Talk:WikiIslam

Islamophobic?

How is wiki Islam Islamiophobic? It's only showing sources from islam 49.183.8.237 (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Please review the remainder of the article. Snuish (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiIslam does use the Quran and Hadiths, but it usually twists a lot of verses to make it look bad or illogical. You can argue whether the verses from the religious book is real or not, but WikiIslam takes it quite too far. ZetaFive (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you bring an example? How is it a phobia to bring islamic sources and talk about it? 110.239.6.226 (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

For example, there is a hadith where it says rape is permissible, while another one condemns it and says it is not allowed. WikiIslam chooses the permissible because it makes Islam look more negative, which is the entire point of the website. It was founded by an Ex-Muslim, and is funded by Ex-Muslims of North America, which is why whenever I do actually get in debates about religion on other websites, I choose not to use WikiIslam as a source as it cherry picks verses. And just like Wikipedia, some articles can be easily edited without creating an account, which brings up red flags. ZetaFive (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Read the discussion above: Talk:WikiIslam/Archive 2#Islamophobic. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that, due to the vague nature of the word "Islamophobic", it's best that the article itself doesn't explicitly state as such. I made a revision that is currently pending review that hopefully settles this discussion. Weirdarpeggi (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm reverting it. See comment by User:Iskandar323 just above you. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I want to clarify that my revision wasn't meant to cast doubt on whether or not WikiIslam is Islamophobic. I just don't think the wording is appropriate or professional. The word "Islam" is mentioned thrice in the opening line. Also, I believe the organisation in charge of the Wiki, EXMNA, has changed its content standards and revised some of the articles on the Wiki (after the citations were published), which might make them outdated. I do not mind the page stating it is Islamophobic, but it might need rewording. Weirdarpeggi (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The project does not care about what you think. Wikipedia is beholden to reliable sources rather than personal sensibilities of anonymous netigens. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, and Wikipedia also needs to be written in neutral point of view. Just because some books claimed Muhammad as an anti-christ or false prophet, should we label him so in the lead of the article about him? Nope, right? The same should apply to this article. LiuWu87 (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

If most sources that fell within the scope of WP:RS described Muhammad as something like that and led with that description of him, the Wikipedia page on him would probably do the same. Snuish (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Any wikipedia policy on that? The people who are critical of Muhammad of course the majority will say bad things about him, but not those who support him. The same should apply to this site, have you read the books that support it? Do they also say it is islamophobic, or has a prejudice against Islam without doing research first? Remember one of the Wikipedia policies, NPOV. LiuWu87 (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The most relevant portion of policy on that is WP:WEIGHT. Which books are you referring to when you say, "have you read the books that support [WikiIslam]," and what do those books state? Snuish (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you show me every source with direct quotations that clearly says this site is islamophobic? Just to set the record straight anti-islam or critical of Islam is not the same as islamophobic. LiuWu87 (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Use the find command on the page for "anti-Muslim," "Islamophobia," and "Islamophobic"; also refer to this discussion in the archives on the use of "Islamophobia" and in which I pointed out the context of WikiIslam's appearances in reliable sources. Snuish (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about anti-Islam and critical of Islam, not anti-Muslim. Please don’t twist it. Islam is different from Muslims, whereas Islam is the religion, Muslims are the adherents. LiuWu87 (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no twisting. You asked for support regarding the "Islamophobic" label. You also said "anti-islam or critical of Islam" isn't the same as "Islamophobic." Accordingly, I didn't rely on any argument in which being "anti-Islam or critical of Islam" is equivalent to Islamophobia. On the other hand, "anti-Muslim" is synonymous to "Islamophobic" in the view of many of the editors who have previously discussed this issue. Snuish (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding the use of "Islamophobic" on this page. The thread is Wikiislam. Thank you. Snuish (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Do you guys have any views by people who are not theologists? Or by any human rights groups? Obviously, many adepts of Islam will not like such resource and say whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• We cite Göran Larsson, a tenured professor in the Department of Literature, History of Ideas, and Religion at the University of Gothenburg; not Göran Larsson (theologian). Who else, among the cited scholars, do you find to be a theologist? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC) TrangaBellam (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I see: they are different people. I do agree it is OK saying in the body of the page: "Göran Larsson, Professor of Religious Studies at University of Gothenburg, argued that WikiIslam is an Islamophobic web portal". But I would not state it as a fact in WP voice in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I agree. Do you agree to the current lead? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim redirects to Islamophobia. Therefore, my suggestion would be just to remove "anti-Muslim" from the 1st phrase, but leave "anti-Islam". One reason for this is that the parent organization, in 2nd phrase, i.e. Ex-Muslims of North America is apparently not an Islamophobic organization. If it were such, this would be different. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

What we feel as editors, about the site or management, is irrelevant. Wikipedia works despite being a crowd sourced encyclopedia because it delegates the content-authority to reliable sources.

There is an unanimity among scholars — who discuss the site — that WikiIslam is "anti-Muslim". If you spot scholars (or other reliable sources) who disagree, please bring them. I will support unlinking Islamophobia, fwiw. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not sufficiently familiar with this, so whatever. However, this page creates an impression of the subject being "framed" as anti-Muslim by bringing negative info that belong to other pages and by saying "anti-Muslim" multiple times without explaining why it is anti-Muslim. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

This is useful feedback. Thank you. Snuish (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I can see a number of things that look like "framing".

1. Page says: "The site's stated aim is to act in defence against a perceived global threat of Muslims and Islam" [ref]. It says "stated aim". I am looking at the wiki front page [1] and do not see anything of that sort. A misinformation? I also do not see anything about "censorship" on their front page, etc.
2. "Reception". Third phrase in first paragraph repeats same claim by same author as first phrase. Second paragraph repeats the same claim by same authors as 1st paragraph.
3. The quotations are cherry picked to prove that the resource is anti-Muslim.
4. Like I said, please explain why it is anti-Muslim. "very one-dimensional" with "alternative interpretations [by Muslim theologians] seldom represented" - is it anti-Muslim? My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

In regards to point 1, you need not check the wiki itself, but check the cited source. A wiki can change on a day-to-day basis. A secondary source, which is what the article cites, does not change on a day-to-day basis. The information in the "overview" section is verifiable to a reliable source. In regards to point two, I'm not sure what this is meant to get at. In regards to point three, are you saying that the article is conveying the content of the cited sources in a misleading way? I'm fairly confident that it does not; in fact, whole quotes are typically provided with the use of the referance page template. In regards to point four, I'll check the sources to see if there's anything more useful to add. Snuish (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

do not see anything of that sort. A misinformation? - Ffs, check the citation. Do I need to teach you about reading the cited sources, now that you have finally understood that there can be people with the same name?

[T]he aim of the site is also to build online [a] defensive position against Islam and Muslims as a global threat. Under the heading the Internet Toolbox for Islam-Critics, we read:

Islam is a global challenge. It should be met with a global response. The best instrument for doing this is the Internet, the most international medium of all. As many news outlets may still be reluctant to openly criticize Islam, the Internet opens the possibility of a freer discourse on such subjects than more traditional media do.

— Larsson (2013); p. 65

The quotations are cherry picked to prove that the resource is anti-Muslim. - Huh? Please provide the alternative quotations, that you would have used. I have said repeatedly that I will appreciate new sources that show Wikislam in a different light; what precludes you from bringing them to the discussion?

please explain why it is anti-Muslim. - I am not Larsson. We, as editors, are not allowed to accept (or reject) reliable sources — much less, peer-reviewed scholarship with dozens of citations — depending on whether we find their arguments to be justified or not. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

"Misininformation" - I mean a misinformation in the cited source (a quick checking shows that the statement is apparently false: the website does NOT state it, unless I am mistaken). This is one of reasons one should use multiple sources - a cross-verification. My very best wishes (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

To quote Snuish, A wiki can change on a day-to-day basis. The concerned lines were removed on 22 May 2013, 12 days after Larson's article was published. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

For fairness, I have added the temporal qualifier: "As of 2013," TrangaBellam (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course it can change, just as for any other website. This can be for different reasons. For example, a new parent organization or a new editorial board can decide, "hey, we have now a different policy or even a different goal". That could happen here. If we say that a "stated goal of this resource" is "...", this must be the most recent version of such resource, and such goal or a policy must be indeed stated on this resource. If not, this is misinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

To repeat myself: For fairness, I have added the temporal qualifier: "As of 2013," I do not see what more we can do.

Wikislam tampers with their content, everytime it faces criticism; we cannot be willing handmaidens in their effort until and unless scholars accept that they have indeed changed. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Reacting to criticisms is a good thing. Perhaps they decided they were wrong? Why cite something 9 year old, which is no longer applicable to the site simply because it is not there? Citing scholars is fine, but one can cite something else. My very best wishes (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Reactions to criticism can also be insincere and efforts to avoid further criticism. After the publication of Larsson's first article, WikiIslam created a few dozen "pro-Islam" articles tucked away in a corner of the website while leaving up all of their anti-Muslim content under the pretense of being a neutral website. This came out after WikiIslam's latest renovations, so it's clear that academics still do not have a positive impression of the website. Regardless, it's not for us as Wikipedia editors to gauge, which is why WP:V exists and we cite independent sources instead. Snuish (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify this for me, can you please point out to any page that is particularly racist/Islamophobic on this site? Quickly looking (e.g. [2], I do not see it). My very best wishes (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be prioritizing your own research and thoughts on the matter as opposed to the content we can find in independent sources. Snuish (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Then let me rephrase. Which specific articles in this resource have been described as Islamophobic in RS? My very best wishes (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have access to any of the sources cited in the article? If not, I'd be happy share whatever I do have access to. Snuish (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's one page that the site hosted until late 2020 and probably led to some of those conclusions. That page and its subpages on Muslims were kept up until late 2020. Feel free to dig around in its archives for more. Snuish (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! It's good they do not have it now. Their data are sourced on sub-pages, and yes, this is all very bad, but is it all because of Islam? This is a well known fallacy mocked so many times. For example, Cucumbers will kill you. All people who were born in 1880 and eat cucumbers are already dead. 99% people who have cancer eat cucumbers. And so on. Of course some of that might be related to the religious history and culture of these countries, but each specific dependence would need to be investigated and scientifically proven. My very best wishes (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The site said about “Islam is a global challenge. It should be met with a global response.“ But Larsson based on that text concluded that the site considers that “Islam and Muslims as a global threat.” It is, I think, a misrepresentation, since Islam is not the same as Muslim. Islam is the religion while Muslim is the adherent. Being anti-Islam does not automatically make someone anti-Muslim. One can dislike the doctrines of a religion but still be friendly or live in the same family with its adherents. LiuWu87 (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the resource is about Islam as religion, not Muslims. But you are incorrect because the definition of Islamophobia includes a prejudice towards Islam. But this is just a matter of sourcing. Do you know RS that say the resource is not Islamophobic? If so, they can be used on the page. No need in the RfC at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Precisely; I do not even demand sources that explicit contradict the anti-Muslim/anti-Islam label. Any scholar that has something positive to say about the site. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The borderline between "legitimate criticism" and prejudice is very much subjective here (that's why I do not like it), but there is nothing we can do except fairly summarizing what RS say on the subject and avoiding MOS:RACIST. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn’t the website (wikiislam.net) itself a reliable source? Also wp:YESPOV

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources,

LiuWu87 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

No. See WP:UGC. Snuish (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS

unless written or published by the subject of the article.

LiuWu87 (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE applies, and even if you were to find an appropriate circumstance in which to use WikiIslam as a source on itself, WikiIslam is not a "reliable source" but is a self-published or questionable source discussing itself. Snuish (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYCARE

The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about themself.

LiuWu87 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

WikiIslam is not a person. WP:SELFSOURCE remains the most relevant section of the guidelines. Snuish (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities.

} LiuWu87 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly you have in mind, but see WP:PRIMARY for more information on the use of primary sources. Snuish (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s a little too vague. Which part of it do you want to use as an argument? please quote it here. LiuWu87 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Can the two of you take this discussion elsewhere? Waste of time and space. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Found this on the site (1), might be useful for further consideration.

About Us
Is WikiIslam Islamophobic, racist or a hate site?
No, WikiIslam is not Islamophobic, racist or a hate site. To make such a claim requires special pleading. If WikiIslam editors are labeled Islamophobes, racists and hate mongers, it is through no fault of their own, but the biases of the individuals who make these claims.
WikiIslam is not European or "Western", it is an international site with administrators, editors and contributors from all over the world, and the content and policies reflect this. The site does not have a left or right-wing political agenda, thus articles concerning immigration and other related issues are strictly prohibited. Consequently, readership is vast and not saturated by European or "Western" viewers.
Many of the site's administrators and editors are from a Muslim background and/or are skeptics from Muslim majority nations. The information on WikiIslam reflect what the religious sources say, so any negative or unflattering information in its articles concerning Islam or Prophet Muhammad are not the fault of editors. They are simply what the religious texts relate.

LiuWu87 (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we can include something like "The stated purpose of the wiki is ..." (and that must be something stated on the website right now, not 9 years ago). We can also say they deny placing any Islamophobic content on their site. But the emphasis must be on what independent 3rd party WP:RS say. You said there are several RS that do not label this wiki as Islamophobic. One can use them on the page, along with other RS, to achieve balance. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:MISSION provides some arguments against including something like "The stated purpose of the wiki is..." We should not be quoting their mission statement unless an independent source gives us the appropriate context. We also can't expect Wikipedia editors to periodically check a citation to a user-generated page to confirm that the text on Wikipedia is still current. Snuish (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

That's an essay. This is covered by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. If 1-5 conditions are satisfied, we can do it per policy, and we do it on many pages. It says "WikiIslam aims to provide accurate and accessible information from traditional and critical perspectives on the beliefs, practices, and development of Islam." [3]. That is their aim. OK. If they succeeded should follow from other sources. This is a neutral way to describe things. As about updating, no one has an obligation to update. However, if anyone updates, this must be most recent version of the resource, not the version 9 years ago. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The point is that mission statements are often self-serving and hence violate the first condition of the link you provided, i.e., WP:ABOUTSELF. 2600:1702:8E0:3BA0:1502:83AF:7897:D606 (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It says "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Something like Stated aim of the wiki is providing information "on the beliefs, practices, and development of Islam." would not be unduly self-serving. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes Why do you think that our page on, say Breitbart, does not cite their self-description? Why it is the case that every single bit about their history is sourced from independent sources? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Because this subject is very different from the subject of this page and because it was described differently in multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid that I do not follow your arguments - the same content policies govern every page in the wiki. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the policies are the same, but subjects are different. Also, it is very much obvious that the content of resource is indeed about Islam (and that is what self-description is saying). We do say that B. is an American far-right syndicated news, opinion, and commentary website (in the first phrase). We then say "Breitbart News's content has been described as misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by academics and journalists". We do not say: "B. is a website of American fascists" in first phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

We do say that B. is an American far-right [..]

If you wish, we can state WikiIslam has been described as ... TrangaBellam (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Whatever. I just responded to a posting at NPOVNB. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It was an inadvertent use of rollback on my part but please do not attempt to bypass discussions. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Our lead on Breitbart does not say, Breitbart is an American news organization, that attempts to create an evironment conducive to truthful reporting and the free and open exchange of ideas. Breitbart News's content has been described as misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by academics and journalists.

Get a grip. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with your edit. Not a single independent source has noted this stated aim, and yet Wikipedia's first sentence does so. A pillar of this encyclopedia is that content is based on "reliable, independent, published sources." The lead of any article should provide "emphasis...to material [that] reflect[s] its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources" per MOS:LEADREL. Instead, you've chosen to put a statement of a promotional nature up front and center that has not been noted by any sources in this article. Snuish (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing promotional with saying that wiki WikiIslam has a stated aim of covering subjects related to Islam [4]. I included nothing about "truthful reporting and the free and open exchange of ideas". Making this up shows your bias, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to respond in part to TB, since I haven't mentioned "an open exchange of ideas." Regardless, TB likely provided that as an illustration, not to quote you verbatim. I maintain that the mission statement should only be quoted once an independent source takes note of it and can provide the appropriate context. Snuish (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not quote it completely and perhaps my point is different, i.e. we indeed should follow the example of page Breitbart. Meaning the 1st phrase should simply say what the subject is (i.e. a wiki about Islam), while second phrase say that the content has been described in sources as misogynistic/xenophobic/racist/wonderful/whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

OK. I understand your point. However, I don't think the mission statement accurately conveys what WikiIslam is, given that the information it collects is primarily negative, as Shukri and others have noted. I'm certainly fine with the formulation we find at Breitbart, but we need a better way to write the first sentence. Unless someone else gets to it first, I will review the various sources over the next few days to see how we can best formulate the first sentence. Snuish (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I am leaving this to you and others. I guess the actual problem here is that the content of the wiki has been significantly changed during last few years. If it was something like that, I would say, yes, this is an outright anti-Muslim site, no doubts (and that is why these older sources described it as such). But in the present state it does look like an educational resource on the subject of Islam. It seems that creators have struggled a lot to fix the bias of their resource, which is generally a good thing. I am not an expert here though, that's for sure. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a very fair view but we, as editors, cannot be arbiters of the change. I would have been more convinced had I not spotted Larsson's recent presentation which, I gather, is to be published very soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Even if we disregarded the views presented by Larsson's recent presentation provided by TB above, Wikipedia's articles are meant to be behind the curve by design. In other words, the article can only be significantly updated once reliable sources take note. Snuish (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the labels given to Wikiislam as "anti-Muslim" or "Islamophobic" in its WP voice  

Is the anti-Muslim or Islamophobic labelling of Wikiislam—a site focused on criticising Islam—in its WP voice justified under Wikipedia's rules? The site does not declare itself as such (anti-Muslim or Islamophobic), but a Swedish scholar, Goran Larsson, claims it is so, which was followed by two others. Another source says that the site is anti-Islam, a much different term than anti-Muslim. Where Islam is the religion, Muslims are the adherents. The other 3 reliable sources do not label it as such and consider the site reliable enough to be used as their source in their criticism of Islam. The label "anti-Muslim" gives the impression that the site is like a racist site that must be banned and Muslims should avoid it, even though that is not the case when looking at its content and the site itself is managed by ex-Muslims. As far as I know, Wikipedia policy prohibits opinions—even if they are widespread—from being placed in the WP voice, even more so if they are controversial. But one or two users disagree with that and want to keep the labelling. So what are your opinions?
Ongoing discussion can also be seen at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Wikiislam LiuWu87 (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Please wait for NPOVN to conclude. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RFCBRIEF. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding the use of "anti-Muslim" and "Islamophobic" in Wikivoice on this page. The thread is Should labels given to a website by some secondary sources that contradict the website's own statement be placed in the opening sentence in WP voice?. Thank you. Snuish (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Sydney Morning Herald reference, FFI quote

In this edit, User:My very best wishes removed a Sina quote but left a reference to the Sydney Morning Herald article from which the quote was taken in place.

As a result, explanatory footnote a. now reads, in total: FFI mentions its aim to lie in "'unmask[ing] Islam and help Muslims leave [the faith]".[11] ([11] being the Sydney Morning Herald reference.)

This has created the misleading impression that the cited Sydney Morning Herald article contains the "unmask[ing]" quote (which it does not; that quote is in fact unsourced). Either the Sina quote should be restored or the Sydney Morning Herald reference deleted as well. What's preferable?

As for the FFI quote, the current wording doesn't match what's on the faithfreedom.org website. Sina says there, At Faith Freedom we want to demonstrate the fallacy of Islam and help Muslims leave this dangerous cult that is threatening the peace of the world.

The "unmask" version of the quote we are currently hosting stems from p. 162 of [5], which looks like a good source (published 2014), but we can see for ourselves that the quote given there isn't accurate. I checked the Internet Archive, and the wording in Sina's piece was "demonstrate the fallacy" rather than "unmask" even back in 2004, the oldest copy available in the Wayback Machine: [6]. Conversely I was unable to find the string "unmask Islam and help muslims leave" anywhere online other than Wikipedia and the book in question.)

So let's fix that quote as well (it'll need to be fixed in Sina's article as well). Thoughts?

Cheers, Andreas JN466 17:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I simply think that personal opinions by Ali Sina that are not on the subject of this page (WikiIslam) belong to another page, i.e. Ali Sina (activist). On that another page his views should be sourced to RS and correctly cited per WP:BLP. I would rather avoid a direct citation in case of such discrepancies. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with My very best wishes regarding both of the points made above. In the Tracks of Breivik presumably went through publisher-review where such quotes would have been checked. Where we have a source that meets WP:RS requirements, we need not refer to a primary source. I also see other websites that provide a similar, but not identical, description of FFI's aims: "to (a) unmask Islam and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism but disguised as religion and (b) to help Muslims leave it, end this culture of hate caused by their 'us' vs. 'them' ethos and embrace the human race in amity." Snuish (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed the reference. I appreciate you catching that. Snuish (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)