Talk:List of former Muslims/Archive 2

Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles
I came across content deletion cases in Ex-Muslim articles. Yasmine Mohammed and Ayaan Hirsi Ali in both cases content deletionists deleted own views of Yasmine Mohammed and Ayaan Hirsi Ali respectively. If reliable enough source is available why one's own views can not be there, in articles written about them?

In case of reason forwarded by deletionist is WP:Coatrack, How Yasmine Mohammed can have opinion on multiple aspects? If she has at all and Wikipedia article covers it, It will be WP:Coatrack! I find this argument strange. Whether it is Barak Obama or Donald Trump and many other politicians, they are going to have opinions on multiple subjects even those subjects which they are not experts and I see lot of coverage of that in Wikipedia. Why there is no WP:Coatrack on them and only on Yasmine Mohammed? Is use of WP:Coatrack really rational enough in this case?

In another deletion, while deleting Ayaan Hirsi Ali's opinion edit summary goes Pundits make many inflammatory claims, but we cannot document them all. Please cite a reliable, WP:IS for this. Actually content seem to have news source refs and deletionist seem to ask for neutral source may be critical of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's opinion.

Here I seek to compare again with Donald Trump, He too makes lot many believed to be inflammatory claims. And adequate news sources would be available. For example in Donald Trump case may be Fox News source not necessarily not neutral but unlikely publish fake news detrimental to Donald Trump. So does Wikipedia not take Fox news ref just because the news source does not include any criticism of Donald Trump?

I am not against including criticism of opinions. For example Yasmine Mohammed article includes criticism of title of her book. But whether we will not allow her opinions on multiple subjects citing WP:Coatrack or we will not allow her opinions in article about herself because reference source does not include criticism on any of her opinion?

Are these really valid rational and logical excuses for content deletion or content stone walling? Here is List of fallacies, may be this list helps deletionists help better to support and wikisplain their above mentioned arguments of deletion. I do not know all Wikipedia rules, other editors too who support ex-Muslim articles visit Wikipedia much lesser, they would be knowing rules and wiki processes much lesser. Contesting such deletions, prima facie unfair ones happen much lesser. Does this not really create Systemic bias against atheists in general and Ex-Muslims in particular?

Bookku (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , this is inappropriate - I see you've had this problem before. The page describing the process clearly states : Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the tag. Then you can add a discussion section. Could you please fix this - I've struck through it at the moment. Just add the neutral statement or question, a new  section heading for discussion, then your comments.  Doug Weller  talk 11:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to suggest neutral statements then I will add above comment. Or may may be I will drop Rfc for a while I find some self-censored and politically right language for my-self. Or May be I create an Rfc for having a mode of Wikipedia wide discussion without need of such censorship. Bookku (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are wrong. Criticizing the islamic faith is probably more divisive than other religions right now, most of which are on the WP:LCI list. I'm a little familiar with Mohammed's book, but I would need more context about these specific changes in the article. Thank you for posting in the WiR project for an RfC. Perhaps an actionable project would be to chronicle these instances and submit an article for the Signpost arguing your case.Fred (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , and  I agree that views of Yasmine Mohammed and Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be covered in their respective articles. At the same time I do have concerns about WP:COATRACK in some other articles, like here Talk:Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies.VR talk 03:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I more or less agree with, I'll just add that to represent their views we should use reliable secondary sources, not cherry-pick quotes from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)


 * It is fine to summarize their views in their article. It isn't fine to drop massive quotations or extensive WP:PRIMARY-sourced details into the article in a way that effectively turns it into a place to proselytize or argue for their position.  If you look at the politicians you mentioned, the articles for Barack Obama or Donald Trump note the existence of their views in brief, dispassionate terms, cited to secondary sources that briefly note the things they believe or advocate; at no point does it delve into their arguments for their beliefs in any depth.  We do not, for example, list every single accusation Trump has made against his political opponents, only the ones that have attracted strong secondary coverage. By comparison, articles for activists like these frequently become bloated with massive sections that quote their arguments verbatim, often cited only to primary source or to friendly interviews; or we go into excessive detail on every individual statement they have taken, in a manner that serves the same purpose (ie. every accusation they have ever made that supports their point of view.) That is inappropriate and is likely the reason you are encountering WP:COATRACK concerns. We're supposed to zoom out, consider their overarching views, and reflect those, rather than cover every single thing they have ever said and every position they have ever taken. The fact that you see it as censorship is also telling - the articles say what they believe overall, surely?  It sounds like your objection is that you believe that the articles should be used as a place to advocate and not merely present their views, and that having such advocacy removed is censorship. --Aquillion (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)