Islam Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

For example, "Telling the Truth about Islam? Apostasy Narratives and Representations of Islam on WikiIslam.net" from 2013 (CyberOrient, Vol. 7, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 64-93) says:

"the narratives of ex-Muslims (here called apostasy narratives) are of great importance for WikiIslam and its adherents."

but currently WikiIslam's "History" section says:

... The mission statement and new policy and writing guidelines were added, while many articles on the site were removed, including satirical and polemical content, ex-Muslim testimonies, as well as op-eds and personal essays. (highlighting added)

Shouldn't we consider the possibility that the attacks by Larsson 2007, CyberOrient, etc. have had their desired effect and moved the site away from being what the lede calls an "an anti-Muslim" wiki? -- Louis P. Boog (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have reliable sources calling the site "rabidly anti-Muslim" as late as 2019 and no reliable sources yet contradicting such assessments. WikiIslam accounts of its own history have been found to be not credible, and even contradictory, in the discussions above. Relying on it as a source for itself is problematic and inconsistent with policy. Snuish (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted edits

The following edit was added 14 April 2021 and deleted 20 minutes later:

As of 2021 the website's About/Mission statement/History page states that WikiIslam is "a non-political and non-religious wiki" that "remains neutral towards religions, world views, and issues of a political nature and likewise stays away from extremist, sensationalist or emotional commentary."^[1] It does not state who owns the site but does say that in 2015 it came "under the management of the Ex-Muslims of North America", and that this group "initiated an overhaul of WikiIslam, with the stated goal of setting a high criteria of objectivity, neutrality, and professionalism" in late 2018.^[1]

Its section on "WikiIslam vs. Wikipedia" says nothing about political correctness or censorship but does state that Wikiislam has "differing goals" from Wikipedia which have "led to different policies and guidelines", such as the use of primary sources and which sources can be considered "notable".^[1]

Here is a paraphrase of the edit summary:

while I know Wikipedia looks down on citing a source from the subject of the article, I think if the source is identified and directly relevant it ought to be included. The current article quotes wikiIslam: '"opinions critical of Islam" would not be censored on WikiIslam "for political correctness,"' but it's not there, or not there anymore. Shouldn't that be noted??? Currently the article sound as though Wikislam is a website equivalent of Counter Jihad Coalition or ACT! for America)

It was deleted by Snuish2, who edit summarized:

Inclusion of its mission statement is quite self-serving and at odds with WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:MISSION. Its stated objectives are not supported by its assessments in reliable sources, even those that have described it as of 2018 and 2019. This warrants a discussion on the talk page if you insist on including it.)

--Louis P. Boog (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to add? The inserted section seems to be a clear-cut violation of WP:NOR and WP:ABOUTSELF. Snuish (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:ABOUTSELF you cannot use the source ONLY if it meets the following criteria: 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;2. it 3. does not involve claims about third parties; 4. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 5. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and 6. the article is not based primarily on such sources. The about page of WikiIslam meets none of these criteria (https://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam), so I have replaced the misleading, outdated quote with the current, correct information.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And to claim that it is now neutral and/or reliable would violate the first prong. That claim would be both self-serving and exceptional, given that it would be contradictory to multiple reliable sources. There are also WP:SPS and WP:USERGENERATED, which prohibit the use of wikis. Snuish (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not violate the first prong. The policy clearly says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves." You have provided no evidence that this is wrong or self-serving. Also the sources you keep citing are clearly incorrect, the testimonies for instance no longer exist on the site and saying that they do is clearly inaccurate and contested by the later, more accurate source. Moreover if Wikis should not be cited then why was it OK to cite the Wiki back in 2015, but not now?--Underthemayofan (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the 2015 wiki cited? This is unduly self-serving information and an exceptional claim. It absolutely violates the first criterion. Snuish (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"WikiIslam described its purpose as "collect[ing] facts relating to the criticism of Islam from valid Islamic sources without the effect of censorship that is common in Wikipedia" and claims to have started as a result of the difficulty in "presenting 'correct' (i.e., critical) information on [Wikipedia]."" This is a direct citation from the Wiki in 2015, if this is citable so should the current mission statement be citable. Why would a mission statement from 2015 be more relevant than the current mission statement?--Underthemayofan (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is, again, a total failure to comprehend WP:RS. This citation is from a third-party source, not WikiIslam itself. Snuish (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is quoting WikiIslam. What exactly is the functional difference here?--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The functional difference is that a third-party peer-reviewed reliable source has determined that it is relevant to its topic and significant enough to be noteworthy in a discussion on the topic, as opposed to a Wikipedia editor drawing from a primary source. Snuish (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. We have a third party source, Ex-Muslims of North America who run it, saying these things, as well as the video by the very same two academics originally cited saying much the same thing 2. This is a reference work we are talking about, the policies clearly don't say that in an article on the Encyclopedia Britannica you couldn't quote what the Encyclopedia says about itself in its opening.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By way of comparison, the article on the Rational Wiki quotes from the wiki and from the Rational Media foundation multiple times when talking about what the wiki claims for itself.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that EXMNA is a "third-party" source on a Wiki that they themselves own. They are a primary source. You'll note that the RationalWiki is tagged for using too many primary sources. The wiki also does not have a history being a hate website, so I'm not sure that the comparison is apt. Stormfront, for example, does not cite the website itself or its owners. Snuish (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only one section of the article has that tag, the very next section "Content" does not have that tag but immediately cites RationalWiki itself. I really don't care what your personal feelings are towards the website, that should not affect how it is treated versus any other page on Wikipedia. Again, if they own the site and claim that they have done something on it which is verifiably there, and what they do on the website is the subject of the article, how does that not meet the standard of WP:Verifiability?--Underthemayofan (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I discuss my personal feelings about the website? Stating that it has a history of being a hate website is hardly a mere "personal opinion." WP:V does not mean that editors are going about checking the veracity of a source. Your argument here is not policy-based but uses one page as the basis of your comparison, and there are plenty of counterexamples, one of which I cited above. WP:Verifiability requires the use of reliable sources, the hallmark of which is peer-reviewed published sources, not the sources you've cited. I encourage you to read over WP:RS more broadly to understand both its letter and spirit. Snuish (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-muslim" used to describe the website that concerns itself with an ideology rather than a group of people compromises the neutrality of Wikipedia as well as invalidate the experiences of those who left the religion of Islam. Wikiislam can be described as a website concerning critique of the religion by its former members. 27.114.186.199 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable source describes WikiIslam "as a website concerning critique of the religion by its former members"? Many of the former and current contributors are not former members of the religion, i.e., ex-Muslims.

WikiIslam has historically hosted quite a bit of anti-Muslim content. It's for that reason that at least seven reliable sources describe it as one or more of the following:

• an anti-Muslim website
• an example of anti-Muslim sentiment
• a website containing anti-Muslim rhetoric
• a website begun by anti-Muslim activists

Snuish (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're using "historically" as a weasel word. You know full-well that none of that material is currently hosted on the Wiki. The Wiki underwent a major revision this year, the revision is in fact ongoing, https://twitter.com/ExmuslimsOrg/status/1471924678872772612 . The sources you're using are inaccurate and don't reflect the current state of the website.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I'm not interested in statements from Twitter. Once you have reliable sources for your statements, feel free to update the article. WikiIslam has claimed to be overhauled since 2012, if not earlier, despite feedback about its anti-Muslim content remaining the same over the years:

"In December 2006, Göran Larsson presented a paper on WikiIslam at a conference in Sweden. At that point in time, the site was barely out of its infancy, only having been open to the public for three months, and Larsson was very critical. Today, with its new policies, new guidelines, thousands of more pages and the inclusion of pro-Islamic content aimed at presenting a positive image of Islam, WikiIslam remains the same only in name."

Was it misleading readers then, now, or both? Snuish (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:Twitter Twitter may be used in articles relating to the subject publishing info about themselves, and I am really not interested in your baseless, obviously biased rhetorical questions. For the record the site did include pro-Islamic material at that time such as this article https://web.archive.org/web/20170916235933/https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Cure_to_Casting_Evil_Glances so there was nothing "misleading" about this statement. There's no reason why the site could not have undergone multiple overhauls, again there's no reason why saying there was an overhaul then and there is an overhaul now is "misleading." We have a reliable source, the owners of the website, saying that there has been a major overhaul, and no reliable source contradicting this claim, so again I am uninterested in your uninformed speculation but rather in what our reliable sources have to tell us as per Wikipedia policy guidelines.--Underthemayofan (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that you are "not interested" in "baseless, obviously biased rhetorical questions." What you are not interested in is reviewing content and self-assessments on WikiIslam that are contradicted by numerous reliable sources. WikiIslam's and EXMNA's statements are in obvious violation of what you cited at WP:TWITTER. Again, these statements are self-serving and exceptional.

You seem to be another account affiliated with EXMNA and/or WikiIslam, given your edit history. Please declare your affiliations. Snuish (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"We have a reliable source, the owners of the website..." Please review WP:RS, which you do not seem to be familiar with: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors..." The owners of a website are not inherently reliable for statements on their website. Snuish (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems the website underwent a major overhaul after most of these secondary sources were published. Snuish, the sources you are citing seem to be accurate descriptions of the wiki in the past (pre 2015-ish?), but it appears these are not accurate any longer. It even seems that Wiki acknowledges this unsavory past. See this page from 2020 https://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Renovations. It says the wiki has "A zero-tolerance policy on hateful, misleading, unencyclopedic, and polemical ‎content" that "several hundred articles" have been deleted or overhauled, and that the wiki "no longer tolerates" the old sort of content.

As Underthemayofan correctly noted, self-descriptions are acceptable per wikipedia policy, especially when 1) we have no reason to suspect they are self-serving, 2) no evidence they are false, and 3) they are the only source of up-to-date information.

I will add most importantly here that it seems that you stand alone against the consensus of editors. Underthemayofan, Louis P. Boog, 27.114.186.199, as well as myself all agree that wikiislam has changed in a fundamental way and is no longer describable by the outdated sources you are citing (or more recent sources relying on outdated sources themselves). It appears you have a special bias/agenda here and that you are committed to presenting wikiislam as an "anti-Muslim" no matter the sway of evidence and editorial consensus. Based on this talk page, it appears you have been continuously resisting any updates to this page to reflect the changed state of wikiislam even as multiple editors have tried to update the page. That hardly seems appropriate if this wiki page is to remain neutral. We should rely on the consensus in any case, this appears to be a best practice, especially since it appears the page neutrality is in this case being compromised by just one individual. RubiconForder (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC) — RubiconForder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strange that so many brand new accounts continuously pop up in support of WikiIslam. I do not stand alone against the consensus of editors. In prior discussions, User:NarSakSasLee and User:Doug Weller have also argued against using WikiIslam as a source. Consensus is not what you claim it to be.

"We have no reason to suspect they are self-serving" WikiIslam has for nearly over a decade presented itself as a neutral, reliable, source despite feedback from numerous reliable sources to the contrary. It's quite ridiculous to say that these statements are not self-serving. In past discussions, editors have found quite clear evidence of WikiIslam's inaccurate descriptions of itself and history. Moreover, scholars have continued to assert that WikiIslam's self-presentation is not credible even as of this year. So we do, in fact, have reason to not accept any statements from WikiIslam and EXMNA at face value. Snuish (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These scholars are explicitly citing pages on the wiki that no longer exist (see 16:09 and 22:50; e.g. "Islam and Paedophilia" and "Michael Jackson", for instance, no longer exists). This is an example of a recent comment on the wiki based on outdated references, not so dissimilar from what you are insisting on doing, it seems?

Also note this older version of the wiki (https://wikiislam.github.io/wiki/Main_Page.html) which states that wikiislam contains 2,818 articles vs. the current wikiislam (https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page), which only contains 829. Evidently the site has undergone massive revision. These appear to be automated counters based on either page's wikimedia source, so these numbers are reliable.

Also your own account is just a year old - not so different from mine? I do not understand how account recency is relevant here? RubiconForder (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their paper has yet to be published--I'm sure it's coming soon--and the video represented a work in progress. However, it indicates that even after WikiIslam's so-called overhaul, its self-presentation has not been found to be credible. None of the editors thus far have presented compelling reasons to disregard WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SPS, and WP:USERGENERATED. And, even if the "overhaul" were discussed in a reliable source, it would not give you cause to delete content sourced from published material regarding WikiIslam, no matter what year it was published in, as you did in your first edit to this page. I noted the age of your account because there have been numerous editors to this page editing in violation of WP:COI, including User:Underthemayofan. Snuish (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no conflict of interest here under WP:COI. You need to either provide some proof of this claim or stop making it.--Underthemayofan (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may open a discussion regarding your account on WP:COIN when appropriate and will notify you when I do so. Snuish (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good, we can continue that discussion there.--Underthemayofan (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The video you posted never makes the claim that "even after WikiIslam's so-called overhaul, its self-presentation has not been found to be credible." It claims that various other users and websites attempt to use the website for Islamophobic purposes, but also points out during this analysis (at 18:34) that Wikipedia is the website which links to WikiIslam the most. At 2:15 they cite the current mission statement as authoritative, at 5:30 they confirm that a major renovation has taken place, and at 5:55 they also cite Wikiislam's Zero Tolerance Policy on hateful or Islamophobic rhetoric or articles. Since you yourself cited this source, I will be including it in the article, and I trust that you will have no objections since you yourself cited this video.--Underthemayofan (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Since you yourself cited this source, I will be including it in the article, and I trust that you will have no objections since you yourself cited this video…” Are you making up your own policies now? That’s not how WP:RS works. You will note that I haven’t cited the video in the article itself. I will address the remainder of your comment shortly. Snuish (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does that video violate WP:RS? If it does, why did you bring it up?--Underthemayofan (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's troubling that you need to ask the first question considering your aggressive and tendentious approach to making sweeping changes to this article. The video does not represent a peer-reviewed source. It's a preview of a forthcoming source that will likely meet WP:RS criteria, and that's why I brought it up. Snuish (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"At 2:15 they cite the current mission statement as authoritative..." You're either joking or only absorbing portions of the video that sound appealing to you. 7:32 of the video: "...they are also cherry-picking and choosing different aspects of what to present and not to present." This statement is consistent with Larsson's earlier descriptions of WikiIslam. Snuish (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does that contradict what I wrote? And which description of Larson's is that consistent with? Did they or did they not quote the mission statement? Did the present any evidence that WikiIslam is not following its mission statement? Everyone including you "cherrypicks" what they do and do not want to present to make a case, you're doing it right now. Again, what evidence did the researchers present to the effect that the mission statement was misleading? They also said WikiIslam is making valid criticisms of Islam of the type that have been made against Christianity for hundreds of years.--Underthemayofan (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did quote the mission statement. They did not affirm that WikiIslam's content is in accord with the statement. Here's a much better question: Which reliable sources quote WikiIslam's current mission statement? None. WP:MISSION provides a compelling case against quoting without a reliable source and its inclusion is pretty self-serving. Snuish (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that you're dancing around the truth of the matter, which is that all of your sources are old and no longer applicable to the WikiIslam. WP:RS states that the source must be "reliable, published" sources. That video is both of those things, and was presented to fellow academics for review. The fact that you yourself brought it up (and I thank you for doing so, as I had never seen it before) points to what a reliable source of info it is for the present day status of the Wiki. The Wiki has obviously changed alot since the next latest source on offer. You don't want to use the Wiki itself (except when you quote it from 2015) and you don't want to use this video, that leaves no actual sources for the current day state of WikiIslam. Furthermore you have provided no evidence that the statements of WikiIslam and Ex-Muslims of North America are in any way untrustworthy, and in fact the video seems to confirm everything that they do say.--Underthemayofan (talk) 02:05, 24

snuish kindly cease accusing other editors of an "aggressive and tendentious approach". Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is in violation of Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the comment was a violation of WP:AGF, particularly when the user is misrepresenting my comments in an attempt to justify inclusion of a source that is obviously at odds with policies. Snuish (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...and was presented to fellow academics for review." It's not the product of the fellow academics' review. It's presented for review. There's a difference. "...that leaves no actual sources for the current day state of WikiIslam." Then you should lobby to get Wikipedia's policies changed if you don't like them. "Furthermore you have provided no evidence that the statements of WikiIslam and Ex-Muslims of North America are in any way untrustworthy..." Actually, the discussions in the archives demonstrate that WikiIslam should not be relied upon for descriptions of itself, a position that other editors have agreed with. Snuish (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the core of the controversy about this article is:

1. the first four words are "Wikiislam is an anti-Muslim ..." wiki.
2. But the Wikiislam website itself states "... the site remains neutral towards religions, world views, and issues of a political nature and likewise stays away from extremist, sensationalist or emotional commentary."
3. editors such as Snuish will not only not allow this statement to appear in the article, but won't allow the statement even with qualifiers such as "according to Wikiislam, it 'stays away from extremist, sensationalist or emotional commentary.'"

There maybe some wikipedia rule somewhere that can be interpreted as justifying this kind of censorship, but it seems to me to go against everything Wikipedia stands for.. Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Louis P. Boog (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

The relevant rules are WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SPS, and WP:USERGENERATED. Snuish (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABOUTSELF specifically says that you can use a source to speak about itself, and you've not provided a compelling reason to ignore this proviso.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have. You've chosen to ignore it. Content like this is exceptional, given that it contradicts numerous reliable sources. So it violates the first criterion. Moreover, WP:SELFSOURCE states that such use must be "de minimis." Even if you were correct that we could use WikiIslam, your changes to the intro and body currently go far beyond de minimis. Snuish (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The contradictions to the "reliable sources" you speak of are over a decade old and we're talking about a website which is updated daily. The things that they are claiming are on the wiki cannot be found on it. It's a clear violation of WP:Verifiability to present information that is verifiably false from the source. All of the information here is verifiably true.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I have "chosen to ignore it" because your arguments don't make sense. You haven't provided me an example where what Ex-Muslims of North America has said about the website has been verifiably false or misleading.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments do not make sense to you because you've repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies. You assume above, for example, that the owners of a website are inherently a reliable source regarding the website despite their conflict of interest. Snuish (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This demonstrates again a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies. WP:Verifiability does not mean what you think it does. The policy means that an editor can check the cited source in a Wikipedia article and confirm that it supports the text of the Wikipedia article. The truth value of those statements, whatever a Wikipedia editor may deem it to be, is irrelevant. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-1, which states: "This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as 'the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth'. See the essay, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth." You've also not addressed how your edits meet the de minimis requirement in WP:SELFSOURCE. Snuish (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The policy means that an editor can check the cited source in a Wikipedia article and confirm that it supports the text of the Wikipedia article." The text says that WikiIslam makes these claims, they can click on it and see that WikiIslam makes these claims. That is the definition of verifiability. Again for comparison, the article on RationalWiki, a similar site, routinely cites the wiki and the entity which owns it, the Rational Media Foundation, about the subject of the article itself.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The text says that WikiIslam makes these claims, they can click on it and see that WikiIslam makes these claims." I am not following you. Snuish (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Take one example, in the opening the article says "Although clearly coming from a critical point of view, the website "remains neutral towards religions, world views, and issues of a political nature and likewise stays away from extremist, sensationalist or emotional commentary" according to its mission statement." The citation goes to the mission statement, which does say this. They can check the citation and see that it is verifiably true.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand that. Thanks. What I was previously addressing is your contention that "It's a clear violation of WP:Verifiability to present information that is verifiably false from the source," which is actually not a violation of WP:Verifiability. What WP:V requires is that the text in a Wikipedia article that is cited to a source, e.g. Larsson's 2007 article, can then be checked against the source, i.e., the 2007 article. WP:V does note require that the content of the source, as long it's a reliable source, is true or agreeable to Wikipedia editors. Editors are not in the business of ascertaining truth. Snuish (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the sources have not been removed, they are still there, there are just put into their historical context.--Underthemayofan (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What sources allow you to determine that all of the reception belongs to a "historical" context as opposed to a current context? For example, how do you know that Syaza Shukri's comments are no longer applicable? Is it just because WikiIslam and EXMNA say so or are you making this determination on your own? Snuish (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am making it based off of Ex-Muslims of North America's various statements of renovation (which for this article meet the de minims standard), the evidence from various web crawlers that the site has been updated, and the statements of Larrson and Brekke that WikiIslam has undergone a "major renovation and cleanup."--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you just mentioned meet WP:RS, and the de minimis standard certainly doesn't allow you reframe an entire article. This shouldn't require further explanation. Please find a reliable source. Snuish (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They all meet Wikipedia's criteria as Louis P. Boog agreed.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His agreement was not at all policy-based. Nowhere did he agree that they meet Wikipedia's criteria. Snuish (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he did, if Louis P. Boog could clear up his position I think that would be most helpful.--Underthemayofan (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as our best sources seem to indicate that the Wiki has changed alot, and much of the current material is out of date, I would like to suggest creating a new section, something along the lines of "History of WikiIslam" and moving most of the historical content into that section so that the rest of the article can be free to accurately represent the site as it now exists.--Underthemayofan (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

very good idea Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Louis P. Boog (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Very well, I'll go ahead and make those changes. As per Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF I'll be citing mostly WikiIslam internal docs about the website's policies and I'll use the video and the Ex-Muslims of North America site about the renovation. I'll also include another section on the renovation.--Underthemayofan (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll be citing mostly WikiIslam internal docs about the website's policies and I'll use the video and the Ex-Muslims of North America site about the renovation..." You may not per the de minimis requirement in WP:SELFSOURCE. Snuish (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's just not acceptable. Organisations and people lie by omission and commission about themselves or try in various ways to make themselves look acceptable. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations surely do lie, so if there's any evidence of that we can post it. But as per Wikipedia policy we can use sources that talk about themselves to describe the subject if they themselves are the subject of the article, as can be seen in here and here. As for the de minimis object, "de minimis means "of minimum/at a minimum" in Latin and Wikipedia's own De minimis article states "The general term has come to have a variety of specialized meanings in various contexts." The WP itself offers no definition, nor does the WP article, however in the section immediately after stating that the contributions are to be "de minimis" the article says "the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." The great majority of the sources and text in the article do draw from 3rd party sources, so this still fits the de minimis requirement as the policy lays it out.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're using WikiIslam/EXMNA itself to reframe the entire article and arguing that doing so meets the "de minimis" standard. That can't be a serious argument. Snuish (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What begs credulity is that you want to use clearly old sources on a topic where they are clearly not relevant where they were. I stand by my assertion the current use of the sources meets the de minimis standard. It is entirely fitting with the text of the WP article.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section of the video dealing with this begins at 10:50. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-wgfRLldKI User:Snuish2--Underthemayofan (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also the critiques are attributed to WikiIslam around 7:04.--Underthemayofan (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suspected that it was that portion of the video. Which portion of Torkel Brekke's statements support this assertion that you inserted: "WikiIslam offers what academics have called 'scientific' and 'valid' critiques of the religion of Islam..." In particular, where do Torkel and Larsson assert that WikiIslam offers valid critiques? Snuish (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead makes it sound as though that's the opinion of most academics. Also, the video ends with "this is a work in progress". Doug Weller talk 11:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larsson also comments on WikiIslam's cherry-picking at 7:32 in the video. How one goes from "cherry-picking" to claiming that the scholars stated WikiIslam offers "valid" critiques is perplexing. So not only does the source not meet WP:RS, it's also being misrepresented by User:Underthemayofan. Snuish (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larson literally says WikiIslam has engaged in a renovation "in order to improve the content, professionalism, and reliability of the website" and that "they (WikiIslam) want to address these questions (about Islam) by a scientific approach." If you would like to include those quotes instead that would be fine. He does say they are "cherry-picking" but that is the singular critique of the new approach he makes, if you would like to include these quotes with his critique of "cherry-picking" I would be ammenable.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So he doesn't actually say that the arguments are "valid"? Right? It's something you made up. I don't actually support the use of the video in the article -- the speakers themselves say it's a work in progress. It does not meet WP:RS standards. And he mentions at 6:11 that the improvement in "content, professionalism, and reliability" is a direct quote from WikiIslam, not his personal assessment. Please stop misrepresenting the work. Snuish (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brekke says that the types of arguments made on Wikipedia are valid and that there is a need to distinguish valid critiques of Islam from Islamophobia. Again if you want to change the "valid" portion out with the above quotes I am fine. And the article already includes Larson quoting WikiIslam, not his personal assessment of it, so unless there's a reason that should be removed this should not be removed either. The lecture was published to fellow academics including the Powerpoint presentation. At the very least at least the PowerPoint must be considered published as per WP:RS. Please try to actually understand what's being said instead of just cherry-picking the things that fit your preconceived notions.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a presentation where the thrust of the argument is that WikiIslam is still used by Islamophobic actors, you cite the presentation to state: "WikiIslam offers what academics have called 'scientific' and 'valid' critiques of the religion of Islam, similar in many way to the critiques that have been made of Christianity for centuries." And you tell me that I need to stop cherry-picking the things that fit my preconceived notions. Wow.
In your statement above (21:12, 24 December), you quoted Larsson as if that was his personal assessment.
"Brekke says that the types of arguments made on Wikipedia are valid and that there is a need to distinguish valid critiques of Islam from Islamophobia." I assume you mean WikiIslam instead of Wikipedia. Is that right? Brekke never states the arguments on WikiIslam are valid. He states something similar at 10:45 but never attributes that to WikiIslam. He is talking about Islamophobia and criticism of Islam generally. Snuish (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brekke is clearly reffering to the arguments being made by WikiIslam. If you would like to replace it with the statement by Larsson that ""they (WikiIslam) want to address these questions (about Islam) by a scientific approach." I would have no objections.--Underthemayofan (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In rush and on iPad. [1] “ Firstly, we believe that some Islamophobic activists and milieus in the Western world work to anchor prejudice against Islam and Muslims in what they see as scientific arguments about the nature and history of Islam. Secondly, we argue that the website called WikiIslam has emerged as an important point of reference and source of knowledge for the scientification of Islamophobia. We base these claims on an analysis of internet traffic to the pages of WikiIslam combined with a close reading of the articles written and curated by WikiIslam. However, our study of WikiIslam is only a limited case study of larger developments that merit further research.” Doug Weller talk 20:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They say the same thing in the video, basically that a number of Islamophobic websites link to WikiIslam. In the same video, tho, they show a slide showing that the #1 website linking to WikiIslam is Wikipedia, and moreover that an number of other mainstream sites also link to WikiIslam. If we are going to include this quote, that data needs to be included as well.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned before and as the authors themselves stated in the webinar, this is a work in progress. The article is forthcoming. But until the work by Larsson and Brekke is published, I don't support citing the webinar or the page regarding the webinar in the article. However, it's clear that the thrust of the argument will be that WikiIslam still performs a function among Islamophobic persons and institutions, wittingly or unwittingly. Snuish (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also clear that the clearly agree with Ex-Muslims of North America that a major renovation has taken place that has removed the Islamophobic content from the website, and that needs to be included.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would entirely support the inclusion of that material once the article is published, assuming the article speaks to that. Snuish (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The PowerPoint so far suffices for WP:RS sources purposes.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It really should have been tagged earlier, and all the discussion above is relevant to NPOV. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, are you satisfied with this version? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]