Talk:WikiIslam

Sydney Morning Herald reference, FFI quote
In this edit, User:My very best wishes removed a Sina quote but left a reference to the Sydney Morning Herald article from which the quote was taken in place.

As a result, explanatory footnote a. now reads, in total: FFI mentions its aim to lie in "'unmask[ing] Islam and help Muslims leave [the faith]".[11] ([11] being the Sydney Morning Herald reference.)

This has created the misleading impression that the cited Sydney Morning Herald article contains the "unmask[ing]" quote (which it does not; that quote is in fact unsourced). Either the Sina quote should be restored or the Sydney Morning Herald reference deleted as well. What's preferable?

As for the FFI quote, the current wording doesn't match what's on the faithfreedom.org website. Sina says there, At Faith Freedom we want to demonstrate the fallacy of Islam and help Muslims leave this dangerous cult that is threatening the peace of the world.

The "unmask" version of the quote we are currently hosting stems from p. 162 of, which looks like a good source (published 2014), but we can see for ourselves that the quote given there isn't accurate. I checked the Internet Archive, and the wording in Sina's piece was "demonstrate the fallacy" rather than "unmask" even back in 2004, the oldest copy available in the Wayback Machine:. Conversely I was unable to find the string "unmask Islam and help muslims leave" anywhere online other than Wikipedia and the book in question.)

So let's fix that quote as well (it'll need to be fixed in Sina's article as well). Thoughts?

Cheers, Andreas JN 466 17:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I simply think that personal opinions by Ali Sina that are not on the subject of this page (WikiIslam) belong to another page, i.e. Ali Sina (activist). On that another page his views should be sourced to RS and correctly cited per WP:BLP. I would rather avoid a direct citation in case of such discrepancies. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with My very best wishes regarding both of the points made above. In the Tracks of Breivik presumably went through publisher-review where such quotes would have been checked. Where we have a source that meets WP:RS requirements, we need not refer to a primary source. I also see other websites that provide a similar, but not identical, description of FFI's aims: "to (a) unmask Islam and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism but disguised as religion and (b) to help Muslims leave it, end this culture of hate caused by their 'us' vs. 'them' ethos and embrace the human race in amity." Snuish (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the reference. I appreciate you catching that. Snuish (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Larsson correctly cited a WikiIslam FAQ he accessed in 2013. Can we correct the grammar and change the tense, keeping Larsson as the reference? FFI has stated that its aim is to "unmask Islam and help Muslims leave [the faith]". Regards, --Andreas JN 466 12:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Change made, diff: --Andreas  JN 466 13:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

New journal article
An interesting new open access article on WikiIslam is now available. It was submitted to the journal in November last year and is written by Edin Kozaric and Torkel Brekke, crediting feedback and comments from Goran Larsson: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/01419870.2023.2268154?needAccess=true

Their article raises certain concerns though is more caveated in its criticisms compared to previous reviews of this website and credit is given in some respects following the changes. I think a significant update to this article is therefore warranted.

I wish to add the following to the Overview and Reception sections. The Overview seems to feature brief descriptions of the website and associated events, whereas the more analytical information seems to be in the Reception section. If these are OK or there are no objections I will go ahead with the additions. "Around 2020" is an approximate date based on the year that the authors say the site ownership changed and 2022 was the submission date of the article and last access date for cited webpages.

Overview section:

Around 2020, a major revision to WikiIslam took place with a stated aim to "provide accurate and accessible information from traditional and critical persectives” on Islam, and stressing a "zero-tolerance policy on hateful, misleading, unencyclopedic, and polemical content." As of 2022, to an extent content was in line with the new vision.  Articles generally presented varying interpretations of Muslim scholars and referenced Islamic texts, scholarly debates and academic studies.  However, there was a bias in the selection of topics covered on the website, some of which explicitly or implicitly linked Muslims with a non-rational worldview that is incompatible with a scientific outlook, and often tended to cast them or Islam in a negative light when voices of contemporary scholars or contextualisation of debates were lacking.

Reception section (includes several phrases quoted from EK and TB's conclusions):

In 2023, a content analysis of WikiIslam by Edin Kozaric of Oslo Metropolitan University and Torkel Brekke, Research Professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo, was published following what the researchers described as "a serious effort to reinvent itself as a scientific, neutral, and unbiased website in several ways." Analysing how external websites had cited WikiIslam over many years, the researchers concluded that its articles had been "used to give legitimacy to arguments made on other websites, many of which contain Islamophobic messaging." Their analysis of the most widely disseminated WikiIslam articles found them "largely selective when it comes to topics covered, and to some extent selective in the choice of references." Some of the articles "could be said to espouse attitudes that are Islamophobic", though they noted "at the same time it is also important to underline that the articles often present alternative and conflicting opinions about the topics that are discussed." Kozaric and Brekke's main concern was that "WikiIslam presents itself as an encyclopedic and scientific site without a political agenda and that it does not critically reflect upon how it can be used for serving other interests."

Gamma737 (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Looking at the introduction, that also needs updating to reflect the post-revision assessment. They do not call the site itself anti-Muslim, despite using that term to describe its past manifestation ("In an earlier article, Larsson (2007) addressed how the website WikiIslam was used for spreading and publishing anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim opinions." - p. 2). Therefore, the opening sentence in wikivoice has become unsafe as a statement about the present.
 * It also seems important to mention in the introduction that there has been what they describe as a major revision since those earlier assessments ("the fact that the website recently has been subject to a major revision" - p. 2). Otherwise what must be the most significant thing since it was created is only mentioned after some long paragraphs about the history and is easily missed.
 * I propose the following update, which is based on the central observation repeated in the abstract and conclusion as well as the main body of EK and TB's article. If this is fine or no objections in the next few days I'll go ahead.
 * "WikiIslam is a website presented as an encyclopedic resource on Islam from traditional and critical perspectives, though has been noted for bias in the selection of topics covered and to some extent in its choice of sources.[EK and TB ref] Prior to a major revision,[EK and TB ref] it was an anti-Muslim[7] and anti-Islam[9] wiki.[3]"
 * Regarding the final sentence of the introduction, "...may edit its content, which has been noted as Islamophobic.[2][4][1][a]", probably a reasonable way to update that is to add the words "to a varying extent over time" and adding a ref to the new article. This would be to reflect the complex and more caveated conclusions in the recent review. Gamma737 (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Kozaric/Brekke work allows us to conclude that the website is no longer anti-Muslim or anti-Islam. They write that their "overall evaluation of WikiIslam is that the information that it presents about Islam is far from neutral" (16), "several of the topics covered by WikiIslam are common themes that are associated with anti-Muslim discourses in the West" (10), and "Muslims are in general explicitly or implicitly linked to a non-rational worldview that is incompatible with a scientific outlook, and there is hardly any information that presents Muslims in a positive or neutral way" (11). While they do acknowledge a serious effort by WikiIslam to reinvent itself (2), they conclude that WikiIslam still "does not meet all the requirements stated in their own vision document" (16). Snuish (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe it needs a little tweaking. Certainly older sources described the site in general as anti-Muslim, but it is very significant that EK and TB do not do so, especially given their summary of Larsson and that they could easily have used the term in their conclusions. The closest thing is the page 10 sentence which is only about certain topics (the content of some of those pages are discussed earlier, noting that they tend now not to homogenise Muslims or Islam) and which begins with the less than emphatic: "Still, one could argue that several of the topics are common themes... " This is well short of calling the site anti-Muslim, especially given the caveats and improvements noted elsewhere.
 * For these reasons I find the original statement too strong in light of the new article, coming after a "major revision" and the new vision enacted to some extent. The introduction needs at the very least to reflect that there has been a revision and not imply that nothing has changed in these respects since those earlier assessments.
 * I think the following would be acceptable if also with you?
 * "A major revision took place[1] after many years as an anti-Muslim[8] and anti-Islam[10] wiki[4]. Nevertheless, an overall lack of neutrality has been noted, and several topics are arguably themes associated with such discourses.[1]"
 * This no longer states whether the revision meaningfully improved it in those respects, and gives the recent view of such matters (though I'm a bit concerned that no positive changes are mentioned). Gamma737 (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just want to add what may be a better suggestion in order to keep the introduction short and simple by combining with the sentence about the chronology. This again states nothing as to whether the earlier characterization still applies. The reader can then form their own view from the rest of the page and sources.
 * "The website was founded by Ali Sina in 2006[4] as an anti-Muslim[8] and anti-Islam[10] wiki[4] and acquired by the Ex-Muslims of North America in 2015[11] who undertook a major revision.[1]" Gamma737 (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I like this formulation. While I acknowledge what you've stated regarding Kozaric/Brekke's work in that they do not use particularly strong language to describe WikiIslam, they do not clearly repudiate such labels either. Additionally, we have other recent sources, such as Rabia Kamal (2022), that continue to describe the website as Islamophobic even after EXMNA's changes. We also need to consider the first sentence; I think it provides far too much deference to WikiIslam's self-description. Snuish (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean... I think if we remove "from traditional and critical perspectives" and just say "Wikiislam is a website which presents itself an an encyclopedic site about Islam,..." then it will reflect Kozaric's and Brekke's own choice of language used in their article ("presents itself as an encyclopedic and scientific site", "functioning as an encyclopedia about Islam"). As a small readability improvement I would also move "in 2015" to go after the word "acquired" so that "who undertook..." will follow right after the name of the organisation. If that sounds good to you I'm happy to go ahead with the changes. Gamma737 (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to the quote on page ten, which I grant begins with "still, one could argue", I also see "However, the selection of topics included on WikiIslam seems to be biased, and there is often a tendency to cast a negative light on Islam or Muslim" (3). Kozaric/Brekke didn't use the words "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Islam" in that quote, but the sentence would support those labels. It's certainly not inconsistent with the use of "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Islam." Snuish (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We were in the middle of a discussion about the following opening to reflect the language with which the recent review actually summarised their post-revision description of the site, without losing nor implying any expiration of the previous assessments:
 * WikiIslam is a website which presents itself as an encyclopedic site about Islam, though has been noted for bias in the selection of topics covered and to some extent in its choice of sources.[1] It was founded in 2006 by Ali Sina[4] as an anti-Muslim[8] and anti-Islam[10] wiki[4], and was acquired in 2015 by the Ex-muslims of North America, who undertook a major revision.[1]
 * I've edited here my comments from yesterday as I now think I made a compromise too far. I reiterate my previous comments about their deliberate choices of language and note that the page 3 paragaph goes on to elaborate, explaining about the lack of contemporary voices and context in those pages. On page 2 they recall Larsson writing of its "anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim opinions". Enstedt is cited with a quote about "anti-Muslim rhetoric". It's clear that Kozaric and Brekke are not talking about that kind of thing in their paper, which is also what I think the average reader would understand such terms to mean. Instead (page 10) they talk about "The way of presenting a topic provide the reader with a good opportunity to make his or her own inference" though noting the lack of contemporary discussions and interpretations, similar to in the negative light paragraph. This is essentially summarised in the selective topics and choice of sources statements. So I stand by the formulation you previously agreed to, which represents a reasonable compromise and allows for the opinion that the old assessments are maintained. I can imagine there will otherwise be ongoing complaints that the introduction is misleading (especially in Wikipedia's own voice). Gamma737 (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The quotes I provided above are consistent with prior opinions regarding this website being anti-Muslim and anti-Islam. If you can provide a quote from the Kozaric/Brekke article that indicates clearly that they disagree with that characterization, that would be useful. As of now, you have provided assumptions and your own inference. Other authors also, as indicated above, continue to use, e.g., "Islamophobic" when referring to the website even after EXMNA's changes. Snuish (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WikiIslam is a website which presents itself as an encyclopedic site about Islam, though has been noted for bias in the selection of topics covered and to some extent in its choice of sources.[1] It was founded in 2006 by Ali Sina[4] as an anti-Muslim[8] and anti-Islam[10] wiki[4], and was acquired in 2015 by the Ex-muslims of North America, who undertook a major revision.[1]
 * I've edited here my comments from yesterday as I now think I made a compromise too far. I reiterate my previous comments about their deliberate choices of language and note that the page 3 paragaph goes on to elaborate, explaining about the lack of contemporary voices and context in those pages. On page 2 they recall Larsson writing of its "anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim opinions". Enstedt is cited with a quote about "anti-Muslim rhetoric". It's clear that Kozaric and Brekke are not talking about that kind of thing in their paper, which is also what I think the average reader would understand such terms to mean. Instead (page 10) they talk about "The way of presenting a topic provide the reader with a good opportunity to make his or her own inference" though noting the lack of contemporary discussions and interpretations, similar to in the negative light paragraph. This is essentially summarised in the selective topics and choice of sources statements. So I stand by the formulation you previously agreed to, which represents a reasonable compromise and allows for the opinion that the old assessments are maintained. I can imagine there will otherwise be ongoing complaints that the introduction is misleading (especially in Wikipedia's own voice). Gamma737 (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The quotes I provided above are consistent with prior opinions regarding this website being anti-Muslim and anti-Islam. If you can provide a quote from the Kozaric/Brekke article that indicates clearly that they disagree with that characterization, that would be useful. As of now, you have provided assumptions and your own inference. Other authors also, as indicated above, continue to use, e.g., "Islamophobic" when referring to the website even after EXMNA's changes. Snuish (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've edited here my comments from yesterday as I now think I made a compromise too far. I reiterate my previous comments about their deliberate choices of language and note that the page 3 paragaph goes on to elaborate, explaining about the lack of contemporary voices and context in those pages. On page 2 they recall Larsson writing of its "anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim opinions". Enstedt is cited with a quote about "anti-Muslim rhetoric". It's clear that Kozaric and Brekke are not talking about that kind of thing in their paper, which is also what I think the average reader would understand such terms to mean. Instead (page 10) they talk about "The way of presenting a topic provide the reader with a good opportunity to make his or her own inference" though noting the lack of contemporary discussions and interpretations, similar to in the negative light paragraph. This is essentially summarised in the selective topics and choice of sources statements. So I stand by the formulation you previously agreed to, which represents a reasonable compromise and allows for the opinion that the old assessments are maintained. I can imagine there will otherwise be ongoing complaints that the introduction is misleading (especially in Wikipedia's own voice). Gamma737 (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The quotes I provided above are consistent with prior opinions regarding this website being anti-Muslim and anti-Islam. If you can provide a quote from the Kozaric/Brekke article that indicates clearly that they disagree with that characterization, that would be useful. As of now, you have provided assumptions and your own inference. Other authors also, as indicated above, continue to use, e.g., "Islamophobic" when referring to the website even after EXMNA's changes. Snuish (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)