Talk:Ali Sina (activist)/Archive 1

Email
I have informed Ali Sina via email of the creation of this entry.

9 October, 2004 (Anonymous creator of entry)


 * This guy deserves an entry in the Encyclopedia because he runs a web page? He is not a scholar. He never wrote a book. He sounds like a typical internet flame troll (from what I read of his writing). Isn't this entry a violation of wiki policy of promoting a nobody? OneGuy


 * He is IMHO not a nobody. His site contains debates with debates with people like Ayatollah Montazeri, and the fact that an opposing website has been created, makes him even more worth mentioning. Stereotek 19:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * From what I understand it, the guy sent some questions to Ayatollah Montazeri and he replied back. I wouldn't call that real "debates." Anyone can do that. Does't make him a personality that deserves entry in Encyclopedia. The guy is a typical internet troll OneGuy


 * What will you call it then, if it is not a debate? Anyway, the fact that an opposing website has been created and that his site attract so many visitors, make him IMHO worth mentioning nomatter what.Stereotek 13:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Anyone can set up opposing sites to all sorts of sites. Doesn't make them worth anything. There are 50,000 sites that rank above his site. Do we need to have an Encyclopedia article on those 50,000 people? Doesn' change the fact it's completly useless page set up to promote an internet troll OneGuy 15:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Its true that anyone CAN set up opposing sites, but it is not something that ACTUALLY happens very often. In this case apparently no less than TWO opposing websites has created, which is NOT something that is common. The media attention that Ali Sina has recieved, also make him worth mentioning. Also what about the pages within the Wikipedia that link to the Ali Sina page? Should they get new "red" links? Or maybe you would like these pages to be deleted too? BTW, I ofcurse strongly assume that your resistance against having an Ali Sina article in Wikipedia comes from a strictly NEUTRAL point of view, and not from the fact that you consider him an "internet troll". Stereotek 18:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I haven't yet suggested that the article should be deleted. I merely pointed out that it's a useless article created to promote an internet troll. As for people using his arguments on wiki, really? I read his site. He wrote nothing new that I wasn't aware of already. His articles are just weaker compared to other anti-Islamic authors. Even Ibn Warraq is much better writer than him. Also, much stronger and better written anti-Islamic articles can be found on other anti-Islamic sites. If you like him, well, good luck to you. To me he sounded like an atheist version of Robert Morey. I don't think you have read these debates for too long; if you had, you would know the guy is nothing more than a troll. Not only his argument are weak, but the tone of his site qualies it as trashy hate site, something similiar to Jew Watch and Why Christians Suck OneGuy 10:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You started the discussion with "This guy deserves an entry in the Encyclopedia because he runs a web page?". I understood that as an attempt to question, whether or not an Ali Sina article should actually exist in Wikipedia. But if that is not your point, then what is actually your point? Your point of view is clearly that Ali Sina is a clown and his website is trash, but in what way does that matter to the article? Stereotek 13:33, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * He was replying to the guy at the top. I don't think he deserves an article (many more impportant people don't have them)... but, he probably wouldn't pass a VfD... but, if anyone tries to link to him from the main Islam page as a legitimate critic then that might be a problem. gren 01:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quotes
Yuber removed quotes, I reverted because it was a rather arbitrary move. I don't think they're necessary (the quotes) but I don't think Yuber, who is often accused of being very pro-Islam POV should just remove a disparaging quote without discussion. So, discuss if you're planning on doing something like that please. gren 01:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what the problem is. I just removed a quote that was repeated twice...Yuber(talk) 01:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was reading about your injuction and was slightly annoyed that you were editting still so I didn't read. You did a good job on this.  I have had some problem with your POV in the past but I was looking through your recent edits tonight and they were all pretty useful, so I urge you to please not violate that ruling so that they don't take more offense to your action so you can stay for at least all of the good work you do.  Once again sorry, I was in error. gren 02:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stereotek removed the quotes. I had put them on wikiquote beceause wikipedia is not the place for a quotes collection with no explanation of the quotes that fits the artcile. They do need to be pruned but there are definitely articles that have quotes (typically the most notable -- although I'm not sure what is notable in Sina's case). Therefore I think it was rather arbitrary (as I said with my mistaken revert of Yuber) to remove them all, pruning is necessary since wikiquote is our quotes repository, but complete removal to suit your purpose is not acceptable. So, talk about this to see what we decide on. I think about three quotes hopefully with context with the link to wikiquote is ideal... gren 19:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My reason for deleting the "quotes" section is that in articles we're supposed to be telling the reader about a subject, and not just compiling an unstructured list of quotes about it. In my opinion, if a quote is relevant to the subject and has some meaning appropriate to it, it should be included in the appropriate part of the article. -- Stereotek 20:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is this article really needed?
Sina is not a famous figure or a renowned scholar in any way. As stated before by others: Since when do we give just anybody who starts their own webpage an article? I almost certain that Sina started this himself as a vanity article. Anyways, I think we should consider deleting this article as it is not needed. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:02, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I just performed a google search with &#8220;Faith Freedom International&#8221; and got over 56,000 results. A search with faithfreedom resulted 47,000 entries. A search with &#8220;Ali Sina&#8221; resulted in nearly 16,000 entries. Half or a third belong to this Ali Sina and the rest to Avicenna. I believe your dislike of Ali Sina is based on your dislike of his views. The version I posted is virtually the same as the original version, only based on quotes and with very few words from me. I think that is most accurate and I do not think it is one-sided in any ways. [The preceding was an unsigned comment left by User:72.21.32.122. ]


 * My support for article deletion is not based on personal dislike, but rather the fact that many webpages receive "hits" on google, but that does not mean that the person is well-respected or a scholar. Even personal webpages recieve a lot of hits, but they do not deserve an entire article devoted to them. Concerning your version, the only problem is adding so many quotes makes the article one sided. All quotes should go into the "quotes" section. The top is reserved for main view and details and should not be a mix of quotes. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 00:54, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a compendium of most liked people. Even terrorists and criminals are listed here. The movement of ex-Mulsims is an important movement inside Islam, if it succeeds it will change our history and if it does not, it is still important and like the movement of Motazelis it will be a part of the history Islam. I don&#8217;t think we can overlook this phenomenon. Ali Sina is a prominent name in this movement. He is well known and his site is visited by millions of people and there are tens of thousands of links to it. No one is asking you to respect him. Obviously you have problem with what he stands for. You are even suggesting deleting this article. This does not give me the impression that you are impartial.


 * The version I posted is based on the previous version, except that it is worded more concisely and is backed by comments that others have made about him. I have not expressed any support of his views but merely defined them more precisely. I am not taking any side but you are. If you think my version is lopsided, instead of deleting it I invite you to add views that you think have not been addressed for balance. Can you tell me which part of my version is biased? I have simply stated what he thinks. Your position is that his thinking is not important at all. Then what do you say about tens of thousands of links across the Internet to his site? How can a person so unimportant receive so much interest world wide? [User:72.21.32.122.]


 * Your recent comments label you as a Sina supporter (or perhaps Sina himself). The fact that you constantly refer to him as a "prominent name" and also use "if it succeeds" you make it sound like you are counting down the days till he somehow performs a "miracle". I never said that only "liked" people have to be in Wikipedia, you misinterpreted me entirely. I said renowned people. He has no credibility in this case and the point that so many "link" to his site is not relevant. He, like anyone who makes a controversial web page, has had people outraged. But mainly what you need to understand is that there are many personal webpages with links on thousands of others, but that does not make them encyclopedia worthy. Also, I never said his thinking is "not important", I said that there needs to be a separation of quotes from the main introduction of this article. Both sides need to be represented and filling the introduction with countless citations of quotes by sina does not help make the article neutral. Thus, they belong to the quote section. Your rearrangement of the article quotes and layout and inserting various links to sina supporting sites reveals you as a sina supporter. Please realize that this has to be a neutral article and both views must be presented. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 04:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Suppose I am counting down the day of the end of Islam as you accuse me of, is this expressed in anyway in what I wrote? It certainly is not. But obviously you have strong pro Islam views, which is okay but what is not okay is that like a good Muslim you try to censor opposing views. This is not acceptable.
 * You are not an impartial person. You don&#8217;t like any criticism of Islam. Period! I quoted Sina&#8217;s views without agreeing or disagreeing with him and I quoted the comments made by others about him. Your position is to remove the entire article because in your opinion he is not important. If thousands of sites link to him, then he is important at least to those who quote him. He is also important to his opponents who have dedicated their entire site to oppose him. Your objection about my article not being neutral is not valid. My article is very neutral. You did not say which part of my article is not neutral. How can my &#8220;arrangement of the article and quotes and layout&#8221; show I am biased? It is you who are not neutral. You have positioned yourself as moral police and want to control what people should reads and what they should not. If you think I am partial, write your own version and add to the article but do not try to act like moral police by censoring others. Do you own Wikipedia? [User:72.21.32.122.]


 * Before blasting out at me, I think you should consider what I actually said to you and not misinterpret me entirely. I have not added anything major to this article, and nothing "pro-Islamic". What you are accusing me of is not censorship, it is called advocating neutrality. You are not neutral in any way, you have indeed expressed your views in the repetitive major editing of the article and you know it. Have I actually removed the article? Have if even applied it for deletion? No. Therefore, I think shouting at me for being "moral police" and a "censor" when clearly in good faith I was making a worthy debate about whether this article is needed, clearly underlines that you are want to add material that is extremely biased. Which section of your edit is not neutral: the entire introduction. You seem to love adding quotes from Sina-supporting sites in the entire first paragraph which you clearly know is not neutral. Btw, I indeed told you to add to this article. What I said is keep the sina-supporting quotes and citations to sina-supporting sites out of the introduction area. This is an encyclopedia not a personal essay, and certain things are kept separate when there are areas designated for that. Please remember that and read policy before flaming out and trying to make personal attacks against people. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 05:42, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well first of all, there is no proof that he is an ex-muslim as claimed. Secondly, his deliberate or un-conscious twisting of history/meanings only mean that either he is an illeterate on the subject , or he is on an agenda to defame Islam. He isnt important to any muslim, people have made sites to tell people the correct meaning of Islam , unlike what is stated by him. Its for very good reason that he doesnt debate any authentic scholars of Islam & always likes to spread his stuff inside his site, cuz he knows as soon as he goes outside his territories , his cult of phobia will be destroyed.

About importance, well...all I can say is that there are thousands of people more important that him. If his quotes are given here, so should the quotes against himFarhansher 05:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. That is also another issue. He claims to be an ex-Muslim but for all we know he could be anyone. There is no proof of his past, and he constantly hides behind the excuse that he fears personal attack. Secondly, yes, he is not considered important in anyway as he has absolutely no scholarship on the subject at all or even remotely close. It's just him and his mostly racist supporters who have blown his personal opinion way out of proportion. I also agree that if we are going to keep this article, then we need a balance of critical quotes against him, and there are plenty. But up till this is balanced between POV, I think that the article should remain neutral and I hope 72.21.32.122 understands this. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 05:42, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, he (Sina) has challenged anyone to debate with him and the forum is open for discussion. You have anyone in mind who you think would silence him? Why don&#8217;t we arrange for this encounter?
 * No one said he is the most important person in the world. The question is whether he deserves an entry in Wikepedia or not. With this much interest about Faith Freedom International, I think he does.
 * I did not quote any quote supporting him. I merely quoted quotes defining his views. Despite this no one stops you to add quotes that oppose his views. I could do that but as Islamophiles you are better equipped to do that.
 * Instead of removing my articles, which is against the guidelines of Wikipedia, I invite you to add to it and improve it providing your particular point of view.
 * If he is not important why are you so afraid of him? Why you keep deleting my article that expresses his views on Islam? You are welcome to write anything against him. Actually I may do it myself once I become more familiar with what his opponents write about him. But it is against the guidelines of Wikipedia to revert and disregard the entire new postings. Instead you should add to it and improve it. This is censorship of thought. It might be okay in Islamic countries but not in Wikipedia that is supposed to be a free encyclopedia for all. [User:72.21.32.122.]


 * No one is afraid of him, so don't try to desperately divert attention from the main article. There is no censorship of thought here, its called neutrality and if there weren't policies outlining edits then this would be nothing more than an anarchy. I think you already know this, but are trying to use personal attacks against people, countries, etc. in order to support your one-sided edits. Sorry, it is not working and calling people "Islamophiles" will not make it better. Wikipedia will always remain neutral and not degrade itself to the quality of a pathetic forum on some personal opinion webpage out there. Realize this and maybe we can co-operate to get both sides of the issue on the article. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 06:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * There are no attacks against any people or any country in my article. I am merely explaining the views of a certain person with whose writings I am more or less familiar. I did not express any agreement I simply explained his thoughts. This does not constitute support. However your actions are far from neutral. This is censorship. You are acting as thought police in Wikipedia. You have expressed that you don&#8217;t like this man&#8217;s views and you are afraid anyone hear them. That is why instead of adding to what I wrote and highlighting the other side of the coin, you try to ban him altogether. What you are dong is not neutral. It is censorship. It is vandalism and cyber terrorism. [User:72.21.32.122.]
 * The article is neutral. I even added harshest criticisms of Muslims on Sina. However you can keep that warning tag if you wish. It by itself demonstrates your bias. Those who read my article can easily see it is impartial and informative and your tag shows your inability to accept opposing views and your desire to patronize and manipulate the readers. People are not stupid, they can judge for themselves whether the article is biased or not. Your tag only validates Sina and his statements about Muslims. [User:72.21.32.122.]

Since when is this your article? You constantly make statements that indicate that you might be Sina. All I said is that the appropriate quoted material should be put in the quotes section. You think that my editing and disputing the arrangement of material somehow gives you the licence to make attacks and call people names childishly. You are vandalizing this article, when all I have done is asked you to obey wikipedia policy. You added no criticism of sina, you added material quoted from sites that support him so that you can bias others opinions. My tag, unless you are unaware of what it is, shows that this article is disputed. Apparently if only one side of the story is to be shown like you have tried recurringly, this article will be disputed. Sorry to inform you, but this is not a sina-lovers site. By constantly alleging that I am inserting bias, you should be glad your edits to the article are no longer apparent, otherwise you would be pretty embarassed when people see the bias and "cyber terrorism" that you have inflicted on this article. I am hoping that even you can end your constant attacking others, accept neutrality and finally realize that this is an encyclopedia. Look up the word if you have to. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 21:00, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech on Wikipedia Under Attack.
Freedom of speech on Wikipedia is under attack by Muslims, who patrol this encyclopedia and act as police thought removing any article that they think does not favor their point of views POV. This is admitted by the user Anonymous editor who in his own introduction defines his role as “thought police”.

How can we expect neutrality from believers in any religion about what they believe?

Other Muslim users are doing the same. They are constantly removing articles that they think are critical of Islam without justification or providing opposing views. By doing so, they are hijacking Wikipedia and freedom of speech. This problem must be addressed and clear guidelines set in place or Wikipedia will become another Islamic propaganda outlet. Hooliganism should not be allowed.

The article I posted in this entry is by no means biased. It defines the views of one person on Islam. Ali Sina’s site is linked to tens of thousands of sites on the Internet and receives hundreds of thousands of visitors every month. It is important to define his views, whether right or wrong in a factual and concise way. I have not expressed any support or favoritisms of his views. I simply stated what he thinks. Muslims wish to undermine anyone who is critical of their faith. So they remove my article as soon as I post it claiming it is not neutral. I have only stated what Sina thinks, without saying whether he is right or wrong. How can this be “un-neutral”? Muslims want me to post the views of the critics of Sina too. This is what should go in external links and there is a good list of sites critical of Sina in this article. Nonetheless I added the views of Sina’s harshest critics about him, but still Muslims removed my article. I am inviting others to participate in this discussion and advise how we should solve the problem of Islamic bullying in Wikipedia. This is a threat to our freedom of speech. In Islamic countries freedom of speech is inexistent. Can we afford this happening also in Wikipedia? [User:72.21.32.122.]


 * Ali Sina has been in no semi-notable printed encyclopedia. Wikipedia because of its medium can include more things than a printed encyclopedia, however, that does not mean there are not standards.  I personally believe that this article, although not exactly notable, should be kept.  This is because I am more inclusionist than not, not because Ali Sina deserves an article.  POV does go both ways, secularism and "free-thinkers" can have a strong point of view just like Muslims.  We do have problems with Muslims trying to make the articles NPOV and almost selling Islam, but, we often have more people against Islam trying to sell their interpretation as what Islam is.
 * Also, for the person adding many quotes, please put them on wikiquotes, an encyclopedic article is not a litany of a man's sayings.
 * gren 18:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 72.21.32.122, you seem to love making attacks against people, but you disregard the main purpose here. What you fail to understand is that this is Wikipedia, not one of Sina's personal sites and that it must remain neutral. By adding pro-Sina quotes throughout the first section of this article, you are bringing bias to wikipedia and you have done nothing more than that. You are counter-productive as I had repeatedly told you to add any factual material you have to the article, but add the quotes to the proper designated section. But all you have done so far is make attacks against me, Muslims and Islamic countries and making the article biased using "freedom of speech" as a pathetic excuse to make this nothing more than an Islamic hate article. Regardless of what sina's views are, this article should remain unbiased, and you fail to understand that. You have blindly used the excuse that I am Muslim to say that I am adding pro-Islamic material, when really I have added little or no material at all. I have only removed the small bits of material that you fail to understand belongs in the "Quotes" section (what Gren also mentioned). Gren is also correct that he is in no other semi-notable encyclopedia.
 * You persistently say things such as "but still Muslims removed my article" - the article hasn't been removed, it hasn't even gone through an application for deletion. What are you talking about?
 * You said "They remove my article" - are you trying to say that you ARE Sina???


 * Regardless, stop using the excuse that I am a Muslim as a motive to undermine any edits I make to this article or any other Muslim makes. If I hadn't said I was a "convert to Islam" on my user page, you would have never said what you did. These constant allegations and anger towards my edits, shows that you are nothing more than an anti-Islamic POV pusher. Furthermore, I am indeed trying to "advocate neutrality" and I have shown that in my edits, but you have failed to understand that because of your stubborness to understand other points of view, failure to read Wikipedia policy, and wanting to make this nothing more than another Sina-lovers webpage.Thanks. --Anonymous editor 19:21, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Anonymous editor. You keep saying I am posting pro-Sina quotes. Can you point out which of the quotes I posted, are pro-Sina? I am simply quoting what he says and you don&#8217;t like what he says. I did not write a word in his favor nor did I quote anyone praising him. We have now quotes of his critics but none of his fans. So what are you talking about? Your problem is that you have converted to Islam and you can&#8217;t tolerate apostates. Period! What do you think of Ibn Warraq, Taslima Nasrin, Hirshi Ali, Rushdie? Do you think any one of them is worth having an entry in Wikipedia?
 * What I wrote is factual. Show me which part of it is not factual; show which part is subjective. Discuss it here but don&#8217;t keep removing my article each time I post it.
 * &#8220;are you trying to say that you ARE Sina???&#8221;
 * My article means the article that I wrote. The one that you keep removing.
 * With the pretext of &#8220;neutrality&#8221; you patrol Wikipedia and act as thought police. This is exactly how you described yourself in your &#8220;philosophy&#8221;. Instead of constantly removing what I post, why don&#8217;t you say which part of my article is biased. Show where I said Sina is right or his views are correct. I simply stated what he said. The &#8220;history&#8221; in this entry shows that every time I posted my version, you immediately reverted it without any justification. You kept saying my version is not neutral without providing any evidence.
 * In fact I called you Islamophile even before reading your page are realizing you are a convert. Your bias shows very clearly.
 * "Furthermore, I am indeed trying to "advocate neutrality"."
 * No, you are not. Let us bring this discussion to public, perhaps take it to Freedom of Speech page in Wikipedia and see what others think about you.
 * In fact you confessed that your constant manipulations and bullying causes frequent friction and angers many Wikipedia users.
 * Would you like to debate with Mr. Sina and prove he is wrong?[User:72.21.32.122.]


 * Its funny how you keep leveling the same allegations against me constantly. I gave support for every single one of my edits when I edited the POV that you were pushing, while all you did is make constant attacks against me. Seriously if you are trying to push your opinion, please take it to Sina's site, because it is not needed here. You fail to understand this is an encyclopedia and with the pretext of "freedom of speech" you think you can add non-neutral, and eventually even hate material, on Wikipedia. This is not acceptable and with your constant POV pushing and zealous protection of Sina, while others wish to make this article neutral, you may even arouse suspicion that you are Sina himself, here to frequently gather support for your views.


 * You also said "would you like to debate with Mr.Sina and prove he is wrong?" - what are you trying to say. Are you Sina's personal secretary? I never said anything about Sina being wrong or right, I said that the proper material should be put in the desingnated sections. Why do you find it so hard to add proper quoted material to the appropriate section? Its not that hard, all you have to do is listen to other's views before you start attacking them with using made up terms such as "Islamophile".


 * Look at the article now. see how it is starting to show both sides of the story without quoting endless material from sina's site and his supporters. This is called neutrality. It is time you stop being a bigot and accept that this is an encyclopedia, not a 6th grade essay. End of discussion. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 20:48, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * IPaddress (72.21.32.122), Taslima Nasrin is the author of semi-notable books about Islam, Ibn Warraq is likewise (moreso, as you can find his works in Borders/Barnes&Nobles). Salman Rushdie is actually a best selling novelist.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a member of the Ducth parliament....... Ali Sina runs a website.  There is a big difference in opposing this article than opposing many others.  Constantly quoting someone on their page does not create neutrality – and asking an editor to debate the subject of this page is senseless, so please don't do things like that.  If you would like to ask other notable users to look here and help try to mediate for neutrality than do so.  gren 21:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Anonymous editor, you are demonstrating your fear of Ali Sina. Even if what Sina says is hate material it is his views. Don&#8217;t we have the views of Hitler, the fascists, the Satanists, the KKK and other hate mongers in Wikipedia? Does this mean those who post those views agree with them? Apart from the fact that Sina&#8217;s site is not a hate site as you Muslims keep saying his views have to be explained in a clear language, not from the point of view of his enemies and detractors but factually and objectively without bias. That is what I have done in my article on him. I even provided the views of his critics without quoting his fans. So if anything, the article is tilted against him. I intend to do the same for other apostates.
 * Encyclopedias explain the opinions of the people that they record. This does not mean they agree with those views. Many people say the Quran is a hate book. Shall we stop mentioning this book because some people think it is not a good book? Many people say the Prophet Muhammad was a terrorist, can we delete his entry? Let us be objective. This is an encyclopedia for reporting facts not biases. You are a Muslim. You can&#8217;t be objective and a believer at the same time. You accuse me of being Sina supporter. I have not expressed my views on Sina yet. So you are just speculating. For the sake of argument, let us say I am. But I am not his follower. I can be objective about him. I can agree with parts and disagree with other parts of what Sina says. You on the other hand are a follower of Muhammad. You can&#8217;t claim objectivity. You love Muhammad and you hate anyone who criticizes him. You just can&#8217;t help it. You removed the link to Sina&#8217;s collections of essays. Why? It is because you don&#8217;t like people find them easily. The more obstacles you create for people to read what Sina says, the more content you become. In fact if it was left to you, you would delete this entire entry. At the same time you are afraid facing him and proving him wrong. Is it because you know you can&#8217;t?
 * You have accused me ten times of pushing my POV. I asked you repeatedly, which part of the article I wrote is my personal POV. You failed to specify but kept rehashing your attack. You are not an impartial person. It would be ludicrous to assume believers of any faith can be impartial about their faith.
 * No I am not Sina&#8217;s secretary but his challenge is open to everyone. All you have to do is to write in his forum and say where he has gone wrong. I think you should accept his challenge. After all you are the one who says his claims are all contested in other Islamic sites.
 * "Look at the article now. see how it is starting to show both sides of the story without quoting endless material from sina's site and his supporters. This is called neutrality"So you think the article is neutral now? But this is my article. Someone has divided it in sections. Apart from that nothing is changed.
 * "It is time you stop being a bigot and accept that this is an encyclopedia, not a 6th grade essay."
 * I think it is time that you stop being a bigot and accept that this is 21st Century and not 7th century Arabia. Feel free to disagree but do not act as thought police. This is what you wrote about yourself.
 * Despite all those flowery talk about neutrality, it is very clear why you are here. You are here to act as thought police and not allow any criticism of Islam and Muslims. You have caused discord before and have been nuisance to others. This is Islamic cyber terrorism. Now that I have the pleasure of knowing you and have become familiar with your role in Wikipedia, I will follow you and see that you do not act as hooligan and bully other posters in Wikipedia. This is a free encyclopedia and this is a free country. We do not want thought police and censorships. Go to Saudi Arabia if you can&#8217;t tolerate opposing views.
 * "Ali Sina runs a website"
 * Yes, but it is a website that receives millions of visitors. More people have read faithfreedom.org than the books and sites of other apostates you mentioned. Just compare their personal pages with alexa.com. As I understand Sina&#8217;s book is under print too. Anyway this I am not trying to compare these apostates. It is very possible that the others are more important than Sina. Here we are talking whether Anonymous editor has the right to delete my articles without specifying which part of it is not neutral. [The preceding was an unsigned comment left by User:72.21.32.122. ]


 * I believe we have come to the end of the discussion. If all you are going to do is blindly accuse me of being a "thought police", "hooligan", and "bully", and completely misinterpret what I was saying before, then I don't think anyone should waste anymore time talking to you. I told you which sections I objected to and why they shouldn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Maybe you should actually look at the present article and see why your version was not neutral. You have completely disregarded any specifications I made to you and think that the article is YOUR article, which is very arrogant considering that so many people have worked on it and started it for that matter. Also, You seem to think by making attacks against Muslims and Islamic beliefs you can somehow gain a licence to implement bigoted views, evade neutrality, and render it into sina-supporting article. I am sorry, but this is Wikipedia and you will find that most of the editors here support a neutral point of view, and accusing them of "fearing" a guy with his own pathetic webpage or making personal attacks against them is not going to deter them from implementing Wikipedia policy. I think we should move on and see what becomes of the article, rather then having you trying to debate me over material that has already been removed with good reason. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 22:42, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes this is wikipediea and neutrality is essential. But you are not neutral and you can&#8217;t be. You are a believer. How can we expect neutrality from a believer? A neutral believer is oxymoron by definition. As a believer you are not even qualified to give your opinion. It is like asking a son to be part of the jury in the trial of his father. Your presence in pages that Islam is discussed is conflict of interest. You are disqualified because you simply can&#8217;t be neutral. It is not in the nature of any believer to be impartial about his faith. Of course the article is not entirely mine. That is quite obvious, but you removed my version, the part that I wrote, not those of others.
 * Them? Who are them? I am talking about YOU. YOU are the one who is afraid of any link leading to Sina&#8217;s site. You are sitting in front of your computer 24/7 policing to see who posts anything against your religion and since you are unable to refute what others say all you can do is censor. You are the one who is removing all the links so it becomes difficult for the readers to get to the pages. Why? What are you afraid of? How an article can become more neutral by removing the links, Mr. America Taliban?
 * I have no desire debating with you but at the same time I will not let you convert Wikipedia in an Islamic site. One thing we can&#8217;t tolerate is thought police. As I said now that I have the pleasure of knowing you, I will follow you like shadow in Wikipedia and will stop you from causing cyber terrorism, hooliganism and bullying people. No wonder people everywhere are tired of you. I think your records should be checked by FBI. My experience tells me those Muslims who are involved cyber bullying often are also involved in actual terrorism. [User:72.21.32.122]


 * There you go, your attacks are pretty self explanatory and they support what I said before. You are indeed a hypocrit, and your recent attacks further indicate that you have no credibility as an editor, let alone giving any chance of you being neutral. The pathetic attacks with which you say I am a "terrorist" simply because I converted to Islam, and that I am "Mr. America taliban", clearly proves that you have no intentions of working productively with other editors. Thanks for proving my previous points and please take your sina-support to Sina's site. --Anonymous editor 00:49, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * 72.21.32.122, I would like to point out No personal attacks to you. As it states many wikipedians remove such attacks.  I, on the other hand, like to leave them because I think it speaks a deal about the editor's opinions and can often help show a bias that they could otherwise attempt to hide.  If a believer's neutrality is an oxymoron (which, it is not an oxymoron by definition by any sense -- although it could foreseeably be true) then a non-believer's neutrality will also be an "oxymoron".  The thing is that believers have defined what Islam is throughout the centuries, not non-believers.  What Ali Sina does is interpret Islam coming up with viewpoints from his own attempted tafsirs -- then he tries to place those viewpoints on all Muslims claiming that they should accept them if they are Muslim.  I'm not sure that the outside view really gives him any more objectivity, nor does yours.  Islam is first defined by what works you accept, typically the Qur'an or maybe a Khalifa small variation of it, and then likely some set of hadith.  Sina acts just like a priest of some sect telling Muslims what they should believe if they want to be Muslim.  This does not mean Muslims are what he says, or that Muslims prescribe to his identification of what a Muslim is.  Therefore putting the Sina bias into articles is denying that Muslim/Islam can be a term of self-definition but then is defining it necessarily through Sina's terms.  This isn't how encyclopedia's work, they are not in the business of defining what religions are, but they report. I digressed. gren 13:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Everyone has an opinion and naturally to certain extent we are all biased. But generally we also are open to opposing views and if find enough evidence we are willing to change our views. This is not the case with believers. It is the nature of religious beliefs to exclude any opposing view. In Islam especially this censorship of opposing views is more noticeable than in any other religion. In no other religion the law of apostasy is death. It is a fact that Muslims cannot tolerate opposing views. Whether the apostates and critics of Islam’s definition is right or wrong is beside the point. Jews do not agree with Espinosa and Christians do not agree with Bertrand Russell, but the views of these thinkers are not censored. Jews and Christians refute their critics but do not censor them. Why is it that Muslims don’t try to refute their critics and instead engage in censorship? This is not about Sina; this is about freedom of speech. This is about my right to exercise my human right to express my opinion. The version given about Islam in the entry of Islam is not shared by everyone. That version expresses the Islamic point of view which is not shared by its critics. That version should stay but the views of the critics of Islam must also be heard. That is what neutrality is all about. Neutrality is not the imposition of the views of the believers about their religion. Muslims are patrolling Wikipedia and removing any article critical of Islam. This is not freedom of speech. This is hooliganism, cyber terrorism, Islamic Gestapo. That can’t be tolerated. You have to let people say things that you do not agree with. You are most welcome to refute them but you are not allowed to act as thought police and decide what people should read. There are many people who disagree with Islam. Is it right for them to just delete the entry of Islam because they do not agree with it? If you don’t think that would be right then it is not right for Muslims to remove articles which they do not find agreeable either. Just write your criticism of what you do not agree with and let the readers read both versions. You have no right to decide unilaterally that people who disagree with your faith are not neutral and hence should be thrown out of Wikipedia and only your version should be heard. I am willing to take this discussion to a wider audience. Maybe we should start this debate in the Freedom of Speech entry. [User:72.21.32.122]


 * It does actually seem that this Ali Sina is a nobody, really. Okey. This guy has a website. So?

Criticism of Sina
Dear Grenavitar. Calling someone “a rabid anti-Islamic zealot” or “mischievous liar” are just ad-hominem an insult. There is little scholarly value to these comments and do not reflect too good on the critics. It is important to be more specific and show exactly the areas of discrepancies between Sina and his opponents. I am going through the criticisms made against Sina and I find many interesting comments made by his opponents. [user: 72.21.32.122]


 * I think it first needs to be pointed out that ad-hominem is not necessarily bad and it's tiresome to always see it thrown about as an insult. As for that specific instance I'm not sure what exactly is wrong with it.  Sina describes himself as someone vehemently anti-Islamic.  So, if we just change vehement to zealot, both of which get across the same basic idea then we have Yamin Zakaria's statement.  As for does it reflect well on him or not... I wouldn't be so worried.  From what I have seen, many of those willing to debate with Sina are not the best (or even most mediocre) Muslim scholars.  When you are dealing with someone like Sina with the stated cause to convert people away from Islam most people are not going to take him seriously.  Sina's page and his arguments are all ad-hominem, well, actually ad-Islam (or whatever Islam is in Latin).  It is very difficult to figure out how to deal with this article because the notion of "who is notable that talks about Ali Sina" is hard to figure as Ali Sina himself is at the bottom level of notability for what wikipedia accepts.  I'd like you to propose what you think should be done (and hopefully it will not be constantly quoting Sina in his intro) and then we can see how other users view that. gren 28 June 2005 12:29 (UTC)

This is in response to what has been discussed here http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ali_Sina

Notability does not mean likeability. Osama Bin Laden, Zaqawi, Pol Pot, or criminals like Jack the Ripper are not likeable but they are mentioned in books and encyclopedias and are notable. I am fully aware that anyone who criticizes Islam is worthless for Muslims, Salman Rushie was given a death decree and his book was burned. Many bookstores carrying his book were bombed and a couple of translators of his book were assassinated. For Muslims, Rushdie is scum and his books are worthless. Whether Muslims are right about Rushdie or not is not the point. The point is that one does not have to be right or likable to be noteworthy. Many noteworthy people are just notorious. Anyone who has an opinion that is controversial and is read and discussed by a lot of people is noteworthy irrespective of the correctness or incorrectness of his views. Ali Sina is enough important at least for a group of Muslims to create an entire site, calling it after his site just to refute what he and other writers in faithfreedom.org say. Another Islamic site dedicated to Sina’s site and refuting what he says is Bismikaallahuma.com. There are at least two Islamic sites and tens of articles in other sites written by Muslims that are just to refute him and other writers in faithfreedom.org. So obviously he is not as insignificant as you claim. I have quoted the opinions of Sina’s critics and provided links to them, including those that are disparaging. Is Mr. Sina worth mentioning? A google search with “Faith freedom international” results in nearly 60,000 entries. Tens of thousands more entries can be found when search is done with faithfreedom and “Ali Sina”. Several important sites such as AsiaTimes.com WorldNetDaily.com and Frontpagemag.com [ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 ]have written about him and several other important sites have published his articles. The point is that he is noteworthy. This does not mean he is right. I did not say that he is. I did not say Rushdie is right either. However, those who criticize Islam do not become automatically insignificant just because Muslims don’t like what they say. An encyclopedia is to provide a balanced expose of people who are noteworthy. The very fact that Mr. Zakaria, Mr. Edip Yuksel, and other prominent Muslims debated with Mr. Sina and have published their debates in their sites shows that at least they think he is important enough to be refuted. Please do not confuse noteworthiness with likeability or correctness. Sina is noteworthy because he is read by millions. He is liked by some and disliked by others. He is a controversial personage. The job of Wikipeia is not to take side and list only people who are liked or precisely people who are liked by Muslims. In Islamic countries criticism of Islam is banned and critics are jailed or killed. In free societies we can’t tolerate his intolerance. The critics of Christianity, Judaism and all other religions have the same rights to express their views as the supporters of these religions have. I urge Muslims to exercise restraint and Wikipedia which is a free and unbiased encyclopedia to remain free and unbiased. Maybe you can start another Islamic encyclopedia where you control what goes in and censor all opposing views. But please let Wikepedia remain neutral. Thanks for your consideration. I don’t think the pretext that one is not known in the “real world” is a valid criterion. Ibn Warraq is world famous critic of Islam. Ibn Warraq is a pseudonym. I have not personally seen Sina saying Ali Sina is not his real name. If it is not, it is understandable for safety reason. [User: 72.21.32.122]


 * Please do make such broad generalizations. I know Muslims who have read the book and don't mind him.  The only person I've seen criticize him for the book was my Catholic teacher who thought it was highly insulting.  worldnetdaily is just cheap Christian propaganda.  Edip Yuksel is not notable and neither is Zakaria.  They do not nearly pass notability standards for any other encyclopedia.  The only reason they are even considered is because wikipedia has lower standards.  As I have said before I don't mind him have a page, but all that you have said does not make him notable.  Maybe if he is published in a printed book or written about by some scholar then you'd have a point.  But you show us the unnotable world of internet religious squabbling which no scholars take seriously. gren 28 June 2005 21:59 (UTC)

AMAZING

When it comes to Yusuf Estes he is a sleazy business man and this dude gets a free pass!!! AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!

HE is sleavy

HE is an abuser

HE preaches hate

He advocates violence

And yet all I see is a tap on the wrist

And a GOOD MAN who opposes Sufism he is sleazy

ghee, and u call this neutrality?

Recent tug of war
I tried to NPOV the article and Whiteknight has tugged it back towards a glorification of Ali Sina. Whiteknight, if you try to turn the page into a puff piece for Ali Sina, someone is sure to put it up for deletion. It seems that we may have to work through this sentence by sentence. You may not realize how POV some of your edits sound to people who don't share your views. Zora 6 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)


 * Hi Zora. Who do you think quoted those vitriolic criticisms of Ali Sina? I did! So you can’t accuse me of glorifying Ali Sina. I quoted the vicious attacks on him by his critics without quoting any of his supporters. Don’t you think it is fair to give the full picture? Zakaria is an unabashed terrorist supporter. When he says Sina calls for the massacre of Muslims, he lies. I read their entire debate. I have never read anything like that from Sina. This is out of character of Sina and against anything he writes. We can't just quote a slander as if it were true without any comment. Did you read the debate between Zakaria and Sina? I urge you to read it so you can know Mr. Zakaria better. He has called for the genocide of the Jews. You want to leave his false accusations of Sina without even mentioning that such a claim is not backed by any evidence? Here we have some false statement about Sina by his mortal enemies; we have no quote from his fans, and you suggest we should not even say the accusation is not cannot be verified? I quoted Mr. Zakaria, fully knowing he is lying. So I made it clear that Zakaria’s claim is not evidenced by Sina’s writings. You want to leave Zakaria’s slander and remove my clarification? In this article we have the views of Sina’s enemies about him, but no word of his fans. Even clarifying the libels are not allowed. Do you call this neutral POV? It is actually character assassination. -White Knight

I would have to read the interview, but it strikes me that your summary of Mr. Zakaria's comments isn't fair. Zakaria is against the Golden Rule? Zakaria is against Gandhi and Krishnamurti? I also find it hard to believe that Ali Sina, who speaks with so much anger, considers himself a disciple of Gandhi and Krishnamurti. Neither of those esteemed gentlemen EVER talked like that. In fact, Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu radical because Gandhi insisted on fairness to Muslims, re payments to the new state of Pakistan.

You're taking the liberty of picking the most inflammatory quotes from his critics that you can find, then refuting them with much scorn ... but you don't seem to be allowing any REAL criticism of Ali Sina. I guess I'll have to go digging and become a critic who can talk back.Zora 6 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)


 * "I would have to read the interview"
 * Dear Zora, I asure you once you do that, we won't be disagreeing anymore. In fact you will find the views of Mr. Zakaria are very shocking (that is an understatement). Many Muslims also find his views objectionable. Also you may also change your views about Sina being angry. This is a contentious subject and he has strong views. But it is unfair to say he is angry. Once you read a few of his articles you'll see what I mean. I can see now what is the problem with Wikipedia. The problem is that people generally write with no or little knowledge of the subject they write about. This can't happen in other encyclopedias. Here is what Sina says about Gandhiand Krishnamurti (easy to find with google) :) -White Knight

Vanity para about Sina's beliefs views removed -Idmkhizar


 * Dear Idmkhizar,
 * How can the views of someone about something other than himself be vanity views? Are we not really letting our dislike of Sina's views control our sense of fairness? So you are of the opinion that once we publish the slanders made against one person and say what his enemeis say about him we have given a good description of him and not even his view need to be discussed?

Khizar- ok then what about the article Edip Yuksel where the following para was considered vanity: "Together with other progressive brothers and sisters, Edip promotes monotheism and freedom, participates in charity work, and promotes protection of the environment, peace, critical thinking, scientific method, and philosophical inquiry. As an individual and as a member of Islamic reform movement, he stands against evil, such as hero-worship, injustice, racism, violence, imperialism, unreasonable discrimination, oppression, torture, apathy, arrogance, greed, corruption, waste, misogyny, xenophobia, jingoism, sexual promiscuity, alcohol, drugs, gambling, economic exploitation, fraud, usury, condensation of wealth in the hands of few, and manipulation of masses via nationalistic and religious hormones." That was also an expression of beliefs and it was termed vanity but when Ali Sinas article contains something similar then its not vanity. Cld u explain tht to me plz? -- user:idmkhizar


 * Dear Idmkhizar. There is a world of difference between what you wrote about Edip Yuksel and the article posted here about Ali Sina. In this article we are not singing the praise of Ali Sina. We are stating his views about Islam without agreeing or disagreeing with him. There is no word of praise about Sina in this article. This article says what Sina says and what his critics say about him. To be fair, since the diatribes of his opponents are quoted we should have quoted his fans too. Yet we did not do that. So if anything the article is prejudicial against Sina. While what you wrote about Mr. Yuksel is nothing but glorification of him, how wonderful he is, how saintly he is, etc. All that could be true but certainly the opponents of Mr. Yuksel don’t agree with that assessment and therefore those statements are not neutral points of views.


 * "Together with other progressive brothers and sisters,”


 * “Progressive” is a personal view. Mr. Yuksel’s opponents do not see him as progressive.


 * “Edip promotes monotheism and freedom, participates in charity work, …” all these are personal opinions. Please do not confuse biography with adulation. -White Knight

My revert
Just to make things clear - all I was reverting was the wholesale addition of "bigate.com" redirect links in the article. I suspect the Anon is running a proxy or program or some sort that automatically converts all links into that format. All I did was remove those; I have no comment on the conent. Now that those are gone, reversions and editing on the actual content can commence. --Golbez 18:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

article title
since "Ali Sina" is just a pseudonym, not used outside the context of his website, this article is actually an article about a website. So I propose it be moved to faithfreedom.org to reflect that. I have my doubts about the notability of the website, and maybe there should be a vfd about it, but since we have GNAA and Time Cube, I suppose it should stay. dab (&#5839;) 12:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That is a good point. The only information we have about Ali Sina is that given from his website, which makes the topic inherently POV... but, if we can have similar cases like Ibn Warraq... I'm not sure.  I can't give what I think is right but I hope more people reply to this. gren 19:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Bias detected in the "Opposing views" section of the article
The link to Edip Yuksel's refutation article is leads to faithfreedom.org(Ali's site) ionstead of 19.org(Edip's site) and this is biased because it is supposed to be an OPPOSING VIEW and that can not possibly come from a site which favorsthe article. I had changed the link but somebody is insiting on bias. Please refrain from such. -- user:idmkhizar


 * Edip Yuksel has not published his debate with Ali Sina in his site. The link you gave was a link to Mr. Yuksel’s site, not his debate with Ali Sina. If Mr. Yuksel decides to publish his debate with Ali Sina, we can point to that debate in his site. -White Knight

THIS IS SICK!!!

THIS IS SOOO BIASED!!!

YOU PEOPLE ARE EVIL &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.241.112 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 31 July 2005.

This article seems a lot more like an advertisement for Mr. Sina's website than an encyclopedia article DigiBullet 17:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC) y do u show ip addresses?

so someone can track a person down and hurt em? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.27.68 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 3 August 2005.


 * I showed his IP (as I just did yours) because it is proper to use Template:Unsigned if an anoymous user does not sign his comment with the date and time. If you would or the previous editor would not like your IP shown (it's already in history) then I recommend making a username.  Also, I don't believe anyone will will track down and hurt someone for saying this article is sick -- at least I should hope not. gren グレン 18:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS A VERY BIASED PIECE

THE OLD ONE WAS BETTER

YOU CANT PROMOTE HIS LIKE THIS

I CALL FOR REWRITING

CALL FOR REASON

OK, DONT CHANGE THE ARTICLE BUT CAN U PLZ SHOW THE QUOTES WHERE HE INSULTS MUSLIMS AND THREATENS THEM WITH DEATH??

THAT WOULD BE FAIR AND BALANCED

What defines 'Criticism'
I'm sorry but the charges that have been brought against Ali Sina are part of his web personality and thus MUST be reported for an objective view of his projection. To call these "character assasinations" is paranoid and irrational, as is the selective removal of reference material (predominantly from non-muslim sources) and quotes (which are fairly referenced).

We hope that all free thinkers can make their own decisions for themselves.

NB. Also please try and keep an eye spelling and grammar.

Difficulty of Being Impartial
Dear Anonymous editor, It is very clear that writing about Ali Sina is very controversial. That is because he is controversial. This is a very contentious subject and it is difficult to be impartial. Let us see my points and see which once you don't like so we can remove them together.

Some of the things that were written in his entry were useless. For example:

“When questioned, Ali Sina has claimed having a doctorate but to avoid giving the impression that he is some sort of authority he claims that he prefers not to use his title and also because his field of studies have nothing to do with his writings about Islam.”

What is the relevance of this? First of all it is not a big deal to have a doctorate. The guy can write and he writes fairly good. He could be a doctor. So what? Why this should be of any importance to anyone. What are we trying to say? That he is not a doctor but claims to be one? Or that he is is a doctor but too modest to say it? In either case the information is irrelevant.

No one know much about him becoouse he has not been forthcomming with information about himself. That is all we shoud say and leave specualtions aside. Whether he is a doctor or not, we could not care less.

He claims to hide his identity because he says he fears for his life. Well there has been some death threats agaisnt him, so this could be true. Nonetheless the fear could be subjective. We can’t justify the death threats but it is important to say why Muslims are angry at him. It is all because of his retorics against Islam. This information is relevant and not a POV. Then I wrote: “FFI has become a meeting ground for all anti Islamists, who use the Net to expound their criticism of Islam and accuse this religion of a billion people of virtually everything that has gone wrong in the Muslim world. They comprise not just ex-Muslims but anyone with an axe to grind against Islam.” Is this a personal POV? Do you have a different POV? . I wrote about the site becoming popular not because it is factual but becaue it is controversial. We can’t say the site is not factual because that would be a POV but it is a fact that the site is very controversial. This in my view explains the Google result. “Sina’s opponents accuse him of inciting hate, a charge that he denies claming his attack is against Islam, which is an ideology and not Muslims, whom he often refer to as “victims”. Here I have tried to be as unbiased as possible. The site is accused of inciting hate and he does deny the charges. These are facts. Who is right? That is up to the readers to decide.

I slso removed Zakaria’s disagreement with the Golden Rule. That is something that should be discussed in a page dedicated to Zakaria. Apart from these, I did some minor editting. I also softened the ostensibly hostile language. This will make the facts look as if written from a biased point of view and result in the reader taking side with the person who is vilified. It is not a good idea to make someone look like a victim. This arouses sympathy and more support for him. Just write what he wrote and let the readers judge. I also invite you to be specific when you say what I wrote is POV. Which part is POV? I would be glad to rewise. Cheers OceanSplash


 * Dear OceanSplash, the reason I reverted your edit is because you made several major changes to the article, which took many months for the contributors of the article to reach consensus. I am sure that all sides of the dispute would not be happy with the changes and many would consider it POV. Rather than wasting my time and yours on addressing each of the issues you raised step by step, I will integrate your edits into the original article wherever possible. This way we can address any minor disputes that arise later. Please check the article soon to see the changes. By the way, if you have a message that is directed at me specifically, please post it on my talk page. Hope that helps, a-n-o-n-y-m  01:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Anonymous editor,


 * Thank you for the reply. Althogh the message is directed at you, it is actually not a personal message. I addresed it to you because I wanted to see your reasons for reverting my version.


 * I realize that this page has been created after months of exchanges. It actually shows. :) At this point, the article requires a major polishing and that is what I did. My own input actually is minor but a good editing is needed badly.


 * As I explained, some of the paragraphs are so much changed that they seem to be out of place and irrelevant. For example whether Mr. Sina is Dr. Sina or what Mr. Zakaria thinks about the Golden Rule don’t seem to be important in the context of this article. I am sure originally they must have been part of an imporatnat agument, but as they stand now, they seem out of place.


 * You also repeated that “much of the material added by OS is POV”. I trid to avoid personal points of views. Maybe I fialed. So I would be much obliged if you could kindly point out exactly which ones. Often we are blinded by our own errors and a helping hand can go a long way. Can you please tell me which part of what I wrote are personal points of views?


 * There are also misrepresentations in this version. For example this one.


 * “American Muslim converts are no better than Saudi terrorists.”


 * This sounds terrible. But when I checked the source and read the entire passage I got a very different picture. Here it is:


 * “First of all let us make this clear. This is not about Arabs. Some Arabs are Christians and some are apostates. They are the salt of the Earth. Arabs had a rich secular and tolerant culture before they succumbed to Islam. They are very hospitable and friendly people. It is all about Islam. I assure you that if America falls prey to Islam, the Americans will do what Muslims do with the same savagery. American Muslim converts are no better than Saudi terrorists.”


 * When we have these kinds of misrepresentations, we only show this piece is written by people who had an axe to grind. The problem with this approach is that this makes our subject look like a victim. When you are deliberately hostile towards someone, you actually make of him a hero. When you are impartial you get your point across much better. I don’t think we need to resort to tricks and character assassinations that can be uncovered so easily and make us look biased. We can be honest in reporting and acknowledge the merits and demerits of the person we want to review. This impartiality will make our views much more acceptable. You become more credible because you have shown that you are impartial.


 * Now with your permission, I will revert this article to my edited version and will be very grateful if you kindly say in this discussion room, which parts of my writings are personal or biased POVs. Let us go over them one by one and help me identify my weak points.


 * Thank you for your cooperation and your scholarly contribution.


 * Thank you for your response. I think we need to reach a compromise between versions and not have a complete revert. I have incorporated more of your material (as much as I think the article can withstand without changing majorly). See if you are satisfied, and if not we will continue to discuss changes one by one. So you can make a small list of the changes you want to be made here on the talk page, and other editors and I will debate that along with you. Once a consensus is reached, we can add the specific material that we agree upon. I think this is the best method. Ofcourse you can clean up the article to fix grammar, spelling, etc. without any explanation. Thanks for your input, a.n.o.n.y.m   t 02:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Anonymous editor, Thank you. You sound like a very mature person. I like you approach. I already made the changes that I think need to be done. Let us go over my edited version of the article and discard the paragraphs that are not right. I think you should tell me what parts of paragraph 1, 2, 3, etc. are not appropriate and should be eliminated. Also I removed a couple of paragraphs. Please tell me why you think those paragraphs are important. It is good to work with you. I am sure I am going to learn a lot. OceanSplash

Criticism Implies Subjectivity
criticism implies subjectivity - comments such as "His critics have alleged that he has been using inflammatory language" as opposed to "He has been criticized for the use of inflammatory language and inciting hatred" attempts to discredit those that have opposed Sina from the onset.

Also it is fair to say that historical perspective will be based on academics and not Ali Sina's view on history. It is fact that Ali Sina is an intellectual nobody. Until Sina establishes his history as fact his take on history will remain fringe.

Please learn to write with the correct grammar.


 * No, they are there to make it clear that the criticism raised against him is positions and not a facts, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Both Sina's views and the criticism that has been raised against him should be presented as positions, so that we leave the decision about who is right/wrong, to the reader of the article. Try to read Wikipedias policies about Neutral point of view. Also, If you are concerned about the grammar in this article, please feel free to fix that. -- Karl Meier 15:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

More inclusion of evidence in the Criticism section.
In the criticism section. I like to see more evidence of the things that Ali Sina has been critized of. Otherwise it just turn into accusations/conspiracies that muslims unjustifiably critized Ali Sina of being X,Y and Z without providing any evidence solely as a method of tarnishing his public reputation.

Example: Ali Sina is not a hypocrite just because muslims say he is. Evidence must be provided.

If you want to add some substance to the criticism against him, then find some critics outside Wikipedia that have done that, and add what they have used to substantiate their criticism. It is not acceptable that we do our own research in order to do that. We are not supposed to do that here at WIkipedia, please see: no original research. -- Karl Meier 09:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.


 * In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.

Refer to the sentences in bold. What I did was allowed. Ohanian 12:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You make your own original conclusions using primary source, and it's all based on your own original research. You can mention criticism that has been raised outside Wikipedia, but to make up your own criticism is not acceptable. Who says that these quotes add substance to the criticism that has been raised, except you? The critics should be allowed to speak for themself, and and choose what they believe add substance to their criticism of ALi Sina. It's not our job to make original research in order to substantiate their criticism. Another problem is that some of the bullets you have added is not criticism at all. "Supports the invasion of Iraq" is a point of view and should be in the views and believes section, (if anywhere) and the same is the case "believes that reason is a fool proof method of determining truth from falsehood". -- Karl Meier 13:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)