Talk:Ali Sina

Should we have support section?

Since nearly half of this article is dedicated to the views of Mr. Sina's opponents, I think to keep the impartiality of Wikipedia, we should also ad a couple of quotes from his supporters. If anyone disagrees, please explain why. Thanks OceanSplash

I maintain that we don't. It is very unencyclopedic to put supporters into an article. All biographical articles like this don't have a section of that sort. The subject of this page is controversial, therefore criticism is a must to show both sides of the story. Besides, the link to his "support" websites are given. I also consider that if we do add supporters, we will then need critics of supporters and then criticism of the critics of the supporters, and so on. So, not necessary. By the way, please stop making other changes along with your addition of the supporters section. Thank you.a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Yuber and Anon. An encyclopaedia is not a book of apologetics. Here we have to be impartial. No, there is no need to have critics of the supporters as you suggest, just as there is no need to have critics of the critics. But as long as we publish the views of the critics we should also publish the views of the supporters. This is only fair. Wouldn’t you question the impartiality of a court if only the prosecutors are allowed to speak and the defendants were shut out? As long as we have the opinions of the critics, we ought to have the opinions of the supporters too. Furthermore, what happened to the death threat? I thought we already agreed on that. Is that something you are uncomfortable with? Would you like to explain why you want that death threat be removed? Let us not allow our faith take control of our fairness. Here we are not trying to promote any religion, just writing an encyclopaedia and we have to be as factual, informative and impartial as possible. OceanSplash

Since "an encyclopedia is not a book of apologetics", I guess we don't need people who are apologetics towards sina's "doctrine" either. No article has anything of the sort you suggest and wikipedia does not function like a courtroom. Therefore we only need Sina's views (which are the SAME as his supporters) and the critic views. Also, I did not remove the "death threat" either, it must have been one of the things that got lost along the reverting. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

forum.bismikaallahuma.org

Have you ever read something like that in a bio intro?!!! There are millions who would agree with the one who posted that but are you going to cite them all? We know the guy has critics but like that at the intro?!!! Even if the one who said that was notable, it would still go somewhere else and not the intro. It's like if you post something similar about a random forum editor at the page of Bin Laden. How many people want to have a pic with him or s**t on his face or slay him as well?! You haven't read Pat Robertson's comments on top of Hugo Chavez's intro! -- Svest 02:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Well, here we are saying Sina is afraid of revealing his identity because he fears his life. Don’t you think it is right here where we should quote those threats? If you think this is not the place, then maybe we should mention it elsewhere and place a link to that place from this statement. And what is wrong in saying many people want Bin Laden dead right after we say he is in hiding? Osama is wanted for killing thousands of people. Sina is wanted for speaking out his mind. OceanSplash

Which threat?!!! Chavez is threatened, Bush is threatened, everybody is threatened! Non notable citations by random people on earth are not to be included in WP. What should be included is that he is using a pseudonyme to avoid persecution. We're not discussing who is to be slayed or not. Who killed or not. Who spoke or not. I say clearly, non-notable citations have a place on my closet. If you find any similar bio on WP as per your version, than no doubt I'd agree with you. Now, no. Sorry. -- Svest 03:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Svest is absolutely right and also you have violated the 3rr oceansplash which means that you can be blocked from editing. Please wait until full discussion is over before reverting again. Lastly, a personal question for you - Are you Ali Sina? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have four Muslims ganging up against me. It is clear that when it comes to use of force I am in disadvantage. Muslim owe their success to use of force. But when I ask for logic I hear little or no response. Can anyone of you Muslims explain why you think the death threats should be removed? Also why the criticism should stay while the support should not? Any logical explantion for that? As far as I understand Wikipedia is not a Muslim site, or am I mistaken? :) I hope other impartial editors will set things streight. OceanSplash

Personal attacks (Muslim owe their success to use of force) would not divert editors from thinking that you just want to include unencyclopaedic content. The logic is simple as explained above. Imagine the following as an intro: (sounds logical, absolutely not)

• Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (born July 28, 1954) is the 61st and current President of Venezuela]. A member of the governing MVR, Chávez is best known for his leftist and democratic socialist governance, his promotion of Latin American integration together with Third World independence from foreign interference, and his vocal opposition to both neoliberal globalization and American foreign policy. On the day of August 22, 2005 broadcast of The 700 Club, Pat Robertson said of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, "I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop." [1].

Do you understand notability? If you read my reason above (What should be included is that he is using a pseudonyme to avoid persecution) you'd have understood why I reverted that. -- Cheers Svest 16:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Logic has been explained over and over but you fail to comprehend. When 4 editors with exponenentially more experience than you are saying that you are wrong to revert before the discussion is over, it shows that it is your ability to understand that is a problem. Look over the messages above and find the responses to your "logic". Also, no one is "using force" and I bet that terminology will be continually used by you because it's probably the only argument you have. :) No, wikipedia is not a Muslim site, but it's also not an advertisement for Sina's site where "secularism" is used as a disguise. Sina supporters aren't going to set things "straight". Now once again I ask - are you Ali Sina? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, in most I agree that we should indeed use noteable sources for the information we include, but when we talk about (death) threats, then does the person that makes these threats really have to be notable? I can't see why the threats has to be made by someone that is famous? Maybe it would indeed serve the encyclopedic tone of the article well, if we do not quote directly, however I think the threats that has been made should properly be mentioned somehow, in order to provide some background information regarding why he wish to remain anonymous. -- Karl Meier 17:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes Karl and that's why I made sure to keep and even made it clear in the article that he uses his pseudonyme in order to avoid persecution. Now, imagine someone threatening George W. Bush in a radio statement by an anonymous caller from somewhere in the suburbs of Pyongyang being cited at the intro of Bush!!! This is what I am talking about. If a similar threat is made let's say from a militant or a politician in the same radio station than of course I'd totally agree with the inclusion and surely never in an intro for style guidelines and reasons. I also gave above a very relevant example of Pat Robertson and Chavez and it would be irrelevant to see that in the intro of Chavez of Robertson. How many people listed in WP have received or received death threats?! Thousands! Nothing is mentioned in their intros. Cheers -- Svest 18:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

If we mention he is hiding his identity, we must provide the reason. It does not matter whether it is in the introduction, the body or the ending of the article. The threat need not come from a notable person. You can commit murder even if you are not notable. Anon. I read this page and saw I am not the first person you suspect being Ali Sina. Anyway, the answer is no. OceanSplash

Ocean. The reason is clearly mentioned. The guy uses a pseudo in order to prevent persecusion and it is already mentioned in the intro. I am talking about the citation and not about the reason. Have I asked you if you are Ali Sina? It doesn't matter! -- Svest 07:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)  Me again™

The sentense says: “Sina hides his real identity because he believes that his anti-Islamic statements have endangered his life.” Is he a paranoid or is that fear justified? Unless we do not provide the evidence of the threat, that sounds like Sina is just paranoid. In previous version someone had written: “he alleges” that he has received death threats. There are many death threats published in Sina’s own site with the heading of the emails of the senders. This one however is a direct threat published in an Islamic site. It was AnonymousEditor who asked whether I am Sina. See above. OceanSplash

Since you insist than I have to tell you that a person who advocates nuking cities surely would receive dangerous threats. So if you want to cite the anon threat you surely have to start citing the reasons. You know what I mean? Would you fancy smthg like: “Sina hides his real identity because he believes that his anti-Islamic statements like advocating nuking Muslim cities {reference to the nuking} have endangered his life {reference to the anon}.” I would never recommend such a thing in an intro. Would you? -- Cheers.  Me again™

I would not recommend it either because that is highly personal view. Here you would be justifying the death threats. Are you the apologist of those who issued the death threat? Those who issued the death threats have not stated they want to kill Ali Sina because he advocated nuking Islamic cities (assuming he said such thing). The death threats have been given because he criticizes Islam. You can’t interject your own rationalization for the threats. To write an encyclopaedia you must only state the facts. Facts are: Ali Sina hides his real identity because he fears his life. Is there a ground for that? Yes there is and here is the evidence. This is fact. Did Ali Sina say let us nuke Islamic cities? If so state it. But don’t link it to death threats unless you know for sure that the threats are issued in relation to this statement. You must quote the passage where Sina has stated let us nuke the Islamic cities to back your statement. Can you cite where Ali Sina has said such thing? Is this a fact or an allegation. If it is a fact it is an important point. Please cite the source and provide the link. If it is only an allegation, then you would be justifying a death threat with a slander. Maybe in Islam this is allowed, but not in an encyclopedia. OceanSplash

One question Oceansplash. If a forum somewhere on the internet was to make a death threat against G. Bush would you put it into an encyclopedia article? I am sorry to say that all your comments have the evidence of being Ali Sina and also being the anon user I was having arguments agianst a long time ago. Please answer my question. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Bush has an army of bodyguards to protect him. Everyone knows that Presidents of the U.S. are at risk of being assassinated. However if there is an attempt to their lives, like in the case of Ronald Reagan, this is always mentioned. Writers generally do not receive death threats for what they write, unless they are writing against Islam, like Salman Rusdie or Taslima Nasrin. Wikipedia does mention the death threat against these writers. In the article about Rushdie also says: “At the University of California at Berkeley, bookstores carrying the book were firebombed. On February 24 in Bombay, 5 people in a protest at the British Embassy died from police gunfire. Several other people died in Egypt and elsewhere. Muslim communities throughout the world held public rallies in which copies of the book were burned. In 1991, Rushdie's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed and killed in Tokyo, and his Italian translator was beaten and stabbed in Milan. In 1993, Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was shot and severely injured in an attack outside his house in Oslo. Thirty-seven guests died when their hotel in Sivas, Turkey was burnt down by locals protesting against Aziz Nesin, Rushdie's Turkish translator.” Are these irrelevant to the story of Rushdie? The death threats against Sina are part of the same pattern of assassinations and hooliganism with which Muslims systematically deal with the critics of Islam. We are witnessing this hooliganism right here in Wikipedia where Muslims have taken their terrorism to the cyberspace. You are free to think I am Ali Sina just as I am free to think you are an Islamic cyber terrorist. What you and I think is of no concern to anyone. For Muslims all those who oppose Islam are different aliases of Ali Sina. I have bad news for you. There are more than one Ali Sinas. Here we are trying to write an encyclopedia and we must write it factually. If those facts hurt the Muslims, so be it. Instead of trying to cover up and silence the critics, Muslims would do better if they stop assassinations, bombings and censoring views that they do not like. OceanSplash

Well ....since Bismikaallahuma is that important that it made Sina hide , I guess everything on that site must be equally important . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That's the right place to include the anon threat Ocean. -- Svest 08:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you oceansplash for admitting that you are the user that was pov pushing edits before, now I know what your edits are worth. Also don't get so patriotic; mindless ranting and personal attacks will give people more reasons to assasinate sina. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter Svest where you want to include that threat. It could be in the introduction where it says Sina hides his identity or at the end where criticism of him are mentioned. Where you put it is optional. The site that issues the threat does not have to be important. A death threat is a death threat. You don't have to be an important person to commit murder. The fact is that Mr. Sina is being threatened for expressing his views that are contrary to Islam. There are many more threats in his site with the heading and the emails of the persons who have issued the threat. We don't have to cite all of them. This one comes from a recognized Islamic site.

Keep it there Ocean. I am not going to waste more time arguing about a simple thing like that. However, I ask you to refrain from your personal attacks. You may think you never use them but check your comments. Your mind is full with prejudices against muslims, even wikipedians, which is not healthy. If someone argues here against your views than you don't have to accuse them of hooliganism; We are witnessing this hooliganism right here in Wikipedia where Muslims have taken their terrorism to the cyberspace. - Cheers -- Svest 11:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)  Me again™

Yes, even with this pathetic essay about "all Muslims running around assasinating, bombing and censoring", you still did not provide any reason for the line being added about the forum. Has sina even looked at or considered this death threat? There are probably millions of threats against him, why is this one important when it is doubtful that sina has even considered it? Death threats are all over the internet but ones that are not influential or even considered by the party being threatened? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if there has been made millions of threats against him, but nomatter what I don't think there is any reason not to include an example of, or atleast somehow mention the (death) theaths that has been made against him. It is clear that Sina want to remain anonymous because he fear for his life, and one reason that he do that is of course because of the threats that has been made against him. That should be mentioned somehow. If you can find what you believe is a more "notable" death threats against him, then feel free to replace it, but for now it's the example that is available to us, and I think that it should stay for now. -- Karl Meier 20:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

LOl , guys ...when was the last time U people talked logic !!! never I guess...Those threats are made in 2005...right?? so what did we know about him before that . Only Sina & his dum followers ( all 3 of them ) will actually belive this "they will kill me" joke . Anyways , as I said before , bismika is a very important site , we should mention other threads too . Peace . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"It is clear that Sina want to remain anonymous because he fear for his life" - Karl, did you understand what I was saying? If Sina hasn't even read this message on the forum or hasn't even considered it how does it contribute to his "fear"? He never mentioned that this particular threat was why he is hiding! Saying that this threat contributed to him hiding is original research. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe he haven't, but what he has indeed mentioned that his fear of violence and the threats against him, is the reason why he wish to remain anonymous. I find it's very reasonable that we mention that threats has indeed been made against him, when we discuss the issue why he wish to remain anonymous, and I also believe that mentioning one of these specific threats is not a bad idea eighter. -- Karl Meier 23:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding original research, what we actually say is that : "He has received some threats and..." We don't say that this specific threat was what made him want to hide his identity. It's just an example on one of the threats made against him, and these are highly relevant to the subject of why he wish to hide his identity. -- Karl Meier 23:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sina's fear for his life is not unfounded. He has genuine reasons to stay safe from muslims. Apart from having recieved hundreds of thousands of 'death threat' emails, Sina is wise to take notice of real life danger critics of Islam face- including Salman Rushdie, Ibn Warraq, Taslima Nasrin, Parvin Durabi and Irshad Manji, to name a few. (unrelated comment that was left unsigned)

Then as a compromise, since that particular thread was a feature of a forum on a website critical of Sina, this should be added to the section where this critial website is described. That is a last solution in this case. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, why do you think we should do that? The question regarding Sinas wish to remain anonymous is currently being discussed in the lead section, and it seems natural to have the informations regarding the threats that has been made against him there. To move them down to the section where the views on that site is being discussed, seems to me like moving them out of context. -- Karl Meier 23:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe a compromise could be to mention that he has indeed been threated on islamic forums and in e-mails he has recieved it this part of the article, and then move these more specific comments down to where that specific website is being discussed? -- Karl Meier 23:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no big problem with the version that I last made a minor edit to. Karl, refrain from using sockpuppets (if it is you). Thanks,a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Great, I guess we got a compromise then! I reworded it a bit to make it more readable, but I don't know if I was very succesful. I'll take a look at it again tomorrow, if nobody has changed it before then, but in any case I'll make sure not to make any changes to the basic message of what we got there now. Regarding your last question, I don't use sockpuppets. One account is enough work for me. -- Karl Meier 00:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Good to see satisfaction. I will ensure these sockpuppets are investigated, but that will result in multiple bans of all accounts of the user, so whoever it is better stop now. The sockpuppet check process is very accurate. Thanks. See you later Karl. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Now we got a problem again. Criticism should be in the criticism section. The sentence and to serve his agenda of insulting Islam and Muslims is unacceptable, because it got nothing with him being anonymous and it doesn't belong there. There is no need for although it is not known whether he has considered these eighter. Let's leave the comments out of this and stick to the facts so that we can finally get a stable version of this. -- Karl Meier 00:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No because it is not known whether he has even read the threats, and also the "agenda" material is a toned down version of what the link beside it says. If I tone it down anymore it will sound like it's his supporters talking. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

What does it matter if he read these threats or not? They are just examples of the treats that has been made against him. Also what we say is only Some threats has been made against him on internet forums... We didn't say that he read them or that they had a specific influence on him. Regarding the criticism that has been raised on the link, that should be added in the "criticism" section, if anywhere. Just like the details regarding his views and believes should be added to that section. -- Karl Meier 00:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

People are threatened all the time Karl. If the first line of that paragraph is that he feels threatened because of "death threats" against him then it should be mentioned next whether it is confirmed that those are the threats he referred to. Everything, both what he thinks followed by criticism, should go side by side if that is going to be mentioned in the early paragraphs of the article. His views are mentioned in a separate section and they are followed by criticism next. That is neutrality. Must be said. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear AnonymousEditor, yes there are many death threats against Sina. This is no different. We just have to provide an example and this happens to be written in a relatively known Islamic forum by a senoir member. Has Sina considered this particular threat? It does not matter. He surely must have considered the threats in general for hiding his identity. The fact is that he hides his identity. Is there any reason for that or is he a paranoid? Is it just because he does not want to be exposed being found a Jew posing as an ex-Muslim or is there any legitimate reason for that? It is important to quote at least one such threat to show his fears are not unfounded. It is up to you to tell us why this threat does not meet the criterion of Wikipedia. If this threat does not belong to this section where we talk about him and whatever we know of his bio, where we should talk about it? Does it belong to his Views and Beliefs? Does it belong to Criticisms against him? This is not criticism. This is providing justification for him hiding his identity. Also I see no reason saying “Ali Sina is the pseudonym of a self-described Iranian Canadian Secular-Humanist ex-Muslim” He is an Iranian Canadian and he is a secular humanist. Even if he is not this not important. The only part that some Muslims are not sure about is his claim that he is an ex-Muslim. That is already covered in the next paragraph, where it says “His critics have on the other hand argued that he is hiding his identity, in order to make a false claim about being an apostate of Islam”. He is not claiming to be a prophet of God. In that case “self proclaimed” would have been needed. Once you alledge that he could be a fraudulent apostate, it becomes even more compelling to provide at lease one threat. We must not decide for others whether he is a fraud or a really is afraid for his life. It must be the readers to make that decision. By casting doubt on his credibility, it is incumbant that we also give one example of the threats. OceanSplash

My comments on the above talk and this dif. Firstly it is clear to me that without corroborating secondary neutral sources we must say that Ali Sina is "a self-described" XXXXX. Using a pseudonym only in an online scenario, even if your site has made you notable, does not make your site's data verifiable.

Secondly, in the debate about the forum thread. One who threatens does not have to be notable but the threat itself does. In this case the threat causes notability. I don't think Anon / Svest are correct in saying that it has to be notable like threat against Bush notable because, Sina is not notable and it might hit one paper or two if he was killed. However, I really do question how you can say a forum post is a notable threat. A threat from some semi-prominent Muslim site would probably be fine for me... but a forum ... and claiming that the title "Senior member" means something... well, I really don't think that means anything. It should not be used as an attempt to portray the average Muslim as such, and sadly, from OceanSplash's comments I can't be too sure. Also, if that quote does stay you have to quote it. That means doing "I would LOVE TO TORTURE ALI SINA TO DEATH." since it is in caps on the forum.

In regards to, "It is clear that Sina want to remain anonymous because he fear for his life" -Karl, I don't think we can assume that. We can't deny it either. However, that is his claim... I think it would also be a propaganda tool. You cant' reveal your true identity because you're afraid. It allows for two things -- the ability to demonize your oponents and justifies hiding your identity. In light of the fact that we know nothing about the guy outside of his network of sites. It's clear that we have no more evidence for one than the other and each are justifiable... so, we can't really say that as a fact, it's merely a claim. gren グレン 05:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gren,

I think I already answered your questions. “Self described” in what respect? Could it be that he is not an Iranian Canadian or a Secular Humanist? If he is not Iranian Canadian, does it change anything? Isn’t it clear that he is a secular humanist from his writings? These are not outlandish claims and they are insubstantial to who Sina is. The only claim that is controversial and some Muslims have argued could be false is his claim of being an ex-Muslim. This point is already covered. So what is the purpose of saying “self described”? The word “self described” is completely redundant in this case and serves for no other purpose than being derogatory. Can I say you are a self-described man? To what end? Wouldn’t that be an insult? You are either a man or a woman. Does it have any bearing on what you say? We already said that some Muslims suspect he is not an ex-Muslim in clear language therefore this pejorative atribute of “self described” is superfluous.

As for the threat; was Mohammed Bouyeri a notable person? Despite is un-notability he killed Theo Van Gogh. Ali Sina claims to hide his identity because he receives many death threats. Is he lying? Muslims say the real reason is that he is a fraud. If we do not quote at least one threat to back Sina’s claim we are actually giving weight to Muslims’ allegation. Can you prove that Sina is not an ex-Muslim? It is just an allegation. It could be only a slander. We let this stand despite the fact that there is no evidence to support it and you say we should not publish the evidence that Sina is being threatened? Allegations, and suspicions that could be slanderous should be posted but facts should not be? This does not sound logical.

You wrote: “In regards to, "It is clear that Sina want to remain anonymous because he fear for his life" -Karl, I don't think we can assume that.”

We are not assuming that. There are only two reasons why he wants to hide his identity. He is either afraid of ending up dead like Theo Van Gogh or he is a fraud. We covered both these opinions. So what is the problem?

You wrote: “I think it would also be a propaganda tool.”

One would suspect it is a propaganda tool if no evidence of the threat is given. But since there are many threats we must quote at least one of them if we want to be fair and not deliberately portray him as a charlatan. You may love to raise that suspicion, do that is an Islamic site but in Wikipedia we must be impartial and state the facts. If someone comes to believe Sina is falsely claiming to have been threatened that would be because we failed to give the whole truth. We have withheld some evidence dishonestly to portray him as a cunning liar. That is the job of the Islamic sites not Wikipedia. We must not hide the facts in order to intentionally encourage doubt.

As for demonizing the opponents, are you implying that no Muslim ever commits assassinations? This happens every day. Thousands of incidences of terrorisms and assassinations have happened only in these few short years of this century. Of course not all Muslims are terrorists but some Muslims do kill people. It is not that nobody knows this. What about the news of terrorisms? Should the newspapers stop reporting them because they demonize the Muslims? I do not understand what are you trying to protect? The Islamic jihadis have already demonized Muslims. This threat is only a drop in the ocean of the crimes some Muslims have committed against humanity. If you are concerned about what the terrorists do. If you are concerned about demonization of Islam, you better talk to your jihadi brothers and convince them to stop. Suppose you cover up this death threat, what are you going to do with all these news about Islamic terrorisms? This is nothing in comparison. It is just a threat that may never materialize. Nonetheless it is enough reason for Mr. Sina to go in hiding and that is an important part of his biography.

We already said that we don’t know anything about the guy. But we know that he claims to hides his identity because he is afraid of being assassinated. True or false this is what he claims. We also know that there are some death threats that corroborate his claim. So we must publish them, unless we want to deliberately portray him as a liar. Is this what you want to do? Is it your intention to character assassinate the guy by withholding key information? Muslims say he is an impostor. They do not have any evidence for this allegation but still we quote them. If Muslims bring evidence that prove he is indeed an impostor, would you not want to post that evidence in Wikipedia to back up that allegation? Would I be justified to oppose the publication of such evidence just because this demonizes Ali Sina? OceanSplash

OceanSplash, firstly please sign your posts, it makes them easier to read. The issue here is that we are purporting to be an encyclopedia, that is, a reliable source of information. When we are taking our information from one site it does not do that. The issue with users is assume good faith. You have no reason to believe that I am not male but that does not mean my word is a good enough source to use in an encyclopedia to say I am a man. Therefore, it is not the fact that it matters so much as is it true — and honestly we don't know from the sources given. As for his secular-humanism I don't think self-proclaimed is wrong or necessarily pejorative since do most notable secular humanists see him as one? However, that is a much more minor issue and since it is in the realm of ideology it is much more acceptable to take his word for it.

Mohammed Bouyeri's action made him notable, and that is why he has an article. That forum user has gained no notoreity because of this and in fact he was one of many forum-type death threats against Ali Sina. However, you then twist my words. I said that in light of there really being no verifiable second hand information about the man we cannot tell if his reason is to defame Muslims or because he is afraid. I never suggested posting one and not the other. I suggest that trying to make this sound conclusive is assuming something that we do not know. It is not that he is a fraud, it is that he has a reason to hide his identity and "being afraid of showing it" is a good excuse. My point is that I have been threatened on forums. It means very little. The issue is that we don't have facts. The only thing we have is what he says, these do not represent facts but a one sided history. I have no real urge to demonize him and I have not stated anything that would. I have stated that we cannot portray something as fact when we do not have reliable sources.

This article is about Ali Sina, not a forum to agree or disagree with him. I would not be stupid enough to claim that the news portraying terrorism is demonizing Muslims but Ali Sina trying to say that terrorism is very Islamically founded is trying to do just that and we are here neither to agree or disagree with him. If you could find a notable Muslim source talking about killing him that would be one thing but you have found a user on a webforum. Find me a quote on Sunni-Path or something similar about it and you'll surely have a right to link it, but you have given nothing like that. If I tried linking an forum MWU! member talking about how Ali Sina should not be harmed that is not notable and you would (rightfully) cry foul. The issue in that instance is notability, and none of this should be attempting to have a normative impact on wikipedia's portrayal of Islam as a whole.

I am not trying to portray him as a liar, it is, and should be, standard practice to not just trust what someone says about themselves. I do not visit http://www.isna.ir/ for objective news on Iran, if we did we would have a very different picture than reality. Ali Sina may be lying, he may not be... I really don't give a damn. In fact just read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources, it says, "Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website".

Please refrain from the tone you use. Saying that any user should talk to their Jihadi brothers to stop terrorism is completely inappropriate. gren グレン 07:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oceanview - please refrain from making personal attacks or lobbing insults at other contributors. →Raul654 07:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gren,

You seem to be contradicting yourself. On one hand you say we should not just trust what someone says about himself implying that Sina could be lying about the death threats. On the other hand you don’t want the threats to be published claiming they are not issued by a notable person. Doesn’t this mean you intentionally want to cover up the threat to make Sina look like a liar? If that suspicion can arise, it is more that necessary to give at least one example of the threats that Sina claims to have received.

The use of “self described” for mundane things such as nationality or beliefs are inappropriate and derogatory. If you claim to be a Muslim then you are a Muslim. Not all Muslims agree with each other. In fact some Muslims call other Muslims heretics and kill them. These Muslims who do not regard each other as real Muslims may use the term “self described Muslim” or “so called Muslim” when they talk about each other. This is intentionally done to insult. Ali Sina claims to be secular humanist. There is no indication that he practices any religion or preaches one. He also adheres to humanistic precepts. That is he puts humans and their values above religions. Not all humanists thing alike. Communism is also a humanistic doctrine but most humanists do not agree with communists and vice versa. The fact that some humanists may not agree with Ali Sina is irrelevant. In Islam all those who claim to be Muslims are Muslims despite the fact that other Muslims call them heretics. Ali Sina claims to be a humanist so he is. The adjective “self described” in this case is only used pejoratively. The only genuine doubt is about his claim to be an apostate and that is covered.

Asking you to convince your jihadi brothers to stop is not an insult. Aren’t all Muslims brothers? Aren’t the jihadis Muslims? So they are your Muslim brothers. You don’t agree with what they do and they don’t agree with you. But that is beside the point. Both of you call yourselves Muslims and the world accepts you as such. When these jihadis commit terrorism, they tarnish the image of Islam, just as when Doctormaybe issues death threats he tarnishes the image of Islam. No one says all Muslims are jihadis and no one says all Muslims are assassins. Nonetheless some Muslims are jihadis and some are assassins. None of these people are notable, but they inflict harm. The threat of Doctormaybe is insignificant in comparison to what the jihadis do. The sin of the Jihadis is like a mountain while that of Doctormaybe is like a grain of sand in comparison. It surprises me that you are embarrassed of what Doctormaybe says and want to hide it lest Muslims are dehumanized but are not embarrassed of what the jihadis do. If you are truly embarrassed of what these people do, shouldn’t you convince the jihadis to stop first? By not allowing the publication of this threat you are actually becoming part of the cover up system of lies. I don’t think you do that intentionally but that is exactly what you do.

Finally, if the FBI receives a threat of terrorism, the whole country gets mobilized and they talk about it in the news. They don’t dismiss the threat just because the caller was anonymous and not notable. A threat is a threat and generally it comes from anonymous people. The threats that Dr. Sina receives does not concern anyone. But they concern him and this is the reason he hides his identity. This information is important when we talk about him. Cheers OceanSplash

The issue of being a secular humanist is an issue now, I said some could agree that he is not but clearly said that is neither here nor there. Ali Sina's claims about being a Muslims talk about his realization of how horrible Islamic society is. You know damned well that it would matter if someone found out his identity and that he was a practicing envangelical Christian his whole life that it would make a difference. No that's not me trying to make him look like a liar, he probably is an ex-Muslim, I', sure there are plenty angry ex-Muslims. However once again the issue is verifiability. It's not the claim to be a Muslim ideology, it's the baggage that he puts with it. He has created an image of himself that we cannot verify. It's just a fact and writing this neutrally means that we cannot imply that he is correct or that he is incorrect. It is inconclusive.

It was used in a pejorative manner, whether you deny it or not is unimportant. Not to mention that I am not a Muslim so why would you possibly attempt to portray me as one? At least calling me an idiot would be a value judgment instead of something that is plain wrong. I'm embarassed of what Doctormaybe has to say and what you have to say as well, really, neither are encyclopedic and that's the issue here. I don't make any efforts to shut down FFI, in fact my view is incredibly pro free speech (along the lines of thinking NAMBLA has a right to publish what they do). Ali Sina should be able to go into Washington and burn as many Qur'ans as he wants. However, if he went to Britannica to talk about his article they should laugh in his face if he tried using any of the sources we use. The information is important that he claims it. I have written too much already. gren グレン 12:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, let's not turn this into a debate forum. Our personal opinions regarding if he's a great guy or - like Gren seems to think - is a very very bad man, like the pedophiles at NAMBLA should be of no interest to anyone here. Fact is that we already mention that he remain anonymous, and there doesn't seems to be much reason to repeat that fact all over the place. That some of his critics have said that they don't believe that he's an ex-Muslim, is also mentioned. -- Karl Meier 13:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Karl sums it up. Once we say he hides his identity and little is known about him publicly, anyone can understand everything he says about himself has not been verified by any other independent source. Any more elaboration on this point is just redundancy. It is up to the reader to accept his claims about himself or reject them. OceanSplash

Karl, my NAMBLA comparison was my aside about my views on free speech, not a comparison to Ali Sina. It would be completely misreading everything I have said to believe that I think he is a bad man. All I have said is that encyclopedic standards mandate that if we don't have reliable sources about him we cannot portray non-reliable sources as reliable. I am not advocating redundancy, the article as it is is badly written. I did not say to repeat the fact, I am just saying that his site about himself is not a reliable source. You may not agree with me but please at least understand my point because... what you said is not what I was saying. gren グレン 01:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

Dear SlimVirgin What is the purpose of blocking? This subject is exhaustively discussed and both sides have expressed their views. There is nothing else to add and I think the point is clear. OceanSplash

Hi Ocean, I protected because there seemed to be a lot of reverting, and possible sockpuppetry. Perhaps you could try to hammer out your differences here on talk first. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin:

This subject is didcussed exhaustivley. There is nothing else to add. Please read the discussions. Both sides are only repeating themselves. I have made a request to unprotect the page and explained the reasons here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Ali_Sina

Regards (OceanSplash 19 Oct. 2005)

Hi again, Ocean, perhaps it would help if you could read our editorial policies. It'll take a bit of time but you might find it'll help to make your edits stick. Basically, they say we can only publish material that has already been published by reliable sources. Exceptions are made in the case of biographies like this, where if the subject is talking about himself on his own website, we may use that, but we use it with caution. Third-party sources are usually preferred. We can get into the specifics if you have queries after reading the policies. They are Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and a related guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That should keep you busy for a bit. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This sentence from Wikipedia:Verifiability goes to the heart of our policies: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (my emphasis) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin,

I am familiar with these pages and rules of editing. Those were the first articles I read even before doing my first editing. They are great and I agree with everything they say. I don’t think our discussion is about any of these subjects. We are not certainly trying to write an original research, all the points mentioned in this article reflect both the views of the person we are discussing and his critics, all statements are linked to external sources. All the sources are verifiable. The ones about Mr. Sina are linked to his own site and therefore have his own seal of approval. Therefore when we say he said this or that we are not giving our opinion. I am not sure whether you had the time to read the article. But I believe it meets all the three criteria highlighted by Wikipedia. If you read and think it does not, I would love to hear from you. I am sure we can improve the article and fix the shortcomings.

The present impasse is about the inclusion of a certain threat. We discussed the cons and pros of this inclusion to exhaustion. I don’t know what else the Muslims or we can say that is not already said. If you can tell us your opinion that would be helpful. But protecting the biased version of the Muslims and the telling us sort out among yourselves is not helpful.

I would like you to read the discussion we had on this subject and tell us exactly why you think this threat should or should not be included. As far as the discussion is concerned I think both sides have said whatever had to be said and we have responded to each and every concern of the Muslims. Would you like to step in and read these debates and make a final decision and explain it why you made that decision?

I am afraid there is a lot of bullishness going on by certain group in Wikipedia. This should not be allowed to continue. Our Muslim editors are adamant to impose their version of fact but often fail to explain why. In this case, if you agree with their view, would you care to give some logical arguments why the threat should not be published? Please see our responses so you know the subjects that have already been raised and answered.

The threat comes from a fairly reputable Islamic site and the member is a senior member of the forum of that site, meaning he is active and has posted hundreds of messages there. Other Muslims in that site applauded his intentions. How much verifiable a threat should be to be taken seriously? Often it takes one anonymous call to make a whole country mobilized and get ready. Does an assassin need to be a notable to commit assassination? If the Muslim editors in this site dissociate themselves from such goons, why they try to cover up their crimes? Why they are not the first to denounce them?

In this article Muslims said that Mr. Sina hides his identity because he is fraud and not an ex-Muslim. Don’t you think the publication of verifiable threat such as this would at lease show his concerns for his life are genuine? He still could be fraud, nonetheless, we have some evidence to show that it is possible that he is sincere when he says he is afraid of being killed by Muslim jihadis. This is like writing: “the Critics of VirginSlim think she is dishonest” and deliberately withhold the piece of evidence that shows you are not dishonest. Would that be fair?

The only logical conclusion here is dear SlimVirgin that Muslims are hostile to Ali Sina and are doing everything possible to vilify him. Is that the standard that Wikipedia wants to set? (OceanSplash 00:46 Oct. 20, 2005)

Ok, I've had a look at the two versions. Here's my opinion:

1) Ocean's first sentence: "Ali Sina is the pseudonym of an Iranian Canadian Secular-Humanist ex-Muslim, who founded Faith Freedom International, a site advocated by him and his supporters as a tool to secularize Islamic countries and and inform the non-Muslims of the threat of Islam."

(a) We don't know that Ali Sina is an Iranian Canadian etc. He says he is. If there's a third-party source for this, we should use it, so it would become Ali Sina is x, according to the New York Times (link to source). If he's the only source, I would write:

"Ali Sina is the founder of Faith Freedom International, a site set up to help Muslims leave Islam. According to the website, Sina is himself a former Muslim, now a secular humanist, of Iranian-Canadian nationality."

That avoids the "self-described" that Ocean doesn't like.

(b) We can't say: "inform the non-Muslims of the threat of Islam," because the word "inform" suggests the material he transmits is accurate, and "threat" suggests there is, in fact, a threat.

2) Second paragraph about the death threats: I wouldn't write either version, because we have no idea who wrote what. If you can find a third-party source (e.g. a newspaper article) that refers to the death threats, stick closely to what they say and link to them. If there is no third-party source, I would simply say:

"Nothing is known about Sina's identity. He uses a pseudonym because, he says, he has received death threats on his website and by e-mail, as a result of his outspoken criticism of Islam."

If there are critics other than people who appear on his website who say he's hiding his ID in order to make false claims (e.g. in a newspaper article), then include a sentence about that, but if the only people who say this are anons on his website, then I wouldn't. We can use what Ali Sina says on his personal website, because the article is about him, but we probably shouldn't use what anyone else says on it, because we have no way of knowing who they are.

3) This sentence: "However, simply considering the huge number of Muslims and the impossibility to communicate with them, eradicating Islam as Sina states seems unrealistic" is original research.

4) The websites critical of ... I couldn't get into faithfreedom.com, or bismikaallahuma.org, but the latter is described as a discussion on a forum. We can't use online discussions as sources, because we don't know who's writing the posts. The same goes for the links in the criticism section: no blogs, forums, etc. This [2] is listed in the critical websites section as an article, but it seems to be a summary of a discussion on Yahoo clubs, so that shouldn't be used. Same with this [3] which is someone's blog. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Hope this helps a little. Let me know when I can unprotect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin: Your suggestions are okay with me. OceanSplash (03:31 22 Oct. 2005)

FFI

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12838 Here we go again :) gren グレン 07:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That's why forums are considered notable resources of information for some! Thanks Gren. Svest 22:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)