|WikiProject Wikipedia||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Arab world||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Reference works||(Rated C-class)|
Older conversations have been archived here.
The criticism section
Several administrators are trying to remove the criticism section because they believe it violates the "good faith" policy. Of course, this is a misunderstanding because this is not a talk page but a criticism section in an article. In a "criticism section" you get criticism, there is no assumption of good faith here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you would like to keep the criticism section, you will need to rewrite that encyclopedically. Please read this as a guide. Articles should not contain trivia lists, and should be written as a neutral point of view. This is also the English Wikipedia. It would be much helpful if the sources were in English, especially for such controversial topics. This has nothing to do with the good-faith policy, but an apology for the attacks would be appreciated. ZooFari 00:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you will need to prove that the points listed under criticism are really trivia and not neutral.
First, technically, your claims are invalid since the criticism section is very coherent (it is not a listing of miscellaneous points) and the points listed under it are all directly related to the clearly meaningful title of the section, which is "criticism." You need to show how this is a trivia section? You seem to know the titles of the laws but not how to apply them in real situations.
Your other claim, neutrality, is even less valid, because this is a criticism section-- if it were neutral then it would have deserved to be deleted since it would not make sense. The section simply lists critical points.
Now to the discussion of your ulterior, emotion-based motives. How can you call by trivia such serious criticism as accusing the encyclopedia of having systemic bias in Islam-related topics, and noting that over 60% of its articles are stubs (which usually means they contain nothing at all but the title), etc. You are obviously biased yourself since you're an administrator in Wikipedia, but the Arabic Wiki is nothing like the English Wiki at all, it is just 100,000 empty pages with administrators who mostly do nothing but enjoying trips to the Wiki conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- "A list" is the problem of that section. Wikipedia is supposed to give information efficiently, and a list is not it. Your list states points that others do not agree on, hence not making it neutral or not being provided by the most significant views (see WP:NPOV). Lists on Wikipedia should not contain information like that because they aren't supposed be composed of trivia but rather state complete points of a subject. I suggest you rewrite the section as paragraphs. Also, I'm not an administrator. ZooFari 01:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You have not provided anything new; what you say is just a reiteration of the previously refuted claims; though in a less organized fashion this time.
Again: first of all, Wikipedia:Trivia sections is irrelevant to this discussion since, as it clearly says, it deals with lists of miscellaneous information. I fail to see the relation between this and the criticism section.
Your rather personal statement that "a list is not an efficient manner of presenting information" is, besides being weird, not mentioned in any of the pages you referred to. We need to see a clear text saying that lists should be avoided-- "lists" not "lists of miscellaneous information," don't jumble things.
Your definition of neutrality in a criticism section is problematic. The section contains referenced and logical statements that are raised in criticism of Ar Wiki-- of course the criticized party won't agree with the statements, they are not supposed to. The points in the section are logical and commonly raised by critics (sadly, most of those write in Arabic not English!).
Anyway, I might rewrite the section as a paragraph if this is what it will take to end the discussion. Though I don't think this demand is properly founded based on the pages you referred to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind, do what you think is best. I just know that it can be better. ZooFari 03:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted the criticism section. Its sources are not accepted. The first one says that the content in ar wikipedia is weak. It does not say The Arabic Wikipedia suffers from heavy biased content, specifically in Islamic topics.The seconed one, Knol, is not a reliable source. Therefore, this section does not contain any acceptable sources. --Osm agha (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The criticism section again (2010)
The Criticism section as it appeared and as النول insists on restoring it is invalid. It contained three statements: the first, that Arabic Wikipedia was "accused of bias, specifically in Islamic topics", and refers to an article at rnw.nl which does not mention neither Islam nor religion at all. The second statement reported the number of stubs in Arabic Wikipedia, referenced by the number of items in the Arabic equivalent of Category:Stubs. Fair enough but is this criticism? It's merely a fact, and the interpretation of this fact as "criticism" is done by the author, i.e. original research. The third statement is "One journalist claimed that the 2008 Wikimania in Cairo concluded that Arabic Wikipedia was the worst of all of the Wikipedias." It is not clear why the claim of that journalist is important enough to be included in this article. If it is indeed one of the official conclusions of Wikimania, then it would be more logical to refer to an authoritative report about Wikimania itself. Thus, the section did not contain any notable information and was deleted. --Abanima (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The rnw.nl article talks about Hamas, the use of word Chahid, martyr, and many other things in The Arabic wiki, anyone can use Google's auto translations to check it.
- also, the fact is a fact, stubs in Arabic wiki are more than written articles, bot articles!!
- remember, these are criticism, opinions, not generally with ur point of view, or...SIDE. النول (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- At last you chose to participate in talk! The rnw.nl does mention Hamas, Fateh, Khamenei and the Shah but these issues are, first, political rather than religious (the word religion and derivatives are not used in that text at all, unlike politics, culture and other terms) and, second, there is a mention that there were discussions about the use of shahid, whether it was neutral or not. That's all! Such things belong to Wikinews rather than Wikipedia. Thus, your conclusion especially in Islamic topics is unfounded, as I mentioned above. That the stubs are bot-written articles is unfounded: you don't refer to any published statistics on that. And the 'fact' that stubs constitute the majority is merely a fact, not even an opinion (because it is unpublished). You may like to add it to another section, like Statistics or Content but not Criticism. Wikipedia is not for listing anecdotes. And you did not answer any of my points above. --Abanima (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, better to say, it talks about arabs and their behavior on the net, with encyclopedias, more precise, since the title is: Arabs and Wikipedia, i'll change it.
- This was better. I wish you looked how I rewrote the section before it was deleted altogether. The problem is that all that can be referenced about Arabic Wikipedia is merely a couple of anecdotes, not a single study can be located. And these should be placed in WikiNews, not in Wikipedia. Not mentioning that both references are rather weak: the first claims, for example, that googling for Libya (in Arabic) would not put it on top of search results, which was false at the date of publication. The second allegedly refers to conclusions of Wikimania in Alexandria, possibly misrepresenting them. In this case one should refer to the original Wikimania documents which should be available, rather that someone's interpretations. Arabic Wikipedia can be blamed for many things, but there are no decent publications about the issue. If we take the issue formally, Arabic Wikipedia does not satisfy any of the notability criteria for web sites required here. --Abanima (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Seems for me, you don't want to hear any criticism, remember again, this is the English wiki, not the Arabic one, on which you reside at the momen, you said: ONE journalist living in the Netherlands!!! , utterly abnormal, also, you deleted the Akhabr article, there's another i'll add later, a masquerade? --النول (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is not about criticism. What you refer to (I mean rnw.nl) is not a notable view for an encyclopedia: it is not based on a systematic review or study. At most, it can be cited in WikiNews, not it Wikipedia. As for the Akhbar article, it is even of less value, and seemingly you insist to include it again and again because you liked its title. As I said before, there seems to be no reliable sources about Arabic Wikipedia at all. --Abanima (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- You want Enstein to write an article about arabic wikipedia perhaps, i'll transmit this to the admin board, they removed the knol link, let check again! maybe. --النول (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's up to you. From my side, I am going to undo any overgeneralisations or poorly referenced statements, as required by Wikipedia rules. --Abanima (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Here is a detailed information, Mohamed the prophet, has no imagery in the Arabic wiki, but in all wikis, unless, there's Arabs here, in the English admin board also! who will agree with you. (even it's witten in the coran!)--النول (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- The Arabic Wikipedia does seem to have significant problems, but that's not really one of them -- there are no authentic portraits of Muhammad, or even depictions of Muhammad made close to the time when he lived. That being the case, why shouldn't Arabic Wikipedia take into account the sensitivities of probably the majority of its users on a somewhat inessential issue? AnonMoos (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- If someone wrote a separate and completely legitimate article on "Artistic depictions of Muhammad" and that article was deleted for no real reason other than religious censorship, then that would definitely be a problem. However, the fact that there are no images of Muhammad on the main محمد article is not particularly a problem -- given that there are no historically authentic portraits of Muhammad dating from during his lifetime or close to his lifetime, and that depictions of Muhammad do not play any very meaningful role in the Islamic religion. (Yes, there was a tradition of Persian miniature type images, but though these Persian etc. miniatures can be a glorious artistic achievement, they were always kind of "unofficial" in religious terms, and depictions of Muhammad do not play a role in Islamic religion remotely comparable to that which images of Jesus or Mary have in Christianity etc.) The Arabic Wikipedia can be a very strange place in some respects, and there definitely do seem to be some problems there, but the fact that there are no images of Muhammad on the محمد article is not one of those problems, so you need to come up with a better example. AnonMoos (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, the rnw.nl link doesn't talk about Mohamed depiction in ar wiki, i'd just told this to abnima, pointing out, how it was impossible to write freely in the ar wiki. His depictions, i don't really care about (only danish newspapers and Muslim ambassadors). rnw.nl instead, showed flaws with the use of words like HAMAS,MARTYRS, CHAHID, PERSIAN-ARABIC GULF a very polarized ENCYCLOPEDIA.
I just want to expose this in the En wiki, it's not my opinion after all, but of many Arabs (Muslims and liberals), in fact, I'm skeptical about the term Encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by النول (talk • contribs) 11:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Credit for establishing the Arabic Wikipedia
There seems to be a dispute over how the Arabic Wikipedia was established: User_talk:WhisperToMe#Arabic_Wikipedia_and_Rami_Tarawneh - I reminded the user that generally secondary sources have supremacy over primary ones. I did not remove the content he added but I restored the content about Tarawneh (the Tarawneh story is cited to Wired magazine while the new content seems to be cited to primary sources: the original websites).
There is additional conversation: