Talk:Walid Shoebat

Untitled
This is borderline. If I believed in vfd, I would nominate it. It's little more than an ad for this guy's website. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:54, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok Ed, I have therefore expanded this article quite a bit.--CltFn 02:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Expanded with information like "Walid is part of a growing movement of former Muslims who are taking a stand against Islam and it's terrorist tactics." and words like "PLO terrorist". How very NPOV. Please read WP:NPOV. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 02:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a citation for interested readers to verify that assertion. And yes he was a PLO terrorist, that is a fact which he admits. Unless you do not consider putting explosives in bread with the intent to blow up children terrorism. --CltFn 03:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Do we need to see his ID card?
The very first line "the assumed name of the owner of the website Shoebat.com" is unfortunate wording. This sounds like "an imaginary character". Then, the article goes from bad to worse. We say "This biographical entry is based primarily on the information provided on his website", even though a half-a-dozen of ext. links is provided. I think we should use the word pseudonym and get rid of POV. This guy is real, he travels and lectures. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 00:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes he is very real indeed, as in other free thinker articles covered on Wikipedia, there are those who wish that he was not real and who seem dedicated to blanking them out.--CltFn 12:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What exactly makes Walid Shoebat a "free thinker" and why do you think that others wish that he wasn't real? I'm a Muslim and I think this guy is hilarious. Shabeki (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

He is a fraud, according to conservative Israeli newspaper Jersulem Post: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1206632362598&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull#   You must be muslim.76.6.64.210 (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Read for example, the following excrept from the article:

"...Shoebat's claim to have bombed Bank Leumi in Bethlehem is rejected by members of his family who still live in the area, and Bank Leumi says it has no record of such an attack ever taking place.

His relatives, members of the Shoebat family, are mystified by the notion of "Walid Shoebat" being an assumed name. And the Walid Shoebat Foundation's working process is less than transparent, with Shoebat's claim that it is registered as a charity in the state of Pennsylvania being denied by the Pennsylvania State Attorney's Office.

Shoebat's claim to have been a terrorist rests on his account of the purported bombing of Bank Leumi. But after checking its files, the bank said it had no record of an attack on its Bethlehem branch anywhere in the relevant 1977-79 period.

Shoebat told The Jerusalem Post that this could be because the bank building was robustly protected with steel and that the attack may have caused little damage.

Asked whether word of the bombing made the news at the time, he said, "I don't know. I didn't read the papers because I was in hiding for the next three days." (In 2004, he had told Britain's Sunday Telegraph: "I was terribly relieved when I heard on the news later that evening that no one had been hurt or killed by my bomb.")

Shoebat could not immediately recall the year, or even the time of year, of the purported bombing when talking to the Post by phone from the US. After wavering, he finally settled for the summer of 1977."

I'm no great "surfer" so I'll not insist that that it isn't but I'm unable to locate any such article using the link provided above. (66.235.11.41 (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

Moreover:

"...Asked by the Post whether the Walid Shoebat Foundation is a registered charity, Shoebat replied that it is registered in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania State Attorney's office said it had no record of a charity registered under this name.

Questioned further, Shoebat said it was registered under a different name, but that he was not aware of the details, which are handled by his manager.

"I remain separate to the running of the charity so that I am not constrained by church rules," he explained, adding that the organization's connection to certain churches meant it would be difficult for him to speak to secular audiences if he became too involved in running it.

Dr. Joel Fishman, of the Allegany County Law Library in Pennsylvania, expressed doubts about this donation process. If the money were being given to a registered charity, the charity would have to make annual reports to the state and federal government on how it was being spent, he noted." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.11.122 (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The problems with anon's version
The major problem it starts in a bad faith and goes on to worse.
 * is pro-zionist author. -- nothing wrong with being a pro-Zionist author, but this characterization is a severe POV compared to is a Palestinian author and former Muslim and a former PLO terrorist who captured international attention by converting to Christianity and becoming a ardent critic of Islam and a supporter of Israel
 * His biographical entry is based primarily on the information provided on his website. -- this is just silly to say in the article with a dozen or so of independent external links.
 * His original name is not publicly known, and his story is uncorroborated and not otherwise verifiable. -- another silly phrase. See the section above about his ID card.
 * What's the problem with the image?
 * While praised by some for his pro-Israel stand, some charge that he is motivated by profit. -- Proof please. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 04:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good obseravtions. Also observe that anonymous editor is an infidel-hating muslim. He doesn't need facts or anything of the sort to "prove" anything.--Nosharia 13:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Gren's changes
Just to explain my changes.


 * I removed the pictures because when I saw the argument I figured the best way to sort it out was to make CltFn source his images and give copyright tags. He sourced one but couldn't provide the copyright tags so I deleted them as I told him I would.  If there is going to be conflict over images then they should be well sourced.  If he can add the images with sources and legitimate copyright tags then they can stay.  He said he e-mailed Shoebat so when the results of that get back he might have permission for that one image.  For the Fox screenshot he needs to show where he got it and why it's fair use.


 * "growing" -- Is the movement growing? Is it really a movement?  I think we'd need some good sourcing on that besides Walid's website to actually discuss if this is a valid, real, and growing movement.  There was no legitimate sociological study or anything of the kind cited.


 * Husseini's alliance with the Nazis is of no consequence to this article. If anything it's trying to defame a man's name... when it really was not the largest part of his life nor the most relevant.


 * NPOV, because of the arguments between the editors I think it's safe to say there is a neutrality dispute. My biggest concern in this regard is the copious number of quotes.  It makes this more dramatic than anything else in my book.  What is the use of the anecdote about Arab-state's propaganda versus the reality of the Israeli Army's success? I'm not sure... but, things like that should be discussed.

About the edit changes between Anonymous Editor and Cltfn... well, I don't know exactly. I haven't taken the time to see what comes from Shoebat's site and what comes from independent sources. To AE, some of this must be credible because BBC reports on it... so we can't ignore it saying it comes from Shoebat's site. (Humus is right about that) But, I don't know if all of it comes from credible sources... and you must discern between what does and what doesn't. gren グレン 04:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Culture of Hate and Barbarism?"
There must be a more NPOV way to express this; as it stands it seems rather racist and suggests that the dislike in Palestine for Jews is just an outburts of unprovoked and irrational anger and not a predictable response to living under occupation for six decades. I mean, objectively, we should dislike prejudice in whatever form and seek to cleanse ourselves of it but we must exercise charity in our understanding of the roots of prejudice. Cant about 'the culture of hate and barbarism' only serves to obscure the underlying socio-political problems that Palestinians face. --لقمانLuqman 01:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) How is it racist?' by saying the truth. He was once a PLO terrorist and believed that propagasnda but now knows it's false. He is not racist. that is a false accusation by people who want to hide the truth. Palestinians do unprovoked attacks on the jews. even if the Israeli occupation had no justification, should the Jews really suffer from it? Palestinians are taught to hate Jews. That is the truth. Unlike you, Shoebat got an inside look at Islamic terrorism [not tha tall muslims hate terrorists. He just wants Palestinians to think for themselves. The Palestinian attacks against jewish civilians [including suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against Israeli Jewish civilians] are unprovoked. Palestiniant errorism existed before the occupation did. The Palestinians attacking someone for being j'ewish is racist.-Dendoi Sunday 1:28 AM January 28, 2007
 * Funny, Jewish settlers attacking Arabs on those same grounds is just as racist. Racism works both ways.Shabeki (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Will Youmens
Someone keeps inserting the phrase "anti-Israel activist, former spokesperson for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and rapper (under the name Iron Sheik)" in the section about Will Youmens's CounterPunch article about Shoebat. This looks as if it's intended as an ad hominem attack on Youmens, discrediting him by referring to his political beliefs instead of addressing the substance of his claims about Shoebat. However, if other users think that this phrase is justified and relevant, I won't object to it being restored.--GagHalfrunt 18:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

--- I think it should be kept. I mean, I have no idea who the guy is and his biases should be laid on the table if there is no article on this man. I say restore it and then keep it. Either that or delete the part about him, I mean, Will Youmens? Who the hell is this guy? Why should I care what some guy I have never heard of before and who is obviously extremely biased thinks about Walid Shoebat?

And I personally am against Shoebat so it is nothing personal. I think the man is a bigot who is using crimes he has committed in the past to his advantage which I think is equally reprhensible. Why should a man profit off of crimes he committed just because his version of events fits our version of reality in the West? Just putting that out there.128.138.26.42 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism notes
"An article on Electronic Intifada, a pro-Palestinian website, describes him as a member of a "fanatic" sect (apparently referring to Evangelical Christianity) who makes "blatantly racist declarations against Islam"

I wasn't aware Islam was a race.72.152.206.218 07:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC) --

Is Judaism or goyim jews a race? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.165.121 (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to be biased against the person of topic and needs to be cleaned so it can be neutral. It is biased in wording and there are hardly any sources supporting Mr. Shoebat other than what is sited from his website. (Chrischameleon (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Let's be honest here. Creating a neutral page for so controversial a figure is a very difficult task. Shabeki (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Walid Shoebat a fraud?
Interesting video that shows some contradictions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RehZY6tHcA


 * Not to mention the New York Times article 'Speakers at Academy Said to Make False claims'

"The Air Force Academy was criticized by Muslim and religious freedom organizations for playing host on Wednesday to three speakers who critics say are evangelical Christians falsely claiming to be former Muslim terrorists. [...] Academic professors and others who have heard the three men speak in the United States and Canada said some of their stories border on the fantastic[.] [...] They also question how three middle-aged men who claim they were recruited as teenagers or younger could have been steeped in the violent religious ideology that only became prevalent in the late 1980s." &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 09:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, the Jerusalem Post article that makes clear the inaccuracies of his claims: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1206632362598&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Menaus (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this may sound hardly unbiased, but my honest opinion is that Walid Shoebat might be mentally unstable, a fraud wanting to extort naive people into funnelling money to his unexisting "foundation". The hatred with which he talks about Islam and Palestinians is not normal of a sane person, such huge variations in attitude mark a person that may be suffering from clinic mania. Again, these comments are in no way intended to be introduced in the article itself, but are merely a personal opinion. Anyone with divergent views is free to express them. Sufitul (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

People have said worse about the State of Israel and yet people do not question their mental stability. An example would be David Duke, has anyone questioned his mental status? (Chrischameleon (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Lots of people have, actually. Most Americans (including me) believe David Duke is insane. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for interest sake: Have you also questioned the sanity or credentials of socalled Holocaust Survivors? I don't see that being doen on wikipedia. --41.151.178.30 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel questions Shoebat's credentials
Enough, Walid Shoebat: Why is Sean Hannity's Fake Terrorist Harassing Me?]--Kitrus (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a possibility that Walid Shoebat made false claims about himself, though the column by Debbie Schlussel

is just as doubtful as the claims of Walid Shoebat. The column bases everything on a certain newspaper article

of which no data is given about the article, not even the name of the newspaper.

Then the claim of Shoebat creating a press release that plagiarized an article of Debbie Shlussel.

Debbie Shlussel offers no references or citations to back her claims, so using her website as a source

of criticism and allegations of fraud is pointless. ≈ Learve (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Both of them are lacking in credibility. There are several instances where Shoebat is lacking in credibility. Since neither the bank in Israel nor any actual terrorists can verify Shoebat's "terrorist" activities, I do not find Shoebat to be credible on just about anything he says. Shabeki (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Self/described as terrorist

 * per the following diff - 

According to the following source, CNN is describing him as a former PLO terrorist rather than a self-claim. Would be good if this issue is fixed and the citation is added. Cheers,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  03:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because CNN says he is one doesn't mean he is one. Remember Dewey Defeats Truman? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism comment regarding citizenship
The criticism section questions as to how he retains his citizenship if he were confessing to acts of terrorism. To the best of my knowledge, despite WHERE he was born he is still a natural born citizen as a result of WHO he was born to. Thus his citizenship can not be revoked. I could be wrong of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.45.231 (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Natural-born US citizens can given up their citizenship through (usually but not always) voluntary Expatriation, by simply renouncing their citizenship, by living in a foreign country or running for office in a foreign country, etc. Non-voluntary Expatriation usually refers to convicted acts of treason, although the legal positions are often murky http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/35-naturalization-and-citizenship.html As such, public confession of supposed acts of terrorism is nothing like a conviction, so it's unlikely that such would provide a strong basis for revoking citizenship. It's entirely possible that a combination of Homeland Security, NDAA, an executive order and the "enemy combatants" mess could find justifiable cause to press for revoking citizenship, but it seems relatively unlikely for the simple reason that his confessional and conversion story supports the general goals of the War on Terror and is not critical of the U.S. or Israeli Gov'ts, so it's a safe position to talk about being an ex-terrorist. --Morgainari (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone criticized his accent?
I watched some videos from a California prophecy conference and noticed his accent seems to change quite a lot. Sometimes he sounds stereotypical Arab, sometimes even Scottish, sometimes he sounds American. I suppose it could be because he learned English from a variety of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.45.231 (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that too, and I have to think anyone with a good ear for accents who's heard one of his many appearances on American talk radio will have noticed it as well. To my ear, he sounds like an Israeli doing a passable "typical Arab" accent. If you listen closely, the distinctive Israeli accent peeks through with regularity. 15:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)HelenChicago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.185.13 (talk)

This might be one of the worst written articles on Wikipedia
"CNN attempted to discredit his story, but Shoebat has responded in detail to CNN's claims, demonstrating the veracity of his story and explaining the issues CNN raised." And the source of this supposed successful refutation of CNN's claims about Shoebat's fraud comes from........Shoebat's website.

Wikipedia's standards must have been dramatically lowered to allow this nonsense on here. This article definitely needs to be cleaned up and made more factual. Regardless of whether or not this guy is telling the truth, a neutral source of information should used to defend him (and not one regurgitated by Pamela Geller/Daniel Pipes/Robert Spencer, who have no neutral point of view). As it is, I would take the word of a respectable news organization over a guy with an agenda. The fact that even Debbie Schlussel has doubts about his credibility shows that you can't use his own website to successfully defend his claims.Shabeki (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I find the whole page incredibly biased against Shoebat, regardless of factual errors or omissions. Sources are used that are verifiably biased against anyone professing any form of criticism on islam are allowed and remain on the page yet sources that would positively affect the outlook on Shoebat are not allowed in. Also refutation of logic on some of the CNN arguments can be done without regard to the source as who said does not affect what is being said. POV seems to be proislam on a lot of pages regarding palestine muslims islam and terrorism and several peoples pages are hit&gunned who are critical of the claims of muslims on those subjects. It should be noteworthy to keep in mind on these discussions that both sides have a vested interest sure, it should also be noted that the very reason something like wikipedia exists in the first place is freedom of speech (which includes saying things others may find either disgusting, morally questionably, ethically horrendous and such) however freedom of speech does not protect against slander and deningration, criticism of subjects such as islam and sharia is not slander when it is based on facts supplied by the opposing side of the argument. Signed rational freethinker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.143.83 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * None of that is relevant. Please see WP:RS and WP:OR. The article must be based on reliable sources and not research conducted by users. Poyani (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And honestly, a truly "rational free thinker" would take the time to conform to wikipedia's standards instead of believing any unverified, suspicious claims made by Shoebat. Shabeki (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Quoting Debbie Schlussel proves that one is not a rational free thinker. ≈ Learve (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No one here is quoting Debbie Schlussel, so I don't understand your point. I simply referenced her because the two of them both seem to have an intense dislike of Islam, and yet one turned on the other. Shabeki (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism of Religion" classification
This article is listed as part of the series for "Criticism of Religion". As far as the contents reflect, the author in question is not a critic of religion. They are a critic of Islam, which is just one particular religion. The classification under "Criticism of Religion is certainly inaccurate. Poyani (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have removed the template. It seems there was originally a template specifically for criticism of Islam, but it was merged into a general criticism of religion template. As such, it is no longer appropriate on this article. Robofish (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Just a reminder to editors that the content of the articles should be based on reliable sources. As a general rule, these are news organizations (excluding Op-Eds and editorials) and scholarly publications. Self-published sources are not reliable sources (which means Shoebat's personal website should not be listed as a source for anything). If a reliable source cannot be found for a particular claim, then it should not be included. I personally don't think there should even be an article on this subject, since not much is available on him. Googling his name brings up this wikipedia article, in addition to hundreds of pages from his own site or his YouTube page. I did find a few reliable sources by skimming through the results. They are as follow:

BBC New York Times Jerusalem Post CNN

In the coming days, unless there are any objections, I mean clean up the article so it reflect only these sources or any other reliable sources already in use. If you disagree, please either discuss here or revert the changes and then discuss here. Poyani (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This article needs to be cleaned up somehow
Over half of his article is a "Criticism" section. That's just ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JokeKah (talk • contribs) 03:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe Shoebat is ridiculous ? And the "Criticism" section is not long enough--Grafite (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This is why having a Criticism section is considered bad form&mdash;when it contains most of the article body, it no longer serves an organizational purpose. Also, some readers disregard such sections as a WP-sectioned stockade for malicious "hater" edits.  While the current subdivision of that section helps, this might still be best reformulated as a career chronology, or just into a few more sections without the Criticism supersection. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Claims vs Genuine
I wanted to discuss with the edit [] in which the word "claims" was removed.

CNN did a report on this person and found that there is no verification of his credentials. Fact checking showed that he was lying about his authority. In fact, it shows he was lying in the same CNN article that was used to cite. CNN is stating that he is not real and he is conning people for money. Also, this page seems like a marketing page for him.

Do you think this article should reflect that no news organization, which has investigated him, has found any credible evidence for his story?

Seems like he is ripping people off to make money from the CNN article cited as the backbone on the article. However, the wiki article looks more like a marketing page. Thereandnot (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say SeanB hit it on the head "please don't add "claims" for things RS present as fact. his conversion is presented as a fact by RS. we follow the sources no matter what we believe." Let the ready decide if they are claims, (most likely) Patriot1010 (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If RS present things as undisputed facts, there is no policy based reason to present them as claims, rather than facts, using Wikipedia's narrative voice. It would be wrong to do so because it introduces doubt that is absent from the sources. Where does that doubt come from ? It can't come from us as editors because it doesn't matter what we think about the subject. There can't be any trace of our personal opinions about a subject in an article at all, especially a WP:BLP. Everything has to come from the RS. Similarly, if RS present things as claims, use attribution or there are contradictions between sources, then we can't present those things as undisputed facts using Wikipedia's narrative voice. Almost everything Shoebat says about his biographical history is disputed, but RS do present his conversion from one flavor of Abrahamic religion to another as a fact e.g. JPost "who converted from Islam to Christianity in 1993" and CNN "his own background as a Palestinian-American convert to conservative Christianity". Having said that, I don't object to trying to find a better phrasing but what concerns me Thereandnot is that you may be hostile to the subject (which doesn't matter) and it's affecting your editing (which does matter). "says" or something like "self-described" is always better than "claims".  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I also wanted to say something about statements like "found to be false" in this edit. As any scientist will tell you, there is a big difference between "found to be false" and "found no evidence to support..." CNN carefully phrase their article using the less emphatic approach e.g.
 * "found no evidence that would support that biography"
 * "CNN's Jerusalem bureau went to great lengths trying to verify Shoebat's story. The Tel Aviv headquarters of Bank Leumi had no record of a firebombing at its now-demolished Bethlehem branch. Israeli police had no record of the bombing, and the prison where Shoebat says he was held "for a few weeks" for inciting anti-Israel demonstrations says it has no record of him being incarcerated there either."
 * We are also obliged to carefully phrase our articles, especially BLPs. The way we present things should reflect the way the source presents things. We can't be more emphatic than them and we can't take sides.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with all the points above and I changed the wording to reflect it. Thereandnot (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Walid Shoebat and Benghazi claims
I know that this source is not very credible, but Walid Shoebat claims that several media outlets in the Mideast have claimed that the Libyan government, upon interrogating (alleged) suspects in the Benghazi attack, found (alleged) links to the government and/or political party of then-Egyptian president Mohammad Morsi. Normally, I would just dismiss these allegations, except that the source provides an actual photocopy of an (alleged) document by Libyan authorities. While his conspiracy theories are not credible, I could not find an English or other source disputing the reliability of the Libyan sources and/or the claims tying Morsi to the Benghazi attack. The claim is obviously repeated by right-leaning critics of the Obama administration (see the manifold conspiracy theories on Benghazi), but since these theories are so widely repeated, I would like to see whether any source has specifically debunked the claims by Shoebat re: Egyptian complicity in the Benghazi attack. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Release?
What does "According to Shoebat, upon his release" mean? Release from what?Royalcourtier (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

His website
This guy has a website. And I think it's worth mentioning because he's a complete lunatic. His site is full of anti-gay, anti-women, bizarre apocalyptic and often violent rantings. Witness the horror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.216.93 (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Walid Shoebat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061120003747/http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm to http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The First Line
Right now, the first line of the article reads "Walid Shoebat (Arabic: وليد شعيبات‎‎) is a Palestinian American, born in the West Bank to an American mother, who converted to Christianity from Islam." In my understanding, especially after looking at the sources cited, this is totally reversed -- he switched from Islam to Christianity. Sorry for posting on the talk for something so little -- I just could tell this is a contentious page and wanted to go through the correct hoops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbiadig (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Personal views
The Personal views section of the article could usefully include information relating to Walid Shoebat's self-confessed homophobia as illustrated here. Also it should be noted that the Shoebat website actively supports extremely transphobic attitudes as illustrated here:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjwright1954 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2017
Simply for the sake of clarity, I would like the word "and" to be inserted in the first line before "who converted". As it stands, the second, final subordinate clause could mean either that the subject converted or that his mother (in the first subordinate clause) converted. Aidanbh (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Although the sentence should be really recast. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please when you answered you can help to change the "answered=" parameter above to "yes" so as to remove the request from categories. &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about forgetting to do that, my bad. Beyond My Ken (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Walid Shoebat. 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/20101222221143/http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/monitoring-america/6/ to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/monitoring-america/6/

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) 06:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)