Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Are there deeper responses to her criticism?

There are quotes in this article by Hirsi Ali criticizing Muhammed, saying how he would be considered today for certain behavior or statements. It would be useful to have some sources that discuss how Muhammed's behavior was considered in his own time, for instance, the age of his wife at marriage. Has her age been documented in sources outside the Koran, or is the Koran the sole source for these statements? Haven't any of Hirsi Ali's critics noted that she is using current values to criticize an ancient text? there seem to be holes in the coverage of this article, if you look beyond the use of quotes from newspaper articles in the "she said, he said" back and forth.Parkwells (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In her review of "The Caged Virgin" in The Nation (referenced and cited in this article), Laila Lalami makes a measured analysis of Hirsi Ali's arguments and finds them wanting in terms of academic and historic rigor. I recommend people read this to understand the issues better. Parkwells (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The entire Reception section is a huge joke. Evidently the "editor" of this "entry" could find only one individual, Christopher Hitchens, who wrote anything positive about her work. Furthermore, why the criticism of Laila Lalami is treated with such deference is anyone's guess. As for Nicholas Kristof, he may as well just start filling out a form letter in response to those who dare criticize Islam, because he writes the same exact thing about all of them. The Reception section is a biased mess.74.134.128.175 (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Awards section is too detailed

This section is way over the top, with country flags and paragraphs of exposition. This is not Facebook or a film contest. Each award should be briefly listed with the year, not with each presenter and other current info.Parkwells (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Name

This may be a trivial matter, but when presenting her name it has:

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Dutch: [aːˈjaːn ˈɦiːrsi ˈaːli]"

She may have moved to the Netherlands, but her name is NOT Dutch. It is Somalian mixed with Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.79.55 (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Source

Here is a source with some criticism.[1]. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

deleted criticisms

about 13k of criticism by third parties has been deleted. I think this is appropriate, what X says about the pope belongs in the X article, not the pope's article. I have restored a significant portion of the material which was well-sourced quotes of the author herself. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox religion

Atheism has just been removed from the infobox. I'm aware of the long-standing and apparently unresolvable argument over the general question of whether atheism can be called a religion. However, I believe that Ms. Ali's well-documented position is one of being actively *against* theism, and stating her religion as "none" does not adequately represent this. So I'm hoping that someone can suggest a better solution that addresses this point. Regards, Samsara 15:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The argument has already been settled: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'." Source: Closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?.

It is a common mistake on Wikipedia to assume that there is something wrong or inferior about the article text and thus that all sorts of fine details and distinctions should be crammed into the infobox. The usual thinking is "someone will just read the infobox and get the wrong idea".

Actually, as a long-standing Wikipedia policy, whenever possible infoboxes should contain short, one word entries, or perhaps two or three words but only when you can't figure out how to do it in one. That's why we have 797 pages that use "Religion: None"[2]

Also, we really don't care about anyone who only reads the infobox. This is an encyclopedia. If you don't read an encyclopedia article, it is your own fault if you don't understand the subject of the article. Infobox entries have to be true (and "none" certainly is that), but they don't have to be and should not be detailed or comprehensive.

You are free to bring the above argument up at the infobox talk page if you want, but the last dozen people who did were told pretty much what I just told you above. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion you refer to was not about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and it does not address my query. Please let's have genuine, relevant discussion here. I believe that implying that she changed from muslim to "none" is seriously flawed given that the whole point of her notability is that she's an opponent of theism and some of the practices advocated under that umbrella. Infoboxes should not have seriously misleading content. Samsara 19:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Global consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what? overrules local consensus on this page. This is explained at WP:CONLEVEL. Neither Atheism or Anti-theism is a religion, and so cannot be put after "Religion =" in an infobox. If reading WP:CONLEVEL and Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what? does not address your concerns, feel free to go to WP:DRR and ask for help. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hi both, I'm here as closer of the RfC in question having been invited by a note on my talk page.

  In principle, I'm of the view that a local consensus should be capable of overruling the global consensus in the case of content RfCs. Content RfCs establish and document common practice, but they shouldn't have the force of policy. I feel that a local consensus should be able to set aside a content RfC if it makes sense for the particular article in question.

  In practice in this specific case, my first impression based on one read-through of the article is that it may be best to leave the "religion" parameter of the infobox blank. Ms Ali's position seems a bit too nuanced to fit into a one-word summary.—S Marshall T/C 10:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• (later) ... and now that I've read the article again and considered it carefully, I'm even more certain that we should leave the "religion" parameter blank. Ali's position seems perfectly clear. She's bitterly opposed to a number of Islamic practices and she's scornful of Islamic theology. I can see no evidence that she's similarly opposed to any other religion and I think to call her an "antitheist" would be a bit misleading. But her position is stronger than conventional atheism, and I'm reluctant to coin phrases like "Islamophobic atheist" for an infobox.—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = Non-religious (Atheism)" in Wikipedia infoboxes.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = Non-religious (Atheism)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox says:

• "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

I might add that the infobox talk pages have a long history of rejecting the arguments of various editors who insist on trying to cram more and more information into the infoboxes, using the same basic argument: "yes this is well covered in the article, but this VITALLY IMPORTANT detail MUST be in the infobox as well because mumble mumble (waves hands)." Again and again, the overwhelming consensus has been to put only the bare minimum into the infobox and to expect the reader to read the actual article for the fine details and distinctions.

There is no consensus for it.

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

A bit later, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. The result of that discussion in in the closing summary: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'."

More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Wikipedia pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)".

This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to anything that even hints at calling atheism a religion.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

One of the standard arguments that evangelic christian apologists use in an attempt to refute atheism is "atheism is just another religion. You need faith to believe that there is no God".[13][14][15][16][17][18][19] That's why so many atheists object to any hint that atheism is a religion and why before adding "(atheism)" there must be a reliable reliable source that establishes that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

In addition, "Religion: Non-religious (Atheism)" usually fails to tell the whole story. Most atheists do reject theism, but they also reject all nontheistic religions and a wide variety of non-religious beliefs. "Religion = Non-religious (Atheism)" actually narrows down the meaning of "Religion = None" to the point where in many cases the infobox entry is no longer accurate.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = 1986 (banana)" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the religion parameter.—S Marshall T/C 01:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Islam's followers are the enemy?

In the second paragraph Ali is cited as saying that she views Islam's followers as an "enemy" who must be crushed. In fact she states that Islam is the enemy, not the followers. There is also no mention of why she believes this; specifically, there is no mention that she suggests "it can mutate into something peaceful" once defeated, rather than peace being achieved directly through its defeat. She is also quoted as saying it must be crushed, but the article suggests she is speaking metaphorically of a deciding moment in the 'battle with Islam'.

The fact that only individual words are used in these quotes, if you could call them that, doesn't do much to assure me of neutrality. Cwbr77 (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• You are right, Cwbr77. The source article doesn't show Ayaan referring to Muslims as enemies. Its the interviewer who talked about in the question, and the editor on this page put interviewer's words in Ayaan's mouth. The factually inaccurate statement has been removed from the lead section. Thanks. --Fasi100 (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Fasi100. --Cwbr77 (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Those were not the interviewer's words. She did say "Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful." and "There comes a moment when you crush your enemy."

Cwbr77 says: "she states that Islam is the enemy, not the followers"

This is not entirely clear, as "enemy" here could very well refer to the followers as well, considering that she said what she said about defeating and crushing the enemy (1) in response to a question about crushing 1.5 billion Muslims and (2) she refers to Muslims with (they/them) in her answer. So I don't think it is as clear as you make it to be. Nevertheless, I think we can settle for mentioning Islam in the lede at least (and btw, how can one defeat and crush a religion without harming its followers?).

Cwbr77 says: "the article suggests she is speaking metaphorically of a deciding moment in the 'battle with Islam'."

No, she says "I think that we are at war with Islam". As in right now.

If you want justify her "peace" terms further, go ahead. But I see no reason for removing the entire statement about her viewing Islam as an enemy that needs to be defeated. She is calling for war, and not merely a "vocal" critic against Islam" as the new wording says. I have restored it with some modifications in light of what has been mentioned above. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you're attempting an edit war, specifically the reason why I didn't change it myself in the first place.

Interviewers specifically try to make views seem as extreme as possible. There is a clear tactic here: Ask one question ("We have to crush...under out boot?") and then another ("What does that mean, 'defeat Islam'?") and hope the interviewee doesn't counter the first question.

Also, I believe you are deliberately taking these "quotes" (singular words, no less) out of context in an obviously biased way. She at no point suggests that anybody is being (or should be) harmed other than those people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who are being targeted by extremists. The words "they" and "them" are merely third person forms; they don't indicate that you wish someone harm. She only uses it in the quoted section to say "they're (Western converts) the most fanatical sometimes", which is hardly untrue, and in the rest of the article it does no more than display her "us and them" outlook, which I am sure many Muslims also feel towards the West.

You can absolutely "defeat" a religion without harming its followers; by Conversion, for example. Or even by transferral to a non-religious outlook. A religion and its followers are not one and the same.

I think it's ridiculous to act as though she wishes to crush the Muslims, when it's clear to any rational mind that she wishes to drastically change everything, sure, but not to harm anyone; to prevent further harm, in fact.

I would be happy to see a modified version, but adding "Ayaan has been a vocal critic of Islam" to the beginning of the paragraph does nothing to reduce the bias in the paragraph, which was my concern. Cwbr77 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all the hate and vitriol she spews towards Islam, the religion proper ("Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?" "No. Islam, period") and all Muslims (the problem it isn't just a few "rotten apples" in the Islamic community but "I’m saying it’s the entire basket.") are just words spoken under coercion by skilled interviewers?

We both agree that she indeed sees Islam an enemy that needs to be defeated. Correct? so that's there in the Wiki article right now. However, you maintain that she has good intentions and wants to achieve this peacefully. This claim seems rather speculative at best, as there is absolutely no indication in her interview of a desire for a peaceful solution to her "war with Islam". In fact, she states: "It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now" (no wonder Breivik was an admirer of her). Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Life in the U.S.

This section contains an error. Per the reference, the Imam never threatened her with death. I deleted this claim for good measure as it is disparaging towards a living person. NiceAdam (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The sentence didn't say he threatened her. Here's the exact wording: "Pittsburgh imam Fouad El Bayly was reported as saying that the activist deserved the death sentence and should be tried and judged in an Islamic country." It's well-referenced and we didn't distort the newspaper article. If we wrote that the Imam threatened her I'd agree with you. I am going to revert per WP:BRD. By the way, apparently he was fired because of his statement [20]. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There is still a problem. We should avoid putting words in someone's mouth. We need to use the actual quote to avoid the interpretation problem. The current statement in the article makes it sound like he called for harm to her: El Bayly was reported as saying that the activist deserved the death sentence. Before changing the article, let's have some feedback. Per the original article, it should be changed to "If it is found that a person is mentally unstable, or a child or disabled, there should be no punishment,"NiceAdam (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The sentence does accurately report what the news article says [21]. The news article says:

"Although ElBayly believes a death sentence is warranted for Hirsi Ali, he stressed that America is not the jurisdiction where such a crime should be punished. Instead, Hirsi Ali should be judged in a Muslim country after being given a trial, he added."

We say "Pittsburgh imam Fouad El Bayly was reported as saying that the activist deserved the death sentence but should be tried and judged in an Islamic country." We could quote the news article but our condensation gets the gist of the matter. The next sentence in the news article mentions the Imam's further qualification on Islam's prescription of the death penalty. He says:

"If it is found that a person is mentally unstable, or a child or disabled, there should be no punishment," he said. "It's a very merciful religion if you try to understand it."

As our article isn't about ElBayly or his interpretation of Islam we shouldn't go off on a tangent about him or his theology especially when it has nothing to do with Ali. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

But, the article as it stands this second is being used to attack him and Islam. To avoid NPOV violations I recommend using the actual quote from the article rather than an editor's interpretation assuming good intentions. I have a real problem with the current "condensation" as it puts words in his mouth: El Bayly was reported as saying that the activist deserved the death sentence. I don't read the referenced article that way and I have been looking at the original story for the past week. Can we please get a 3rd party to chime in as I don't fully trust myself either? We will go with the neutral party says.NiceAdam (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Using Hirsi's interview in her article

There are at least 2 editors who keep undoing my edits when I quote Hirsi from an interview she gave before coming to the US back in 2006. The interview is from a documentary and she gave the interview knowing full well that what she said would be aired. The source is reliable (not even Muslim but Dutch interviewer), the information is verifiable and relevant about the subject of this article and significant. Looking for a neutral party to tell me if I am not right what can I do better. These editors keep bringing up BRD to me but most of them never take the time to discuss specific reasons for undoing this edit. FYI....here is the documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxP8Uys8kc.NiceAdam (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)