacious assumption that ALL Middle Easterners assume Farah to be a female given name and then argue the consequent that therefore anyone assuming Farah was a male first name therefore could must be some from some other area. You fail in this assumption because Middle Easterners, first of all, do not always stay in the ME but immigrate to other countries. They may still be the same nationality, but they could live outside the ME. So a Saudi man living in another area would still be Arabic/Saudi, but have a completely different cultural experience and might assume something different. So your basic premise that anyone mistaking the first name Farah as male could not be Arabic/Saudi is fallacious.

Your third logic fallacy is that of Non-sequitur argument: example: If we see unexplained lights in the sky at night, and they are not airplanes, then they must be flying saucers.

In your argument, if a person mistakes the first name Farah for a male name, then he cannot be Saudi, he therefore must be Western. However, as we have shown it is no more common for the name Farah to be a male first name (and may be less so)in the West, then it is in the Middle East. Therefore your conclusion that his mistake makes him a Westerner, is fallacious.

So to summarize, no part of your argument is valid and all parts are fallacious. It then follows that the premise that a mistake in thinking Farah to be a male name automatically makes the mistaker a Western person and precludes him from being Arabic is inherently fallacious. (Mirandarights 16:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)mirandawrites)

it is also a fact that he edits people's comments, and then bans them when they call him out on it. Not exactly the behavior of an honest soul, Saudi or not. --Chaotic nipple 02:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Allegedly edits comments. One person's word against another's. Also, many blogs are routinely moderated. That is the perogative of the blog owner.--Phasis 12:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I know who's word _I_ believe here. Mine. :-) There's a difference between moderating comments, and deceptively editing them. --Chaotic nipple 04:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to add some context to the Sol Rosenblum bit - I went to LGF and read the entire thread (ugh!) and it seems apparent that Alhamedi was trying to provide some balance to the discussion which was imo virulently anti-Arab, first by posting as Alhamedi with the phrase "A pox on both your houses" and when another reader attacked him in a particularly racist (anti-Arab manner, posted as "Sol Rosenblum" with an attempt to point out that the commenter (Kafir) was not helping the zionist cause with his extremist tone. My perception is that some parts of the Saudi blogosphere have used the fact that he used the name Sol Rosenblum to support a suspicion that he is a zionist poser....probably should be organized differently! --Phasis 20:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I edited the Sol Rosenblum paragraph. As I read the exchange on LGF, it seemed apparent it was a common internet debate exchange with a commenter named Kafir making a rather personal attack against a commenter "Alhamedi Alanezi" after Mr. Alanezi made statements appearing openly non-partisan, that both parties in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict could be called into blame for continuing aggressions. The ultimate point of Mr. Alanezi's comments was that violence was detestable despite the cultural/religious affiliation of the violent party. It appeared that Mr. Alanezi perhaps resorted to the fairly common, however ill-advisable, practice of responding with a second psuedonym deliberately chosen to reflect a balanced ethnic/religious objection to Kafir's more polemic and arguably ad homimnem declarations. It doesn't logically follow that the ill-advised choice of introducing a second psuedonym automatically discounts Mr. Alanezi's claims to his Saudi identity, nor does it follow that the choice of his second psuedonym as clearly Jewish, automatically indicates Mr. Alanezi's "true ethnic identity" to be that of a Jewish person.(Mirandarights 17:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)mirandarights)

If you read the echange at LGF you'll find a native Arabic speaker wanted to converse with RP in Arabic. RP at first tries to answer some questions. When it becomes clear that the native Arabic speaker is less than impressed, RP says then he will answer no more Arabic questions, that he is not a performing monkey, and that MoI Prince Nayf might somehow use the talking in Arabic to track his down. How a common conversion, in Arabic could be used to track someone down is up for debate. RP has been asked, on several occasions, by several bloggers, to meet at a specific time on his blog to converse in Arabic. Opportunities he has never taken, nor has he ever posted any comments in Arabic.

  • ( ?? <-- Please remember to claim your comment and sign it by typing this character: ~ four times.) AnFu 13:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)



I have read the blog itself and the comments made within the blog and have been first-hand witness to Mr. Alanezi repeatedly using Arabic words and translating Arabic words into English. So your last sentence that he has never posted any comments in Arabic are verifiably untrue. I also posted two links above where Mr. Alanezi did in fact, translate Arabic, discuss Arabic writing and guide English speakers through an Arabic only webpage. (Mirandarights 13:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)mirandarights)

 I removed the portion that mentioned "support" from other bloggers based on the fact that they link to his site from their blogs.  Linking to a site is hardly a sign of support.  I link to all sorts of sites on my site many of which I do not agree with.  I think this is the same with many site owners.  A link is not an endorsement, nor have I ever heard it claimed as such outside this article. --Abu Sinan 17:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That argument is completely spurious. Linking to another site is an encouragement to readers to go and read that site, which is by definition "support". It is rare indeed to find bloggers linking to sites on which they have no opinion, or disapprove of.PJO'M 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough, enough, enough!

There have been enough long screeds on this talk page debating the identity or otherwise of TRP. This page is supposed to be for discussing the article, not the subject thereof - and as far as the article is concerned, the evidence has been presented from both sides, and it's there for readers to make their own minds up. It's not for the page to attempt to determine his exact identity (Wikipedia is not for the publication of original research). Can we leave this subject now? There are other bits of the article to edit, you know. --Mike 07:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. (Mirandarights 13:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)mirandarights)

Oh please. The "Farah" section as it stands is unbalanced. The name "Farah" is simply not the arabic equivalent of "Lee" or "Robin", what an insane idea!! At the very least it is misleading for wikipedia say that it is a name for both genders, without saying that it is more commonly a female name (which is all i'm adding! don't stress). It's little short of dishonest. Using fallacy arguments is childish; a 1 in a million aberration doesn't invalidate the other 999,999 results. We're not dealing in absolutes (if we were, there would be no non-mathematical, non-scientific content on wikipedia). On the balance of probabilities, in fact beyond any reasonable doubt (and here the "reasonable person test" would be a person of a middle eastern background), a native Arabic speaker would assume that Farah is a girl. Wikipedia should reflect that. Maronz 12:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all we have to go on there is your POV. --Mike 15:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument that falacious deduction deals with absolutes is a falsity. In fact, fallacy arguments do the opposite. They "prove" that the assumption that someone mistaking Farah for a man's name automatically precludes the person from being Saudi is an "absolute" which is a complete fallacy. Since when is using sylogism and proofs of falacacious argument "childish" since it is one of the primary technical tools for proving a conclusion given a set of premises within law schools and courtrooms throughout the world? It is exactly suited for the "Farah" non-argument as it dispells intensely prejudicial myths and pure conjecture which is obviously what the whole "Farah" issue is. And you Moranz and others still have yet to provide a conclusive argument that anyone mistaking Farah for a man is automatically a Westerner in origin. Where do you find a predominance of Farah as a man's name in Western cultures???(Mirandarights 13:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)mirandawrites)

 Miranda makes a point I have been making for some time.  I dont think RP is Western.  I think he is probably from Eastern Africa, where Farah is a common man's name.  Saudi is full of such expat-workers and their families. --Abu Sinan 17:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is NOT full of East Africans, as anyone who has any familiarity with the country will attest. Expats are predominantly Western, Indian sub-continent, or Indonesia / Philipines. It is interesting that uninformed comments such as these are coming from "Abu Sinan", a self-confessed US convert to Islam, who by his own admission, in his own blog, has been conducting a one-blogger campaign against The Religious Policeman for some time (whilst at the same time claiming to have lost interest in the subject!) What we have here is a case of a blogger, with a personal axe to grind, having been banned from the RP's Comments section, attempting to falsify the Wikipedia entry of another blogger. PJO'M 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

 I have added a bit about the language issue.  The fact that he could give a lesson or two on the most very basic elements of Arabic goes nowhere to proving that he can actually speak Arabic.  There is nothing that he passed on in these "lessons" that could not be passed on in a few minutes after a Google search for websites about Arabic.  He has never translated a lengthy article in Arabic, rather he infuriated Farah when he took her translations.  He refused several attempts by myself and others to converse in Arabic in the comments section of his blog.  He refused several offers by myself and others to meet in a chat room where the discussion would be done solely in Arabic.  If he really speaks Arabic, why go out of his way to avoid any Arabic conversation?  Why leave your only proof of your Arabic speaking ability to be that which can be taken from an internet search in a few minutes? --Abu Sinan 17:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

 I have removed the portion mentioning sites that have linked to RP.  Linking to a site does not designate support for a person, idea or subject.  If you care to link to a particular story or article they have written showing support, that is another thing, but that is not what is claimed.  A link does not show support.--Abu Sinan 20:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a random thought -

I wonder how many of TRP's fans think it's _obvious_ that Salam_Pax and Riverbend are fakes, for much the same reasons? Of couse, both of _them_ occasionally post in Arabic... --Chaotic nipple 03:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why such a keen interest in discrediting Arab political blogs?--Phasis 12:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that it's dangerously close to violating WP:NOR, which is basically there to prevent personal axe-grinding. It would also be worth checking out what Wikipedia is not. --Mike 14:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand me, I think both of them are legit, but plenty of (mostly right-wing) bloggers think they're fakes. Including several who have linked to TRPs blog. And they use some of the same arguments too, like "He speaks english too well to be an Arab!". It was just an amusing thought. --Chaotic nipple 04:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mostly Western

Based on his own site counter, out of 16,860 visitors over the past 7 days, 13,584 came from North America, Europe, or Australia. I think we can conclude that it's an ojective fact that his audience is "Mostly western". --Chaotic nipple 03:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really, because people will be filed under where their IP addresses geolocate to, not the physical location of the user (for instance, a lot of Saudis on satellite connections will appear to be in Europe or the US, and that's before you get into corporate networks, proxies and large NATted networks). A user's IP address also tells you nothing about the ethnic background of that user, so assuming that those 13,584 "North American" visitors are all white conservative Americans, which seems to be what you're trying to allege, is technically incorrect. --Mike 12:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about anyone's skin color, let's not go jumping to conclusions here. --Chaotic nipple 04:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia has a population of 27,019,731 including non-natinoals or "guest" workers. Out of this, 2.54 million have internet connections (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.html). By contrast, the United States has a population of 295,734,134, more than 10 x that of KSA. Of that US population a far larger proportion have free and open internet service. Many Saudi providers do block TRP - as well as many other sites critical of the government, or simply blogspot in general. Additionally, the IP address does not define national origin (i.e., there are many people from many places living in the US). --Phasis 12:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] section ordering

I think "Common Subjects" should be the first section. It is the meat of the article since it tells you what the site is actually about. Criticisms of something, e.g. identity of author, should occur *after* you finish describing it.

I agree. --Phasis 00:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article comes off as if the notable thing about the weblog is the controversy over his identity. It should be restructured. Frankly, a one or two sentence paragraph stating their is some controvery regarding his nationality would be more appropriate rather than giving a shopping list of every possible controversial item. (Mirandarights 14:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)mirandawrites)

Yup. "Criticisms" sections in Wikipedia articles are generally evil as they tend to turn into weaselly soapboxing of the "Many people believe that (my opinion here)" type. I think a short summary of the identity controversy is important, but it shouldn't dominate the article quite so completely. This is probably one of the things which makes the page look like it's about a non-notable website - it should tell you about the subject first, and then expand where necessary. --Mike 14:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the entire bit on identity needs to be parred down and just generally reorganized - as it is now, it is weaselly, very tit for tat. And there is more content to add. For example, RP's on-going discussion on maids.--Phasis 12:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely - I think the thing to do is wait until the "identity" editing has settled down a bit, then edit it down to be shorter and NPOV - need to get rid of the he-said-she-said stuff in there. Maybe time to concentrate on the content.. --Mike 14:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on the article, folks. That was also a good idea of adding that quote, Phasis: although it's not his best satire, it illustrates Alhamedi's viewpoint quite well. I was the one who posted the above suggestion which has been implemented. I've always wondered whether it makes sense at a point like this to remove the talk section of a resolved issue or to leave it for posterity. I just did some reading at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. It seems the accepted practice is to leave it until the page is too big and cluttered and then to archive old topics. So I will leave it for now. :) --Danny Rathjens 06:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Those who do not learn from history/the past are condemned to repeat it" (George Santayana?). It may be that for now the benefits (documenting topics addressed, arguments explored, viewpoints acknowledged, potential future improvements and additions) of leaving -- not editing nor archiving -- the discussion page outweight the benefits (compactness & conciseness) of deleting sections. I have read far larger, contentious, and 'messier' discussion pages. For various reasons, suggesting a major change before individually taking action, shows consideration, as you have done. AnFu 13:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC) AnFu 13:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)