Talk:Wafa Sultan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Syria Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Syria on Wikipedia. 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wafa Sultan article.
Article policies

Please add new talk items to the bottom and not insert here. Please also add a content title so discussions can be organised.

Contents

[edit] Religion

Wafa Sultan is not a Muslim. She was raised as such, but she now refers to herself as a non-religious secularist. She also has stated that she lost faith in their (Muslim) God. From this we could infer that she is an Agnostic. She also is not much of a reformer; most of her lectures focus on attacking Muslim society, and she doesnt deal much theology.

WP:LIVING applies. She has not said that she is an agnostic AFAIK - for you to describe her as such is WP:original research and cannot be added to living people articles unless you can identify a notable source that can interpret her view as agnostic. Your edit attempt [1] also damaged the article presentation. I have reverted it. Ideally please use preview before committing changes and please read the relevant talk page sections and Wikipedia policies. Ttiotsw 10:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
"Among other things, Sultan has declared herself an atheist."[2] csloat 21:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General tone of opponents

I think Wafa Sultan's opponents made their worldview abundantly clear when they defaced this article by calling her "Satan." I think it's also worth noting that when an individual Syrian woman expresses negative opinions about Islam on television, we get a firestorm of vile personal attacks in response. It's so hard to have respect for people who attack even the most benign and insignificant of their critics and threaten an innocent woman's life for having an opinion.

It's definitely not in the best of manners to be acting the way you have described, whether it's by Muslims or non-Muslims. However, on the matter of opinion, sure she (Wafa) may have an opinion (after all that's her right), the way she attempts to come across as somewhat of an authority on Islamic ideology stops her from having an opinion but pushing that opinion as if it were fact to the non-educated Western audience, when in most cases she simply repeats the the same rhetoric that so many other so called Islamic "experts" do. I think, maybe, that's where so many people are angry with her but for sure some of the responses that are given aren't the right way to go about refuting her. Anti Hypocrisy (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fame due to MEMRI

The raise to fame of Wafa Sultan was due entirely to MEMRI, and therefore an important propaganda victory for this organisation. I believe that this should be included in wikipedia article, and so should be information that the video that made her famous was edited before being furnished with subtitles and sent out to the list of MEMRI target receipients. Eva Jlassi

See the New York Observer on: http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2006/07/a-denunciation-of-the-muslim-world-apparently-on-aljazeera.html—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva Jlassi (talk • contribs)

That article simply says that what she says isn't a justification Israel in Lebanon. Her appearance on Al-Jazeera is dated from February isn't it? It predates that situation. Tying the two together isn't her fault, it's the New York Observer's. If you have links to articles from reputable sources criticising MEMRI for censoring the video, then provide them. But the article doesn't need "it was therefore an important propaganda victory" ...

Complete transcript of the program "the oposite direction 26/02/2006" can be found here http://aqoul.com/images/wafa_sultan.pdf and should be included in the article - the difference between the transcript and the video is of major importance - it shows Ms Sultan has been entangled in the propaganda exercise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva Jlassi (talk • contribs) I'm sorry I didn't sign my postings - I'm new to Wikipedia Eva Jlassi 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The editorializing on MEMRI violates NPOV. Manawyddan (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism sources

Add relevant, reliable sources here so we can talk about starting a criticism section. - Kriskhaira 20:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The seductive and blinkered belligerence of Wafa Sultan - LA Times

  • Quote: "My disappointment in and disagreement with Sultan turned into dismay. She never alluded to any healthy, peaceful Islamic alternative."
  • It's worth nothing that this article was written by a rabbi at the Wilshire Boulevard Temple - Kriskhaira 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wafa Sultan’s Lies Refuted - Answering-christianity.com

  • Hi JJay, I really don’t know what your problem is. We should not be biased and let people see the arguments on both sides. Then we can let people determine, which side is the truth. If Wafa Sultan is the truth then you have nothing to worry about. Now please stop being biased and allow the link to be there.
  • This link doesn't really seem credible. See the arguments below. Is answering-christianity.com a reliable source of info? - Kriskhaira 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reading through this info, he accuses Sultan of quoting verses from the Koran out of context, but then does the same against the bible. At one point, quoting Numbers 31:17-18, but not 16 to put a little bit of context to the passage (in this case, it's almost the exact same scenario as the one he is attacking Sultan on).--206.186.109.62 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a note regarding accuracy of the source in the section below about the answering christianity site.

[edit] Bias

This article refers to her claims as if they were fact, it's her OPINION and not fact.

I don't see quite why you take this view, unless you are referring to the massacres by the Muslim Brotherhood, which I think are quite well-attested. Palmiro | Talk 16:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
maybe because of a section like this "scolding Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently and for not recognizing the accomplishments of non-Muslim society, while using its wealth and technology." where the wording signifies what she says as fact, and not opinion?Elazul yagami 17:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so, I think it's clear enough that this is simply what she was criticising Muslims for, whether rightly or wrongly is another question. I'd hate to see this article be disfigured with Wikipedia's "allegedly" blight like so many others. Palmiro | Talk 16:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, i and many others will think so. There's already a problem with Memri's translations as is apparent in this link : http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2006/03/aljazeera_trans.php#more and furthermore, no one in the western world questions what she says. It should be made obvious that her claims are HER opinions and not facts. That's all i'm saying, leave her claims, leave her words and scoldings, just make it obvious that it's her opinion and that there are and have been counters to her claims.Elazul yagami 17:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the sentence makes it painfully obvious that it is her "opinions" since it starts by saying that she "spoke" and "argued". The article makes no claim that these are facts. -- JJay 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Most of Wafa Sultan's points are innacurate and misleading, which this article does not refer to. She does argue some her points as if they are fact and this article does not. This article should explain that many of her points are innacurate and based upon her opinion and not fact. I previously added two articles to the 'further reading' section, which were deleted. Why is Wikipedia afraid to list Wafa Sultan as a figured with a flawed speech? Please read and consider inclusion of the first article of which I wrote myself, and the second which clearly refutes her major points; Wafa Sultan and Wafa Sultan’s Lies Refuted.
  • We should not be linking to blog posts. See WP:RS. Just add links to articles from major media or academic sources. -- JJay 04:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Linking "only" to major media or academic sources is not a wikipedia policy in subjects related to point of views. We should link to sites that present the other POV. Plus I see you permit a link (of Alt.muslim)that support her POV although it is not matching this criteria you put. / Dy yol 04:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the alt.muslim site was a blog. I've removed that as well. There are thousands of blog articles on Ms. Sultan. We need to avoid linking to articles that people have just posted to their blogs as a previous poster admitted above. Just link to the equally comprehensive coverage found through the major media. -- JJay 13:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As mainstream sites are taking a "mainstream" view, the inaccruracies in her words are not being focused upon. In Europe where I am it has already been documented that the media is Islamophobic, therefore this suggests that not only "mainstream" views should be used if we are to attain accruracy. I assume that in Nazi germany, "mainstream" news sources supported Hitler's regime, and therefore if the rest of the world had based their information on these sources alone then I would probably be typing in German. This article fails to portray a true account of Wafa Sultan, as it does not include that her views are innacurate then it should at least link to sites that detail this.
  • I have no idea what you mean when you say that "it has already been documented that the media is Islamophobic". If you have some proof in that regard, take it up on the talk page of WP:RS. Otherwise, your point about NAZI Germany is not relevant. AT the time, there were plenty of other news sources worldwide- like the NY Times. This is an international encyclopedia. If you have mainstream sources to add to the article then please do so. Nothing says you have to be limited to the Western media. However, self-published blog articles by unknown blog sites are not valid. -- JJay 02:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The proof is available as documented in various articles. The problem with this "mainstream" issue, is that many available sites will support her work. I previously added this site which is not a blog and it was deleted: Wafa Sultan’s Lies Refuted. The Wikipedia article here is selective in the quotes it uses. While quoting her in saying; "we have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant", it is ignored that she also said in the same excerpt; “The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling…. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.” This ignores the existence and actions of Israeli terror groups and particular incidents in the Palestine-Israeli conflict. Was Yitzhak Rabin not murdered by a Jewish person? Has Arial Sharon not been linked to massacres? This is but one point of the speech the article ignores, and many more of Wafa Sultan's points are also significantly one-sided, pro-Israeli and attempt to bring Islam into disrepute. Should she not be portrayed in this light? I noticed you failed to report on the rest of what I said, attempting to denote it as "not relevant" when it is evident that her arguement is flawed and any reporting on it without mentioning this is effectively assisting in promoting her propaganda against Islam. Read the article. The link is above, and I posted another from my blog in an earlier comment.
  • I don't know how many times I have to say this. Just find some valid sources that make whatever points you want to make and add them to the article. If you can't find any newspaper that has discussed these ideas then we should not be putting them in our articles. This is a reference work. It is not a blog. It is not a forum for debate. I have no interest in debating you. Why? Because I don't care. For better or worse, Ms. Sultan has received major international attention. Therefore she qualifies for an article. If she has been criticized by sources that qualify under WP:RS then all the better. Add them to the article pronto. But your link is ridiculous. It is a page that some unknown person set up. We do not use links or sources of that type. And we are not here to promote your blog. -- JJay 02:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
well said.--CltFn 03:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact is that the points made in the article I provided are valid.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/wafa_sultan.htm

This is one of the worst proposed links I have seen in a long time. If what Wafa Sultan says is all that outrageous then surely there must be some better alternative. Not in your wildest dreams are we linking to this website. Palmiro | Talk 16:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] answering christianity is a racist and anti-semitic website

Why does the article on Wafa Sultan have a link to a radical Islamist website that preaches anti-semitism?

This one?
The website has several racist and anti-semitic articles:

here

quote fom article:

"Also, according to the Noble Quran, MOST Jews are evil doers"

This is an anti-semitic statement. In many countries in Europe , anti-semitic statements are legally classified as hate-speech and are against the law.

here

Makes blood libel against Jewish people.

here

Anti-semitic canard
There is much more nauseatingly hateful propaganda on this site. It does not have any scholarly merit or value. Why is this linked in the Wafa Sultan article? At best, it should be qualified as a link to a biased site known for making anti-semitic statements.Netaji 00:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


  • As an example for the accuracy of the source, compare:

from http://www.answering-christianity.com/nonjews_in_talmud.htm

"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals." TALMUD: Sanhedrin 74b.

I don't see any evident connection to the content of 74b as listed here:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_74.html

I have removed that link to answering-christianity.com as it doesn't advance the Encyclopedia nature of Wikipedia as it's not even a clear criticism. The target link page even says "She does not even deserve my time to refute her." so it's not exactly very focused criticism of her anyway !. That site is basically a anti-Christian, anti-Islam apologetics site which kind of rambles on a bit. Ttiotsw 00:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text

There was a lot of text here which was copied from another web site. I have removed that text as it is unclear what the copyright is and it is not relevant to the Talk page. Please don't copy stuff like that unless you wrote the original transscript. Ttiotsw 00:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hatred?

It is this personal event that is thought to be the catalyst of her hatred towards Islam.

Has she said she hates Islam? There's not enough in the article for me to determine if it's as passionate as that, and not just a deep critical eye from being so familiar and disappointed with it. --4.254.118.214 04:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, is you read the whole video on Youtube and read this article, you'd notice that she attacks Islam in every possible way that provokes anger among many Muslims. The way she said it is sounded like all Muslims are terrorists, bad and that they should deserve to live in this world. This is what I call an anti-Muslim extremist: not by the actions but rather by the words she said. --58.168.116.192 02:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messed up Talk Page

I had to revert the talk page as someone cut+paste the article into it. I also removed a large block of copyright text which was a transcript. I think you can do little bits to prove a point but pasting the whole lot simply makes no point. Also in the main article I've removed that link to answering-christianity.com as the general consensus is that its a crap criticism of Wafa Sultan (it may be an "OK" criticism of Christianity, Israel, Jews etc and whatever turns that guy on but from the first paragraph he calls her "ignorant" and "foolish", "She does not even deserve my time to refute her", and "she is becoming too famous for her own good" and then spends pages (and some time) on what truthfully is a very unfocused criticism of this Doctor. Ttiotsw 01:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to a Muslim View

I dont see why the Muslim point of view cannot be put there, the link to answering - xtianity was removed because it was so called racist etc, but this has no such problem and the link deserves to be there to give both sites of the story.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.246.216.98 (talk • contribs) .

There are millions of Muslims in the world, why is that website notable? Who is the author? I suggested you explain why he was notable, or why that website is notable, and you haven't. If we don't link to NOTABLE responses to Sultan, then we'll have to link to every response on the internet. - BalthCat 03:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
yes if we start removing all not so notable responses then we have to remove half the responses on the net. There is no muslims side of the story at all in the entire page.
All those non-notable responses on the net are still there, out on the net. And can easily be found. They are, however, not in here, cluttering up a relatively small article. If notable responses can be found, some one could write a small "Criticisms" section, explaining how the notable response replied to her criticisms (and not how the editor responds to her, or how some blogger responsds to her). So far no one has yet found a notable response, and no one has yet written a small criticisms section. (Aside from calling her Satan, which was fairly small.) I'm surprised no one has found a notable response yet, to be honest, and I expect that eventually some one will, and some one will add a reasonably sized Criticisms section. - BalthCat 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Its just a link given to a review of her interview by a Muslim, we are not cluttering it with millions of links, you guys seem to have removed other links on one pretext or the other giving lame excuses , hence that link deserves to stay.we need the Muslim side of the story as well. anyway it was a typo in the last post, i mean there are many such links in wikipedia, its the view that matters not the notability.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.37.91 (talk • contribs) .
I have quite a bit of trouble imagining you can't find a notable muslim scholar, imam or political personality responding to Sultan who isn't a nobody blogger. As it stands now, I can't remove the link (which I would remove) without breaking the WP:3RR rule. It isn't a "muslim view point" it's a link to a non-notable blog. If I write a blog post about how Sultan is wrong, should *I* get to link to myself because I need to add a Canadian viewpoint? - BalthCat 21:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The point is that it the site is not a Blog as you claim it to be. It is a view from the other side, you asking for notability is like asking all Wikipedia authors to be "notable" which is defenitely NOT the case. and according to your very own logic, it makes Wikipedia less notable due to the notability factors of the authors here. hence your view does not stand. 125.22.32.124 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't for opinions, and so it isn't the place for "views from the other side" only articles which explain the views from the other side, as demonstrated by people of note. Your logic play is not relevent because I'm not discussing the notability of Wikipedia editors, I'm talking about the notability of that website, and that website alone. MY opinion of Wafa Sultan hasn't been linked to the article. I remain certain that a response notable enough to include should come from a notable person. You have not yet explained why Ebrahim Saifuddin or the True Call website are notable, and so I am having trouble believing he is notable. He may BE notable, just show me that he is. Otherwise, please, find a notable muslim commentator to link. This is not unreasonable. - BalthCat 04:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I dont see why you are harping on the notability factor, it does not really matter, there are millions of links in wikipedia, as long as they contain info/opinion thats all that matters, i am not going to dispute each and every notability of the link, nobody does that. nor does it go againt any wikipedia rule. 125.22.33.42 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia: Notability (people), Wikipedia:External links. - BalthCat 22:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Good you brought those links up. Please care to read the links again, 1) The Notability it talks about is the notability of Articles in Wikipedia 2) Also it tells that "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. 3) What might be notable to you might not be to others. 4) Also the link on external Links says this "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link: WHICH IS ALLOWED. Hence this is another point of view which deserves to stay. Unless someone finds a better alternative to it.
Just like to point out that I removed the link to answering-christianity.com a few weeks ago as it was a crap criticism of Wafa Sultan not because the site was racist (It may be that too but that's not my concern). Looking at Ebrahim Saifuddin site it too is also truthfully a very unfocused criticism of this woman. It starts out with a strawman about what does and doesn't constitute a knowledgeable Muslim then continues with saying outright that she's not a knowledgeable Muslim and thus using that to refute the spirit of what she says. He closes by saying that "She has not come forward with anything new that would be worth analyzing" (yet spends time to analyze) and that he takes "her nothing to be but an attention seeker who craves to be another Salman Rushdie". The real clincher is this "Muslims are advised not to try to threaten her at all." and truthfully that refutes all he says regarding knowledgeable Muslims: if they were knowledgeable Muslims then they would not need to be advised to not threaten someone. As with the personal attack approach to criticism on answering-christianity.com the site on www.thetruecall.com is equally an obnoxious example. I'm all for non-notables to have relevant comment linked in to Wikipedia but this isn't it and reflects poorly on the Muslim world. Come one there must be at least ONE non-misogynist, non-hateful, critical site in the zillions of sites out there !. Ttiotsw 21:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Its not an Ebrahim saifuddin site, he is just an author over that. And it is a critical analysis of her and her talk, The review points out to important infomation she tends to ignore. So what if he advises muslims not to threaten? How does that make the review a hate/misogynist propoganda???? Also he points out why she is not a knowledgeable Muslim. Plus Wafa herself spills out hate in her speech. Its funny how you support her there. There is no hate statement in any of the statements you pointed out. Its a critical analysis and there is nothing wrong with it and it deserves to stay. Cause we need a POV from the other side. Its funny that you are ignoring the hate spewed by Wafa but have a problem with the site . 203.101.54.182 07:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess it could stay except it is refered to as a Muslim point of view. Given that Ebrahim Saifuddin questions the authenticity of how knowledgable a muslim that Wafa Sultan is, is this commentary by Saifuddin from a personal point of view or as a knowledgible muslim ?. He himself has raised the doubts as to what a knowledgable muslim constitutes and as such that you can be a muslim but not a knowledgable muslim and this discounts what you say. I suggest that the link stay but it be retitled to "A Review of the Al-Jazeera Interview with Wafa Sultan" by Ebrahim Saifuddin as it is unclear if what he says represents the point of view of all Muslims both moderate, indifferent, ignorant or knowledgable. That way then he would appear as a Wiki link and then people can add content to show how notable he is. Unless he is under a different spelt name at the moment he doesn't appear at all. This is what's given us doubts as to his notability. Ttiotsw 09:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


It is bothering to see how some people claim that they hate censorship but they themselves do it here. There should be a link here to the opposite side's view. Answering-christianity is one of them. I cannot see how it is anti-semitic, even more important, I cannot fathom your humanity and pluralism while it seems it is okay for you and others like you to be anti-muslim, but brainwash the rest of us about any criticism of jews as anti-semitic. Certainly I see a lot of anti-islamic views here but somehow I don't say they should be removed because they are anti-islamic. I will re-establish that link under the title "Muslim Response," and welcome others to make other relevant links under the same heading. regards, -Lugalwiki

This is primarily a biographical article about Wafa Sultan. If notable figures have offered arguments against specific points she has made, I see no reason why those shouldn't be included in the article. However the link you have added is extremely POV and represents a self-published opinion. That does not fit with Wikipedia's policy of using reliable sources (WP:RS#Self-published_sources), which discourages linking to self-published material. I have not myself removed the link, but anyone familiar with Wikipedia policy will most likely do so shortly. EdJohnston 00:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course, everybody makes the so-called rules that suit them best, right? Then I wonder why there is a link to criticism of Islam? I wonder why you don't apply that seemingly NPOV view to the fact that this article does spread hatred toward muslims, hence there should be a link for those who are interested in hearing the other side's response. regards, Lugalwiki 71.106.148.109 00:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue is that the answering-christianity link is of quite poor quality as a criticism of what Wafa Sultan has said or even the spirit in which she has said it; quoting the link the reviewer refers to her "lies" and that "She does not even deserve my time to refute her.".
When so-called "Muslim" rebuttals of other peoples views stop referring outright to "lies" and belittling the person's views then that would be a review that would be of encyclopaedic quality. Until that time we too have "little time" for such reviews. This Wikipedia article also doesn't "spread hatred toward muslims" but I feel in some respects that it says that people should be able to reform what they see as wrong. Other mainstream religions have reformed and we allow those moderate voices to be heard without hatred against them. I'm not saying that Wala Sultan is a Martin Luther but eventually there will (should?) be a reformation. This is an aside though as we must simply record what has been said from reliable sources and since September last year (see previous talk) the quality of answering-christianity has not improved as a external link. Ttiotsw 08:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status as a secular muslim reformer and activist

Wafa Sultan is not a Muslim, as the original article stated. 66.42.111.218 Marcus, Nov. 17th, 2006

I have moved the above statement to this new section. Please add new items to the bottom of the talk not the top. I have reverted your edits as WP:LIVING very much applies and you can't add content that contains statements without them being verifiable nor remove stuff that she has said i.e. she self-describes as "secular". She is a muslim reformer and "activist" based on consensus view of editors. Ttiotsw 10:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Using the timeline in March in the interview she says she is not a christian, muslim or jew but a secular human being who didn't believe in the supernatural. In May she says she is a muslim. Given you can have "secular jews" (and atheist jews but I will say outright that simply stating that you don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean you are an atheist as atheist is a term specific to believe/no believe in god/gods and she has not said she doesn't believe in god ergo she is not an atheist), so logic would indicate that she is now a "secular muslim" i.e. goes with the traditions/lifestyle but has issues with certain stuff. Ttiotsw 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I think "secular" should be removed. In the Time magazine article, she is quoted as: "I even don't believe in Islam," she says, "but I am a Muslim." Since she calls herself "a muslim" that should be good enough for wikipedia. If we are going to start playing judge and jury as we seek to qualify her religious identity, we need a better qualifier than "secular". --JJay 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why secular (as she has described herself twice in the previous interview) and muslim are mutually exclusive. Obviously saying you are muslim cancels christian/jew but not secular. Ttiotsw 23:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that's a good point. It's not very clear based on the various interviews whether she is affirming or renouncing her religion. The current description may be best for the time being, unless she makes a clearer statement in a future interview. --JJay 23:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Could I see the link where she said she's a Muslim? She's giving confusing statements. If she's said she's stopped practicing Islam and is searching for a new God and that Quran is full of "violence, mysogny and extremism", she's definitely not a Muslim. I'll see if I can get her email. --Matt57 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly confusing, she says in the link to time online at the top of the article - "I even don't believe in Islam," she says, "but I am a Muslim." [3]. It may be worth contacting her as you suggested on my talkpage to clarify. Wikipidian 03:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes thats confusing. I know she's not a Muslim. She says she is, to perhaps give an impression that she's a former Muslim or to gain a stronger effect on Muslims. But in any case she should say openly if she's an athiest or not. If she's a muslim, she has to believe that Mohammed is Allah's chosen prophet and Quran is the word of God. Obviously she doesnt believe in that otherwise she wouldnt say the Quran is full of extremism and violence. I'll try to get her email and ask her.--Matt57 04:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

She was asked by Ibrahim al-Khouli in the Al-Jazeera debate if she was an Atheist (translated by MEMRI as "Heretic"). She neither denied nor confirmed this; however, she pretty much made it clear she is not a Muslim. She may have been one in the past (a very weak hearted one IMO) but as to her current beliefs, I would assume she is an Atheist. Therefore, I think she should be referred to as an Atheist and not a Muslim. Furthermore, she is from Shia Alawite heritage which in some Islamic communities is seen as outside the fold of Islam as they revere Ali (RA) as a divine figure; so maybe in some views she may not have been seen as a Muslim in the first place. Anti Hypocrisy (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We should add quotes from Wafa

I dont want revert wars. Why should Wafa's quotes not be added to this page? For example:

"Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."
"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."
“I don’t believe you can reform Islam,” says Wafa Sultan, who contends its scriptures are riddled with violence, misogyny and other extremism.

and a lot of other stuff like that. I want to make a wikiquote section for her, and also we should have some of her prominent quotes here as well. The "others" as usual will try all they can to stop this from happening. --Matt57 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be better in WikiQuote, per normal policy regarding extensive quotes? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam=terrorism

She has nicely explained that Islam is terrorism itself. We commend her courage and hope that she does not get butchered.

I restored the following.


She believes that Islam is essentially equivalent to terrorism as it is the methodical teaching thereof,

“ It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity[1] ”
  1. ^ LA Psychologist Wafa Sultan Clashes with Algerian Islamist Ahmad bin Muhammad over Islamic Teachings and Terrorism

--Patchouli 01:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, she has rejected Islam altogether and is not a reformer.--Patchouli 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The so-called "Islamic clergy" are not reliable sources as to who is a Muslim or not so I must restore the Muslim description as she has described herself as that in the Time interview. As I have argued before I see no problems with how she's self-describing herself yet i.e. Secular and Muslim can fit as well as Secular and Jewish. She is no Martin Luther but to me she's a reformer if she pisses off some misogynist cleric. Ttiotsw 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Koran 58-5: "Those who resist Allah and his messenger will be humbled to dust."
  • Koran 9-5: "slay the idolaters where ever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush."
  • Koran 8-12: "I will instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."

--Patchouli 03:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'an is a primary source; don't see the point here. I could equally quote old testament with similar violent sections. Given the OT is the basis for Christianity that still wouldn't give me a reason to plaster Christianity related talk pages with that "fact". Ttiotsw 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

FACT: There is NO Wafa Sultan registered as either a physician or psychiatrist in The State of California. The Medical Board of California readily documents this by their online verification records at ([3]) Likewise the American Medical Association lists no Wafa Sultan as a licensed physician in the United States ([4])

This seems like a very legitimate criticsm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.186.44.179 (talk • contribs)

No, this seems like original research. Who says that she has a current license in CA? Licenses need to be renewed once in a while, or maybe she is licensed somewhere else. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

California State Records show Wafa Sultan has never been issued a license to practice as a physician in her home state of California nor does the full federal body of The American Medical Association show any license in this name nor her maden name of Wafa Ahmad. Current and prior Licenses are listed for the last 25 years by The Midical Board of California at http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/wllqryna$lcev2.startup?p_qte_code=MDX&p_qte_pgm_code=6301. Moreover, given her stated age of 47 in the New York Times article of 2006, she would have been born in the year 1959 making her only 20 years old at the time she claimed to be in Medical School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.134.66 (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Two points to consider.
I removed the comments regarding the attacks by others as they were POV and UNDUE. She made a general point and not a statement regarding everyone.
As far as the Dr. part, she made not be registered in California, but the Time magazine article ( see note #1 on the page) clearly stated she was a psychiatrist in Syria before transplanting to Southern California in 1989 so it is fair and accurate to call her a psychiatrist. To also add further comments on the article based only on checking the listings of doctors and not checking other sources listed seemed to be too much POV and UNDUE also. --Statsone 04:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The one Giving Those Qur'anic References,I can Easily Answer Those So can Most Of The People.It is Not Our Mistake That You dont CHOOSE To Listen.If you r neutral Then only Visit These Pages and Edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Actionfury199 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you remove the InFocus newspaper article questioning Sultan credibility?

I remember a link to a newspaper article was linked on wikipedia before, why did you guys remove it? It provides sources that show clearly that Sultan was lying when she talked about her experience that changed her life as it says in the main article:

"Sultan said she was shocked into secularism by the 1979 atrocities committed by Islamic extremists of the Muslim Brotherhood against innocent Syrian people, including the machine-gun assassination of her professor, Dr. Yusef al Yusef, an ophthalmologist renowned beyond Syria, in her classroom in front of her eyes at the University of Aleppo where she was a medical student. "They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'Allah is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another God."

Obviously, this was disproven in the following newspaper article:


http://www.infocusnews.net/content/view/4009/135/

where it was found out that:

'As to the claim that her professor (thought to be Yusef Al-Yusef) was gunned down before her eyes in a faculty classroom at the University of Aleppo, Halabi said the incident never took place. "There was a professor who was killed around 1979, that is true, but it was off-campus and Sultan was not even around when it happened," he added.

InFocus contacted the University of Aleppo and spoke to Dr. Riyad Asfari, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, who confirmed Halabi’s account. "Yes, the assassination took place off-campus," he said. Dr. Asfari was keen to add that no one had ever been killed in a classroom anytime or anywhere at the university.

Syrian expatriate Ghada Moezzin, who attended the University of Aleppo in 1979 as a sophomore, told InFocus that she never heard of the assassination. "We would’ve known about the killing if it had happened," she said. "It would have been big news on campus and I do not recall ever hearing about it." Moezzin, who lives in Glendora, Calif., added that government security was always present around the university given the political climate in Syria at the time.

What are perceived as inconsistencies and half-truths like these convince Sultan’s critics that the motive behind her invectives against Islam and Muslims is other than her alleged desire for reform.'

You should at least point out that incidents that happened in her life are questionable or unreliable since they are not even sourced, because either they never happened or didn't even involve her.

128.97.253.2 21:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Amro Gaber

IMO this should definitely be placed in a "Criticism" section of the article. A lie by her such as this seriously dents her credibility. I propose a criticism section as is the case with other personalities. Anti Hypocrisy (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animal references

It probably should be added that Sultan criticizes the rhetoric (in Islamic discourse and the Qur'an itself) that nonbelievers are "monkeys," "apes," and "swine." Badagnani 18:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Monkeys Are Swines? were is dat?yes,monkeys are for those who spread corruption in the land like murder,rape etc.--Actionfury199 (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tags by Kitrus

I have removed these tags as no discusion was done, either before or even after, the placement of tags. statsone 20:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Their are several discussions in the Talk page referring to the unbalanced nature of the article. Just about every heading in the Talk page is regarding biased content, not style or anything else.
And these points are answered and in many cases dealt with. Please be more specific and post on each topic. statsone 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As of now, the article reads like a promotion of Wafa Sultan. Their isn't a single reference in the article to opposing views or criticism. Critical views consist of a few weblinks tossed at the very bottom of the entry (External links). They haven't been incorporated into the article. The tags are very much appropriate until further work is done to the entry.--Kitrus 00:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does there have to be opposing views? The article is about one person, and not a topic. statsone 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links section cleanup

I can't think of any other Wikipedia biographical entry that has anywhere near seventeen (17) external links dedicated to the subject's "Interviews and Speeches"--Kitrus 01:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the links are to speeches and articles on the topic. And they are in 2 languages. How is this excessive? Please see Links to be considered statsone 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you name any other Wikipedia biographical entry that has anywhere near seventeen (17) external links dedicated to the subject's "Interviews and Speeches"?--Kitrus 06:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, there are link to 2 different languages. So I do not feel it is exessive. Is there a reason this is not appropriate for the article? statsone 05:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of tags

On NPOV Dispute, it clearly states "Drive-by tagging is not permitted." In order to insert tags for NPOV disputes, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies..." Until the content is specifically stated, the tags should not be inserted. statsone 06:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My standard Paste:

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.

This is a topic with many active editors, and I won't presume to edit it. I would suggest that if the consensus here is that of Statsone, above, then you remove the tags yourselves, and keep doing it in the future if tags are not commented fully.Jjdon (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim verses sect name.

There is a slow edit war flip-flopping between various sect names. To stop this I had suggested just using muslim and another person has supported that by editing it and I support their edit. Unless you can show a reliable source it should stay as "muslim". I have added hidden text asking for cites. Ttiotsw 07:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:68.115.147.116 has given a source [4]. Is this sufficient or incorrect as per WP:BLP? --statsone 04:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Proven Liar

She never witnessed this assasination. She is on the Jewish payroll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.107.197 (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please cite your assertion using a reliable source. Otherwise your assertion amounts to slander which is unacceptable here. Please also review WP:BLP. Tomertalk 11:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the source to the first claim, http://www.infocusnews.net/content/view/4009/135/. I cannot make judgment on the second assumption (that she's financed by Jews) that was made, although I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. Anti Hypocrisy (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this source qualifies beyond "hearsay" for the purposes of this article, as outlined in WP:BLP. That said, it can be used as a citation to back up a statement such as "infocusnews.net reports that Ms. Sultan could not have witnessed ..." That said, while I'm no expert on either Ms. Sultan or her grasp of English, it seems possible to me that she could have witnessed it off-campus, or that by "witnessed", she meant she was a student at the university at the time the professor was murdered, and was even a student in some class of his. Without clarification of what she means by "witnessed", and testimony of whether it happened before her eyes, if that's what she means by "witnessed", off campus or otherwise, WP:BLP strongly cautions against using this source even for this purpose... Tomertalk 04:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Hello - Isn't Wafa Sultan an Alawite? That's what the reference I added states. I'm not mad about this. The previous edits and their edit summaries appeared to be hostile vandalism, so I assumed they were. Phrases like "c*cksuckers" and "you have no right to do this" from anonymous IP's supported my belief that these edits were made by some angry vandal. I restored the original material because I found evidence (the ref I provided) that agreed with the original material.

Again, I'm neutral on this. I don't know the history of this person. I also know nothing about the Muslim conflict. I am only working to make a properly referenced encyclopedia. Sorry if I stepped on your toes. E_dog95 Hi 00:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for Political views

The statement "The trouble with Islam is deeply rooted in its teachings. Islam is not only a religion. Islam [is] also a political ideology that preaches violence and applies its agenda by force." is contained in the video in the first link of Interviews and speeches

   * Wafa Sultan discusses the effect of the Muhammad Cartoons and the freeing of Muslims http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Negt6IzxPTo

I have never edited here before, so I hope someone else can do it properly. Areasortarisewords (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad External Link for Personal Website

I don't know if http://www.wafasultan.org/ was once her personal web site - but as of 21 March 2008, it looks like a domain name parking page. If she does have a personal web site, I can't find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.27.4 (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

The idea that the videos emailed were one sided has no reason to be here. There are other links online that show the whole video, the video might of been shortened to specify the point of what she was saying rather than the whole debate. Of course that would mean a smaller attachment and easier to send.--86.160.201.185 (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Can an admin please protect this article or at least monitor it? Because some idiot keeps removing sources and switching her religion from Sunni Muslim to Nusairi. 63.216.117.85 (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia linking to smear as criticism

When Wikipedia is linking criticism, it should not link to smears. This link ""Islam's Ann Coulter: The seductive and blinkered belligerence of Wafa Sultan" Rabbi Stephen Julius Stein" tries to lump Wafa Sultan together with Ann Coulter. Wafa Sultan has nothing to do with Ann Coulter. So the link to this should be removed as an instance of a pure irrational association.--85.165.86.210 (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Removing the most logical criticism of Wafa

I don't know what was the good reason for you to remove the most logical criticism of Wafa Sultan? Which is the video named Who is Wafa Sultan:

It is the most civilized way of criticism by analyzing what she said herself to show the contradictions in her speeches without insulting her in any way and without making up information about her. The only good reason I see if this page is made by Wafa Sultan herself or one of her supporters. If not, please explain.

Thank you. --Alexpachanga (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and DO NOT accuse people of conflict of interests without very good grounds. Youtube is not a reliable source. It is a video blog site. Unless the channel is from a well known publisher then it's not anywhere near worth citing. So who is "mohielshennawi" who joined Youtube 2 weeks ago ? I must admit that it does look better than the videos that are titled "..THE PIG.." or "...THE FAT UGLY PIG..." etc etc. What is it with these people and the CAP lock key ? Anyway that is my most logical reply. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah this is rich - On your talk page it looks like you created a page for "Mohi Elshennawi". The same name for the person that is on Youtube. The Wikipedia page for Mohi Elshennawi" was deleted. You joined here two weeks ago or so and the "mohielshennawi" on Youtube has joined there two week ago. Now *that* is what a conflict of interest looks like.
Are you two related in some way ?. .Ttiotsw (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


First of all I apologize because you took my statement –personally- as an accusation. I just was trying to find a good reason for removing the video’s link from the critical openion part of Wafa’s page. My point was not about a “PIG” or a “COW”. Also it was not about who made the video. It was about removig the video’s link , especially when the video is anlayzing Wafa from what she's said herself. Other than that, all the information about her were taking from WIKIPEDIA.

I believe that you’ve already explained why, in your first four statements. Thank you and I really appreciate it.

Ah this is richer - You did not have to return -what you called as an accusation- to me.

I don’t believe it’s one of the rules to know if the person is related to another to make the person subscribe in your site.

WIKIPEDIA is may favorite website and I really appreciate the wonderful work you’ve done.--Alexpachanga (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)