Talk:Islam in Finland

A few issues with this page
I know Wikipedia needs reliable sources so I'm not going to edit the page as I don't know any, and judging by the [citation needed] at many parts, neither does anyone else... However, I know for a fact that there are absolutely many more than 50,000-60,000 Muslims in Finland. Another inaccuracy is the time that the first Muslims arrived in Finland. What the page currently refers to is the mass immigration of Muslim-majority ethnic groups to Finland's modern borders, and that is an understandable mistake, however even that is inaccurate as there were already relatively many Tatars since the early 13th century when they fled from the Mongols; this is also an understandable mistake because they were apparently not explicitly called Tatars. Also remember that the Mongol Empire expanded to parts of what is now Karelia and other western parts of Russia, where some ethnic Finns lived at that time, and this influenced some to convert to Islam. It isn't widely remembered or even recognised that this happened because of four reasons: the Swedish elite of Finland that came from the west shortly before and continued to come at the same time with the Tatars and Mongols, did not approve of Islam. The Finnish and Karelian Muslims were also shunned by both the Christian and paganistic/shamanistic Finns and Karelians, so many of them lived in separate villages. The third reason is the second world war, when the Finnish army brought concentration camps in Karelia many Muslims were camped as well; some because "they side with Russia" and others because they refused to participate in the war. The fourth reason is maybe the most important, that all the mosques in Karelia were also demolished. Of course the government won't admit they persecuted for their religion, they just say they sided with Russia and get away with it... I'm sure records of the persecutions were kept but they are probably destroyed or lost in bottomless archives no one will find in decades, same way it has happened already before with other persecutions and the executions of civilians etc.

It isn't my intention to make Finland sound like an Islamophobic country, I'm a Muslim myself and have had less of that than I have had in other countries on vacations, but saying Finland has only had Muslims since recently is misleading and inaccurate. The reason there has to be more than 50,000-60,000 is that it is only the official statistic of people who are registered as Muslims, in addition it is only the number of such officially registered Sunni Muslims when the largest official organisations are Sunni. There also are Muslims that converted straight from paganism/shamanism that the Swedish Christian elite never recognised and most of these remain even in this day as Christian on paper, when the parents either baptise their kids to fit in. Increasingly more often people are officially "irreligious", many who convert to Islam from Christianity simply resign from the church and are officially atheists, especially Shites. I was always a Shite, so are my parents, etc. but all without religion on paper, there is nothing to gain from registering the religion when there isn't even a proper way to do it. In polls that ask what religion you are, they most often do not have Islam as even an option or they have Sunnism by default, too. There are small Muslim-majority towns, whose ancestors converted to Islam from paganism/shamanism and they still incorporate some elements of the paganistic/shamanistic past religion, so they are thus not recognised as Muslims by officials.

Consider all that and count the statistics that there are more people that believe in God than there are people who would proportionally believe, meaning some atheists believe in God and of course that isn't true, and there must be at least 200,000 Muslims. This number also grows because of immigration and refugees, and even though people say it's racist to say that Somali immigrants have kids at the rabbit's pace, it's true. Some other Africans do too, there are even starting to be actual black ghettos in some parts of Helsinki, and most are Muslims. Then, think of how many white Finnish women marry black Muslim men and become automatically converted. AliHautala (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islam in Finland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101005103538/http://evl.fi/EVLen.nsf/Documents/EA1D4764D54DB72DC225730F00228C15?OpenDocument&lang=EN to http://evl.fi/EVLen.nsf/Documents/EA1D4764D54DB72DC225730F00228C15?openDocument&lang=EN
 * Added tag to http://pxweb2.stat.fi/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=030_vaerak_tau_102_en&ti=Language+according+to+age+and+gender+by+region+1990+-+2009&path=..%2FDatabase%2FStatFin%2Fvrm%2Fvaerak%2F&lang=1&multilang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927185716/http://www.logosmedia.fi/artikkeliarkisto/islamsuomessa.html to http://www.logosmedia.fi/artikkeliarkisto/islamsuomessa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism and radicalisation
I would argue that the Terrorism and radicalisation section does not belong in this article, because it implies (in violation of neutrality) that these elements are a natural part of Islam. There is not a terrorism section in Christianity in the United States even though Christian-motivated terrorism is a thing, nor is there even a terrorism section in Islam in the United States, because terrorism is not an inherent part of Islam. We could create a section in Islamic terrorism regarding terrorist acts in Finland, but we should not have the section here.

I am pinging several users who have recently been involved in either removing or restoring this content to enter this discussion: -- WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely agree that there is a extremist/terrorist ideology attached to most religions, and I suspect there is not a terrorism section in Christianity in the United States because you would have difficulty obtaining consensus to add it as many adherents (being a large chunk of the editors on the English wiki) would be opposed. That the events in Finland are so closely related to Islamic terrorism, and that the majority of those tracked by Finnish internal are adherents, seem to be notable - and referenced. Ifnord (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that the events are notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion at the Islamic terrorism article, but to include them in the article titled "Islam in Finland" makes the implicit statement that "terrorism is a part of Islam, and therefore must be covered in the Islam in ..." article. Neutrality demands that we do not make the judgement that terrorism is an inherent part of Islam, and therefore should not be included in this article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would advocate adding language that mainstream Islamists would use, that it is a religion of peace and that terrorism and violence is against mainstream teaching. This would balance the neutrality while maintaining the content. Ifnord (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel that the very presence of the content, no matter how presented, implies that terrorism is a part of the religion. Clearly, Ifnord and I disagree on this issue. I'd like to wait for other voices to weigh in on the matter. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Remove it, I agree with WikiDan61, I don't think that Islam's goal is terrorism and radicalization. Also as other users have pointed out every religion has some "terrorism" committed by a few outliers. Tepkunset (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTFORUM, we cannot take what editors thinks about a topic into account. The topic of this debate what the sources say and they say that there has been radicalisation in Finland. Removing the material would not neutrally represent available sources. If there have been terrorist attacks motivated by other religions in Finland, please add them to the relevant article. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC regarding the "Terrorism and radicalisation" section
Should the Islam in Finland section be retained? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Background
Please refer to the section above regarding the deletion or retention of this section. Given the failure of two editors ( and myself, ), I am requesting input from the wider community. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Intimations sent

 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finland
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism
 * Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view since WP:DUE redirects there.


 * Also pinging active users contributed to article Terrorism more than 4 percent content
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose I oppose the retention of the section, for the reasons stated above, namely that it violates neutrality to include the section on this page as such an inclusion implies that terrorism is an inherent part of Islam. While the facts presented are not in dispute, their inclusion here is. I recommend that the section be moved into Islamic terrorism instead. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTFORUM, we cannot take what editors think about a topic into account. The topic of this debate should be what the sources say and they say that there has been radicalisation in Finland. Removing the material would not neutrally represent available sources. If there have been terrorist attacks motivated by other religions in Finland, please add them to the relevant article. A Thousand Words (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As such I have discussed more in detail in bellow comment section, but while writing here I recollect couple of parallel examples. No doubt, I do agree with above contention of to be true with sourced information and not to rely on personal perceptions of any ideology or incident. For example communism (or for that matter capitalism) is ideology of economics and ideologies of economics can succeed even without violence so one need not consider violence to be inherent to communism, what violence happened or suggested by any one are their personal actions so despite availability of sources and citations do not point out violence in communism related articles. can we draw a parallel? 2021 United States Capitol attack are no way inherent ideal of U.S. democracy but happened and duly noted in the article United States Capitol.
 * Just recently in this discussion I was concerned about availability of encyclopedic space for Sufi shrines. In case of Sufi's most are considered peaceful still few of them have not been so peaceful, on the other side there are many instances where in some ideologically extremist Muslims have violently attacked Sufi saints and shrines. Whether encyclopedia shall not be allowed to take due note of them in spite of availability sources? Hiding of info would not be fair to neutrality of encyclopedia. &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment in order to determine whether the section should stay, and how long it should be, we need to consider how much weight it is given by reliable sources that cover the topic "Islam in Finland" broadly. This probably means looking at books, book chapters, other encyclopedic entries etc. I had a similar discussion with here here. I'm now researching this and will get back, and I will report my findings in a section below.VR talk 14:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When you say you had a similar discussion with Doug Weller "here", you've linked to a website about the book Islam in the Nordic and Baltic Countries. Can you instead link to the discussion you had with Doug Weller? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry fixed my mistake.VR talk 15:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Having gone through some scholarly sources some mention of radicalization is justified in this article. However, sources do cover this subtopic in a holistic way: when they talk about terrorism, they also point out condemnation of terror by mainstream Muslims, its relationship to increased Islamophobia, and de-radicalization efforts by both the Finnish state and the Muslim community.VR talk 15:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per arguments of user A Thousand Words. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * Curious to know if any previous discussions about inclusion of crime sections in related topic article.
 * Recently I had done a survey about mentions about notable crimes, it seems where editors cared enough those were mentioned. That is how my perception is. For example Catholic Church article lead includes sentence From the late 20th century, the Catholic Church has been criticised for its teachings on sexuality, its inability to ordain women, and its handling of sexual abuse cases involving clergy. But I did not find mention of most recent disclosures in article Catholic Church in France. What if any editor wishes to include recent disclosures in Catholic Church in France?
 * What is neutrality a complete picture or an incomplete picture?
 * Whether the article Trade should hide examples of ilicit trade ?
 * Whether hiding of information helps the image or corrective actions help the image ?
 * Last but not least, which are all religions approve of hiding truth? (read again)
 * Whether encyclopedias are for hiding the truth or sweeping the facts under the carpet?
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I would note that I do not wish any information hidden, simply moved to the proper venue. I further note that:
 * there is not a section on terrorism in the Islam in the United States or Islam in France articles, even though those countries have had far more incidents of terrorism by Muslims than Finland;
 * there is not a section on terrorism in the Christianity in the United States article, even though there have been more acts of terrorism undertaken in the United States in the name of Christian ideology than in the name of Muslim ideology.
 * The point is that, although people of different religions commit acts of terrorism in the name of their religions, we should not ascribe the terrorism to the religion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Does this opinion adequately educates discussion participants about justification of violence using concept of Abrogation in Islam by certain extremist sections? Binary and hate against Kafir infidels?
 * If a notable accident happens on the moon then that should be mentioned in article on accident but not in the article moon? And if it is mentioned in the article moon then demand removal of notable info and say we are just moving it to the article accident.?
 * Article moon does have section on "In culture and life" why that should not be moved in article culture and keep the moon clean?
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not demean the moon to state that an accident happened there. It does demean the religion of Islam to include the section on terrorism in the "Islam in Finland" article, because it implies that where there is Islam, there is terrorism. As for your first point about "adequately educating discussion participants..." I'm afraid I don't understand your point. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * a) Issue pertains to WP:DUE. So I intimated @ Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view since I do not consider myself as an expert on WP:DUE as it exists.
 * b) The article Naskh (tafsir) (Abrogation in Islam) mentions sentence In modern times, the sword verse has been used by extremist groups and individuals to justify their killing of non-Muslims civilians, according to Lohay Fatoohi (although some dispute this), For details one will need to read Naskh (tafsir) with notes there in.
 * c) The contested section Islam in Finland mentions word "Islamist terrorist" & not "Islamic". Usually word 'Islamist terrorist' is used for 'radical political Islam' and 'like other religions', Islam too has 'radical political' sections which have been time and again resorting to violence. Though personally I would prefer wordings 'extremist political Muslim' and 'Anti−Muslim−phobia' instead of Islamist and Islamophobia. (Interestingly people want to use word contested term 'Islamophobia' instead of more proper "Anti−Muslim phobia' but do not want term 'Islamist'? This I really do not get)
 * Any ways so the contested section informs on terrorist sections does not target Muslims or Islam as a whole; (Personally I do not have any issue in adding such a note to that effect if MoS allows). If there are any peace overtures one can mention them. Does hiding the truth helps the image of community or religion ? I do not think so because any such efforts are perceived more negatively as 'so and so white washing', it neither helps nor adds up.
 * About mentions in similar articles personally I am for mentions across rather than hiding.
 * That is how personal opinion goes. The rest over to the experts in WP:DUE
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your argument appears to be that since there are Muslims that advocate violence, we should include here in Islam in Finland (and at every other "Islam in x" article) notes about the terrorist acts undertaken by Muslims in those countries. That, to me, is the very definition of non-neutrality, demeaning the entire religion for the acts of a few adherents. And your arguments over the semantics of "Islamist" versus "Islamic" are unsourced. Even a link to a Wikipedia discussion about such differences would be useful. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong:..semantics of "Islamist" versus "Islamic" are unsourced..
 * Google search to 'Define Islamist' returns "an advocate or supporter of Islamic militancy or fundamentalism." with reference to Oxford languages
 * Collins gives general, British and American English definitions
 * An Islamist is someone who believes strongly in Islamic ideas and laws
 * British English: a supporter or advocate of Islamic fundamentalism
 * American English:. an advocate or supporter of Islamic, esp. orthodox Islamic, political rule
 * English Wikipedia Article Islamism lead "..Ideologies dubbed Islamist may advocate a 'revolutionary' strategy of Islamizing society through exercise of state power, or alternately a "reformist" strategy to re-Islamizing society through grassroots social and political activism.[6] Islamists may emphasize the implementation of sharia,[7] pan-Islamic political unity,[7] the creation of Islamic states,[8] or the outright removal of non-Muslim influences; particularly of Western or universal economic, military, political, social, or cultural nature in the Muslim world;...while others spawned "the most aggressive and ambitious Islamist militia" to date, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).[24] Same article section refers to law in France as ..After the murder of Paty, a bill was put forward to fight Islamist extremism and separatism to fight the roots of jihadist violence.. In this sentence it is neither referring to entire Islam nor referring to all Muslims but referring just to extremist only. (read again)
 * The fact is as much (all) religions as much used for peaceful purposes are as much used for non peaceful purposes communities and ideologies and humanity need introspection and proactive action to improve the record and not hide the record. whichever respective communities whichever ideologies. running away from facts benefits none nor the encyclopedia nor the truth.
 * Any ways only two people discussing is no good so we have adequately expressed, I wish to read now others so pl don't ping I wish to bow out for a while &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that WikiDan61 is wrong, there is indeed an Islam in France section. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Although not relevant here due to WP:OTHERSTUFF, I have added a Catholic Church in France section. A Thousand Words (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that WikiDan61 is wrong, there is indeed an Islam in France section. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Although not relevant here due to WP:OTHERSTUFF, I have added a Catholic Church in France section. A Thousand Words (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources that cover "Islam in Finland" broadly
As mentioned above, we need to see how weight is given to "terrorism" among sources that cover the topic of "Islam in Finland" broadly. Below is a list of sources (not yet complete) that cover the topic relatively broadly, along with my findings.VR talk 15:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC) I will add more sources as I go through them. Happy to answer any questions about my analysis.VR talk 15:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For instance Islam Outside the Arab World was published in 2000 but the Turku attack was in 2017 and Muslims joining the Islamic State as "foreign fighters" started some years after 2010. So it's not surprising that book doesn't cover it. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fair. So how do we determine how much space to give terrorism is reasonable? If we leave it as matter of personal opinion, we'll get wildly different answers.VR talk 00:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yearbook of Muslims in Europe, Volume 1 published in 2009 also predates the foreign fighters phenomenon and the 2017 terorrist attack. Imho the sources you found could be used to expand the article in other areas - clearly this is an option? A Thousand Words (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per say I am not against development of encyclopedic tools which might help in deciding WP:Due but what User:Vice regent has presented seems problematic for following concerns:
 * a) In any such tool development there is no point in counting those sources which go totally silent for what so ever reason. May be out of hundred, 98 won't speak at all and only 2 speak then only those 2 are supposed to count.
 * b) Every academic and secondary source on same topic may have different research focus and percentage of handling certain things may differ widely according to their individual choices and focus irrespective of merit of the topic. There percentages of handling the content can not be sound criteria for percentage of encyclopedic coverage. Encyclopedic writing and encyclopedic merit is different process altogether, Encyclopedist is expected to give coverage to maximum possible side with due weightage. It partially depends on Encyclopedist's own individual literary capacities, time and effort they spend.
 * C) Understand that Encyclopedia is stage of collation of information and knowledge as available today and is expected to take maximum possible info related to given topic with due weight but consideration of due weight need not be used for censorship, where doubt is there or consensus is absent it should fall on side of inclusion rather than exclusion in open format like Wikipedia which does not have any space constraint.


 * d) For any inclusionist Wikipedian it is simple business Source A says ABCD source P says PQRS include all that is relevant. Where there is doubt fall on follow inclusion side.
 * e) If any encyclopedia encyclopedist, editors and curators's basic responsibility is to keep content readable and cohesive with minimum possible mistakes but they can not guarantee situations of perfections or no mistake. Excessive deletions in effort of too much perfection in itself not only count censorship but any such deletions in itself amount to be original research. (I call it ' Original research by deletion ')
 * f) Remember that pointing out and countering content even in encyclopedia is responsibility of secondary source writers not of the encyclopedist so when there is no constraint of space encyclopedist has no reason to be exclusionist. (When you find critique on encyclopedia in secondary source content, one can update in encyclopedia taking note of such critiques)
 * Thanks &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * other areas of the article should definitely be expanded, and the amount of material for terrorism should increase proportionally as the article grows. But from my estimates maybe around 5-10% is the appropriate amount to give terrorism in this article. Note this content can be covered in much greater detail in other articles like 2017 Turku attack or Islamic terrorism in Europe.VR talk 08:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * g) Here User:Vice regent unintentionally/ unknowingly opened up biggest flaw in own argument and appears to have made a sharp self goal. Wikipedia articles are never static (nor future of secondary sources is known) for any fix percentage calculation. Any contributor can start an article from any side, may be if some one starts building up from criticism side initially percentage of criticism will look bigger as no criticism side will be covered more percentage of criticism side will go down. Another aspect is, if suppose x% say 7% is fixed for criticism side and some editor goes on adding up positive side beyond 93% should he be stopped @ 93% and asked to increase criticism proportionally before adding more to the positive side, won't it sound strange?
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Islam in the Nordic and Baltic countries, chapter on "Finland": published in 2009 and authored by Goeran Larsson, this book predates the foreign fighters phenomenon and the Turku attack. Not useful to judge weight. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)) (Edited A Thousand Words (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC))
 * Per Recentism we shouldn't give undue weight to recent events. 2009 is not long ago in a field where there are relatively few scholarly publications, and on a topic that goes back to 1870. As I said, we take a rough average of amount of weight given by sources in the last 20-25 years, which per my calculation comes to be around 5-10%. The article currently gives 25% (a quarter!) of all words to terrorism and that is clearly WP:UNDUE.VR talk 13:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is it deleting that section a priority before expanding the rest of the article with the sources you found? There's plenty of space to go around here. A Thousand Words (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Lack of required sources to show the notoriety of the subject specific to Finland
The work of VR shows that it's hard to find reliable secondary sources that show the notoriety of the subject specific to Finland. The same applies to the actual content of the section. For example, one of the source is a news media (Reuters) article that reports a single isolated event. Similarly, the sentence "... 70 individuals had left Finland to enter the conflict zone and the majority joined jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq." is sourced in an article of The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT). This source shows the notoriety of the overall subject of radicalisation and of recruitment of foreign fighters in Europe, but not the notoriety of the subject in Finland. The last and longest paragraph only has sources in Swedish. So, I cannot judge the sources, but I suspect that they are also not secondary sources that show the notoriety of the subject in Finland. The point is that the purpose of sources is not only to verify that the individual statements are correct, but also to show the notoriety of the subject that is created when we combine these statements into a section. These sources are missing. By combining these separate statements into a section, without sources showing the notoriety of the subject as a whole in Finland, there is some form of original research being done here. It may be a very good original research, but not at its place in this Wikipedia article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Note personal added: I am personally concerned about radicalisation and recruitment by Islamic groups. I believe we should not be naive about this issue. So, I am very sympathetic to the point of view being expressed in this section. My concern is only that this Wikipedia article is not the place for this information campaign. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

A related point is that the article cites the Pew Research Center that estimates the population of Muslim to 2.7% in Finland. However, the official statistics from Finland says that it's below 1% and when I use the data from Yearbook of Muslims in Europe, Vol. 2 the Muslim population in Finland is around 40,000, which is also below 1%. It shows that we need to attribute points of view. I mean, if even quantitative data can be biased, then we need to attribute points of view. The article does not respect WP:NPOV on this respect. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines apply to notability of subjects to merit WP:STANDALONE articles and notability of a subject must indeed be verified by WP:SECONDARY sources. This reasoning does not apply to content. The inclusion bar for article content is WP:V - verifiability. Also bringing up "Muslim population in Finland is about 40 000" could be viewed in terms of representation as about 70 foreign fighters joined the conflict in Syria from Finland. Hypothesis: if every 40 000 people in all of Finland had decided to send foreign fighters. So about 70 foreign fighters for every 40K people, that equats about 9500 foreign fighters for all of the population of Finland (5.5 million). In relative terms that would be like all of Finland deciding to send a an infantry division of foreign fighters to Syria. That would clearly merit a subsection in the article History of Finland's material on modern history. Imho VR has done a good job finding sources to use when expanding other areas of the article. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * the sentence "... 70 individuals had left Finland to enter the conflict zone and the majority joined jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq." .... This source shows the notoriety of the overall subject of radicalisation and of recruitment of foreign fighters in Europe, but not the notoriety of the subject in Finland. Sounds like intellectual gymnastic stressing on technicalities than that of encyclopedic merit.
 * Draw a parallel: '9/11 terrorists should get mention overall subject of radicalisation in Asia and of recruitment of foreign fighters in Asia but not the notoriety of the subject in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.' How would this sound?
 * If source A says 'ABCD' and 'source P says PQRS' and if the statements are related to the article topic then need to get space in the encyclopedic article sans intellectual gymnastic intending soft censorship.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I am only saying that pertinence to the subject is a kind of notability in the context of the subject (but I agree that the term notability is not usual in the context of a specific content). It's important to use sources to show the pertinence of a section in an article. I used the term secondary sources, but I meant sources that take some distance from the specificity of the content and show it's pertinence to the subject, which is not terrorism and radicalisation, but Islam in Finland. It will be meaningful to have some sources (I mean articles or chapters in book) that do not focus on terrorism and radicalisation, but are about Islam or Finland, and mention radicalisation and terrorism. Currently, the section is building a case, perhaps a well sourced and valid case, but nevertheless a form of original research (original in respect to the subject), by combining contents that are taken from sources that are not centred on the subject. They are centred on a specific event or on radicalisation and terrorism and under this other topic mention Islam or Finland. What is needed is the opposite order: sources that are centred on Islam or Finland (ideally both) and under this topic mention radicalisation and terrorism. To do the devil's advocate against my case, I could say that "it's obvious that radicalisation and terrorism is pertinent and, thus, as long as it is verifiable, it can be included as a section in the article". However, let's keep in mind that trying to include a content can as much be POV pushing as trying to exclude it. In both cases, one can argue that there is POV pushing. It is in that context that I say that relying on sources to show the notability within the subject, which is not terrorism and radicalisation, is meaningful. It makes it more objective. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Let me share a smiley :) with you, for 1 it's healthy 2 It is again a case which I have discussed @ few talk pages about an average tendency on Wikipedia seems to be of transforming word Muslim into Islam or Islamic wherever possible without visiting nuanced aspects and leading to systemic issues vis a vis Wikipedia article / section titles leading to confusions about article's content. I went deeper in this issue after a point was raised by User:Dakinijones here, subsequently opened here, here and few more talk pages for more awareness and same issue is true over here.
 * Is this article actually not supposed to be about Muslims in Finland? (and  but that title we Wikipedians redirect to "Islam in Finland"). Actually 'Muslims in Finland' is broader term which can include secular, religious or even fundamentalist activism but once that title redirected to "Islam in Finland' we editors can conveniently forget rest of aspects, point only to sources to "Islam in Finland' many of apologetic or other wise due to different research focus (a researcher who may be focusing only on spread of Islam, mosqueing, biographies etc) can conveniently ignore or play down fundamentalism  part and above Wikipedians say their authorship is silent so 'no Finnish Muslim had any link ever with fundamentalism nor article on Islam in Finland need to cover fundamentalism extremism and terrorism and so on!
 * Now there can be sources like this (May 2021) which focus on links to terrorism from Finland, do you expect them to have detailed exegesis on philosophical Islam to consider pertinence for inclusion in topic on Muslims in Finland? Again pl. do mind this is not a comment intending to generalize all  Muslims in Finland in negative light. But is hiding wrong ones is the solution or contributing to constructive contributions of Finnish Muslims would be the better solution?
 * Encyclopedias are for inclusion of information and knowledge and does inclusion of sourced information and knowledge is POV? Such strange arguments seems to me like intellectual gymnastic intending to turn facts upside down.
 * Well I suppose I have argued enough on this talk page and it would be better to make way for others to reflect upon so, preferably, I will be bowing out of this talk page for a while.
 * Thanks for healthy discussion and best wishes.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly I must agree with Bookku here. Secondly, Dominic Mayers has no special mandate or authority to require stronger sourcing than that specified by WP:V verifiability. Even if DM had this special authority, the sources found by Vice Regent in section Sources that cover "Islam in Finland" broadly makes the connection already. So far, Dominic Mayers arguments are unconvincing varieties of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We can't pretend the sources don't say what they, in fact, say. If we allowed "consensus" to ignore sources then we are in a world of trouble: We, as editors, are amateurs on any and all subjects, but the sources have expert knowledge and expert knowledge always trumps that of amateurs. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * there is a difference between verifiability and determining weight given to each section. While any RS (broad or narrow) can be used to verify content, only sources that cover "Islam in Finland" broadly can be used to determine weight.VR talk 16:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear A Thousand Words, I refer to the well known policy that content must respect due proportion within the subject. Perhaps you misunderstand that WP:due and WP:proportion are relative to the subject. It is not emphasized in bold in the policy, but it is written and it's obvious that it must be relative to the subject. The general question is how to evaluate the weight of a subject within another subject, in our case, the weight of radicalisation and terrorism within Islam in Finland. The criterion is that if all reliable sources covering broadly the subject, which is not terrorism or radicalisayion, but Islam in Finland,  do not mention terrorism and radicalisation, then the Wikipedia article should not do it also. If most of these sources do not mention it, say only one does it, then it is certainly not enough to justify a section. To justify a section on terrorism and radicalisation, given the extremely polemic nature of the subject, many sources on Islam or on Finland or on Islam in Finland, should also cover the subject. This is what the policy WP:proportion and WP:due is all about.  So, please argue in terms of sources and actual content instead of attributing to me the intention to have authority, etc. Also, please note that my comment focuses on the current section. I briefly referred to VR's comment which was about sources in general for the subject, but my focus was on the actual content of the section and the sources mentioned in it. It's not impossible that sources that show the notability of the section's subject within the article's subject can be found. If you have some sources to suggest, please mention them and if they are considered reliable, the section will have to reflect these sources in a neutral manner. Because these sources will not focus on terrorism and radicalisation, but on Finland or Islam or Islam in Finland in general, it's very likely that the tone and the points of view expressed will be different. Why should Wikipedia do differently than these sources?  Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We have discussed enough here no point repeating the same points until some other users visit this talk page and take a position, that way this is a low profile article and not many users likely to participate than present pro censorship usual echo chamber, we won't be able to do much about it. Instead of more time we spend in this discussion ; I suggest with same investment of time we can have a better article Draft:Fundamentalism, radicalisation and terrorism in nordic countries. I suggest as of now we leave this discussion for future or may be other users. I am willing to assist you in Draft:Fundamentalism, radicalisation and terrorism in nordic countries if you or some other users join in. Thanks
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And editors truly interested in Islam in Finland (not doing an information campaign about terrorism and radicalisation) will be able to continue improving this article using pertinent sources, centred on the subject, to evaluate the relevance of content. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * May be that is good idea for some to use article for religious advertisement only, sans valid criticism. We shall not comment or show interest more un til some other users show interest in true neutrality. Thanks any ways
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * At some point, if there is no further discussions, the RfC will close and the editors will edit the article to make it match with sources that are about the subject of the article. This is the way of Wikipedia. We use sources to determine the weight of a content in the subject.  Logical relevance is not sufficient.  We must use the importance of the content as seen in sources on the subject. The fact that the discussion stops is a strong indication that there are no sources on the subject (not on radicalisation and terrorism) that justify the section. If there are such sources, let us discuss them. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * At some point, if there is no further discussions, the RfC will close and the editors will edit the article to make it match with sources that are about the subject of the article. This is the way of Wikipedia. We use sources to determine the weight of a content in the subject.  Logical relevance is not sufficient.  We must use the importance of the content as seen in sources on the subject. The fact that the discussion stops is a strong indication that there are no sources on the subject (not on radicalisation and terrorism) that justify the section. If there are such sources, let us discuss them. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Uninterested in repeating blah, neither means non existence sources nor acceptance of wikisplaining by technicalities sans merit. That has no reason to other side to have any superiority complex. Just we do not wish to continue engaging in fruitless discussions with the same user's echo chamber, and bow out in civil manner for a while. RfC with limited response or single side responses are meaningless and later new RfCs can be opened again in due course as required., &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote "Uninterested in repeating ...", but you do repeat yourself, still accusing me of superiority complex, etc. I won't repeat myself. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Getting input from the NPOV noticeboard
I suggest to get input from the NPOV noticeboard regarding the question of whether this article (Islam in Finland) should include the subject Islamic terrorism and, if yes, what weight should be given to it and how to present it in a neutral manner? We especially want input about the principle of using reliable sources centred on the subject of this article, not sources centred on terrorism or radicalization, to answer these questions. Generally speaking, I suggest that we look for objective principles like this one instead of relying on mere opinions. There is backlog, so it might take some times before we get some input, but it's worth it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Inputs from NPOV noticeboard have been requested a month before on 7 October 2021 itself.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that after by pure luck, because it was misplaced in the talk page of the policy itself, which should only be used to discuss improvement of the policy. So, my proposal is now to move this request in the correct venue. I know that it's going to be slow, but it's better to ask for advices in the recommended manner. It might actually work better. As they say, when all else fails, read the instructions .  Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * done.VR talk 21:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable source (moved here)
Note: moved from this discussion from my talk page. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC) I see you added content with this source. Can you explain to me if this is a reliable source? The picture in that source looks really problematic, like it is out of some kind of Islamophobic extremist blog.VR talk 06:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe knows something about the reliability of www.alandsnyheter.com, as they are from Sweden.VR talk 06:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The question here is whether the source is reliable, "islamophobia/islamophobic" is frequently a smear used to silence valid criticism from a democratic or equality standpoint (and Finland is a country characterised by gender equality and democracty by all HDI yardsticks). The source article links on to hbl.fi (Hufvudstadsbladet, a Finnish newspaper) and the Finnish Ministry of Justice so it looks okay to me. It does not help if user Bonadea speaks Swedish as I already read and write Swedish. If you want better info on this, a user who reads or writes Finnish could be useful. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But you didn't add hbl.fi or the Finnish Ministry of Justice as sources, you added www.alandsnyheter.com. Can you please explain how that website is reliable? Linking to an RS doesn't make a source reliable. VR talk 07:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It just so happens that YLE, the Finnish public service broadcaster has covered Justice Minister Häkkänen's comments and this one is in English: “Finland is an open, international country that is rich linguistically and culturally, and where basic rights belong equally to everyone... Finnish justice gives equal protection to everyone, regardless of skin colour, religion, gender, culture or other background,” ... “There is no room in Finland for Sharia law or other efforts towards a parallel society,” so Ålands Nyheter elaborates more but is reliable on the main content YLE also has reported. Using a search engine to verify Hääkänen quote didn't take long. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've used the yle source, and summarized the Minister's remarks. I've also continued the discussion on 1Kwords' talk page.VR talk 21:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as this one use of alandsnyheter.com as a source is concerned, the matter is resolved and I have no interest in taking part in some sort of drawn-out conflict about it. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A Thousand Words, no one wants a drawn-out conflict--let's just agree that alandsnyheter is nothing more than a local website that claims to do local news, which is fine, but should not be used to source information that's any bigger than that. Their "Om" page is clear enough: their editorial stance is not about correctness or objectivity or verifiability, it's about... well, "the principle of anti-corruption and scrutiny of those in power". It's a one-person outfit with no editorial board, and given what this claims (a bunch of conspiratorial and political nonsense about COVID) I wouldn't trust their weather report. User:Vice regent, small steps. 1Kwords, we could bring this to RSN and it would be easy to get this marked red on WP:RSP, but the less time-consuming way is for you to not ever use this, or websites like this, as a source. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * fine and I don't mind if you do bring this to RSN. I found the resolving source on 2 December, it's now 5 December and it is plenty drawn out already. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you were using an obviously biased website as if it were a reliable source. You either knew that or you didn't--if the former, you now got called on it; if the latter, you should thank us for pointing out what WP:RS means., another case that can be cited. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't know that - Town/area Nyheter is what dozens of publications are called in Scandinavia and it's impossible to know them all. Explanation: (Nyheter = news) and Åland refers to Åland Islands - these are inhabited by about 30 thousand people and the local language is Swedish. Many towns at that size do have generally reliable local newspapers who would all would quickly go out of business if they misquoted a minister (which is what I used that source for). A Thousand Words (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See Category:Swedish-language newspapers - a number of them have nyheter in the name and the list is far from exhaustive. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't see the difference between a newspaper and some website, and you can't be bothered to check the "About" page (this is clear enough), and yet proclaim something is a reliable source (just because it's got "news" in the name?), then what are you doing here? Drmies (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)