Talk:WikiIslam/Archive 2

Perception
For some reason, seem to have missed out on "The Oxford Handbook of American Islam." TrangaBellam (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the quotation "often perceived as being anti-Muslim, if not Islamophobic" appears in that book? If you're not, then the approach to citing is incorrect. Put the citation for the quotation after the quotation and the citation for the rest next to the rest. Or rephrase the whole thing so that it is clear to the reader what information comes from what source. EddieHugh (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Revert

 * The line—Three years later, they claimed to have purged a range of content—from polemical tracts and satires to testimonies and op-eds—of the site—is not a product of original research. It is sourced from the About Us section of the site, which was properly cited:
 * , do better. However, you can object on grounds of WP:DUE, WP:SPS etc.

TrangaBellam (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC )
 * Who told that op-eds are inherently poor sources and must be tagged (and removed)? The writer—co-Director of a reputed thinktank—cites Sina's work:
 * Reasonable synthesis is not prohibited by policy. But I am willing to concede on this.
 * Please see WP:RSEDITORIAL, WP:RSOPINION, and WP:BLPRS for your question to me. RSOPINION is particularly instructive; it states: Snuish (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBURO. We have an author stating Mr X. says "ABCD" and linking an article where Mr. X says those precise words — end of discussion. You need to take the RfC route out. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. I will take a look at the RfC process and open one soon. I haven't done one of those before. Snuish (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you be interested in a third opinion as well? I'm considering asking for one before opening an RfC. Snuish (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * calling your attention to the question above. Snuish (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This was removed by other editors in the latest round of edits, but I would still be interested in fleshing out this discussion if there are additional policy-based reasons for retaining the material. I certainly don't doubt the veracity of the statement you inserted. Snuish (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well using the about us, if it's not always in flow, perhaps a permalink to it, with a short quote about an dated intent of change, or a denial statement, may be acceptable. Ideal would be a secondary source mentioning it, middle way would be some press release or interview article published by a third party...  As for the site's reputation, even if it improves, it's expected for independent sources to lag behind when reporting about it (and the same for WP).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding: so far I don't see a consensus from non-WP:SPAs for its inclusion, — Paleo Neonate  – 22:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not be citing user generated material per WP:USERGENERATED. There is a press release that we might consider using, though there are still some WP:SELFSOURCE concerns with using such sources. Snuish (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not offer any objections. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article to cite the press release instead. Snuish (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that there seem to be no new independent evaluations of the site's content (at least, I haven't found any scholarly or news articles or books) after EXMNA announced the completion its major overhaul in March 2021 (initiated in 2018). Granted, that is very recent, so perhaps scholars have not taken notice yet. If it is true what EXMNA said in its March 2021 statement, however, then all or most of its content that earlier commentators have deemed 'Islamophobic' may have been removed by now, and these characterisations no longer apply. Unfortunately, there's no way for us to check if no RS write about it. TrangaBellam is correct in saying that we cannot just cite EXMNA's own statement, even if they give an admission of some of the site's biases at the moment they acquired it from Sina in December 2015, which - at least to me - seemed like a fairly critical statement to make about the work of their predecessors that does not promote EXMNA's own interests, and therefore could be featured in this article. Oh well. We'll see if the opinions of experts change, and for that, we need patience. If they just keep on citing Larsson 2007 about the state of the site in 2007 (as Shukri 2019 did), the current state may be rather misrepresented based on outdated data. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an upcoming scholarly article about WikiIslam. Very little about the website had changed in 2019; Shukri was not at all incorrect to reference the study. You can use archive.org and evaluate it yourself, if you'd like. Snuish (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent Changes to Overview
I invite you to take a look at footnote C / citation 12 again. I've also added the direct quote from the reference; it wasn't previously there. The information that you indicated was current as of 2013 is actually current as of 2018. Snuish (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think anything I moved was related to the 2018 stuff - if anything, I got it wrong the other way, with something from 2007 being listed as being from 2013. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. The point of that footnote is that Larsson cited both his 2007 and 2013 descriptions of WikiIslam in 2018. Hence, both descriptions of WikiIslam were still current as of 2018. The footnote and "as of 2018" didn't merely apply to the first sentence of the paragraph that you split up, as follows. It applied to all sentences within the paragraph:
 * "As of 2018, information on (alleged) internal contradictions in Quran, persecution of non-Muslims and ex-Muslims, follies of Muhammad etc. are held; a narrow focus is maintained on "violence, sexuality and gender conflicts". Apostasy testimonies are featured too. The site holds a list of 101 "provocative" questions which are to be asked of any Muslim to prove that Islam is not a "true religion" — this ran in tune with the site's active encouragement to criticize Muslims.  Translations of content into multiple languages are available." (citations omitted)
 * Here's what Larsson said in 2018:
 * "For example, the anti-Muslim webpage WikiIslam (on this homepage, see Larsson 2007; Enstedt and Larsson 2013) simply concludes: 'The punishment for apostasy in the Islamic faith is death.'"
 * Snuish (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Dangerous ideology
Sourced to Gardell (2012) who quotes from WikiIslam's entry on Islamophobia (as accessed on 22 August 2010) that had the term described as a strategy to delegitimize critics of Islam since many have proved Islam to be a dangerous ideology with tools of logic: TrangaBellam (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, this is WP:SYNTH. You cannot use WikiIslam's entry on Islamophobia from 2010 that described the term "Islamophobia" as a strategy to delegitimize critics of Islam since many have proved Islam to be a dangerous ideology with tools of logic to make the claim that it is WikiIslam that claims to "act in defence against a perceived global threat from the "dangerous ideology" of Muslims and Islam".
 * Seriously, stating "critics of Islam" have proven Islam to be a dangerous ideology isn't the same as saying "WikiIslam claims Islam is a dangerous ideology".
 * I am sure you can find better ways to criticize WikiIslam but you are clutching at straws by synthesizing sources to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. There is far more damning criticism offered by Larsson and Enstedt that doesn't need any synthesis. You can use it but at this point the criticism section is probably 50% of the article. NebulaOblongata (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is Wikiislam's editorial stance that Islamophobia is a meaningless term since many have proved Islam to be a dangerous ideology with tools of logic. It is ridiculous to claim that critics, not WikiIslam, held (or endorsed) such positions. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "It is ridiculous to claim that critics, not WikiIslam, held (or endorsed) such positions."
 * If the source says "critics" then we state "critics". We are not here to make make assumptions or second-guess WikiIslam's position. Let Larsson or other scholars arrive at such a conclusion. We can then include it. You are free to publish your take on WikiIslam's position but Wikipedia isn't the place for that. NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The source (Gardell) does not say critics; he notes how Wikislam chooses to wash away concerns of Islamophobia by quoting the relevant bits from the site. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't argue that because that's not unrelated to what you've added to the article. You have cited Gardell to state that "WikiIslam claimed to act in defence against a perceived global threat from the "dangerous ideology" of Muslims and Islam". I don't see Gardell making any such conclusions. You are arriving at this by synthesis. NebulaOblongata (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WikiIslam claims to act in defense against a global threat of Muslims and Islam, and supports (elsewhere) that Islam is a dangerous ideology. That's all there is to this discussion but nonetheless, I have reframed the line. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you've reverted my edit by accusing me of trolling in your edit summary and thereby refusing to offer an explanation for your revert. By accusing me of trolling, you refuse to assume good faith. Your version is a gross non-neutral POV synthesis of Gardell's work. I shall not engage in an edit war and let others step in and provide their two cents.
 * I do not want to engage any further (at this moment) after your p-block appeal against me on Bishonen's talk page. Happy editing. NebulaOblongata (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever you feel.
 * His reference in the bibliography section notes that the article was accessed on 22 August 2010; you cannot insert that (useless) factoid in the middle of body! Why you write "a strategy to delegitimize critics of Islam" or "tools of logic" in quotes elude me; that was my summarizing of Gardell's arguments. Please do not edit without having consulted the source. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Footnote on Ali Sina
The article contains the following footnote on Sina:

''Sina argues Islam to be "an unreformable, violent, militant political cult" that was founded by a "a rapist, a pedophile, [..] a mass murderer, [..] a terrorist, [and] a madman"; he deemed the term "Muslim" to be synonymous with "stupid, barbarian, thug, arrogant, brain dead, zombie, hooligan, goon, shameless, savage and many other ignoble things". He is also a board member of Stop Islamization of America, classified as an anti-Muslim hate group by Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).''

Sina's personal views belong to Ali Sina (activist) and should be removed from WikiIslam. What's the purpose of adding this footnote to WikiIslam? Even Larsson, whose work the article is largely based on doesn't discuss Sina. Also, the citations presented for the statements by Sina above don't discuss WikiIslam.

NebulaOblongata (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Notified: User talk:TrangaBellam. Reason: primary contributor for the text above. Snuish (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If I am not wrong, Sina is the founder of the website. And this (sourced) information is obviously relevant in light of the nature of criticism directed at the site. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If Larsson, who's written a scholarly paper on WikiIslam didn't care to include Ali Sina's personal views in his research then I don't think Wikipedia should. For example, neither Wikipedia or for that matter Criticism of Wikipedia include any information about Jimbo Wales' personal views. To tie Sina's personal views to the criticism that WikiIslam has received is WP:OR because none of the sources go into this direction. Furthermore, this may be perceived as Wikipedia trying to employ the age-old tactic of guilt by association. NebulaOblongata (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be very much relevant on the Sina page, but here, specifically, dragging in the comments is a bit synth-y as well as slightly tangential. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree - NebulaOblongata (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You can pontificate till eternity about imaginary violations of policies but this is not a violation of SYNTH, and will not be removed without a RfC. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I do not feel strongly about it either way. It's just a note in any case, so not a particularly primary content concern. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Iskandar232 has a point. You are attempting to create a connection that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources''. None of the sources cited make any references to Sina's personal views on either Islam or Muslims. Linking his personal views to the "nature of criticism directed at the site" is your synthesis. I am happy to take the WP:RfC route to see what the community has to say on this. NebulaOblongata (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do launch one. We will see where it ends up. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you be interested in a third opinion as well? I'm considering asking for one before opening an RfC.
 * As per WP:RfC, before using the RfC process, editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues by discussing the matter with the parties involved. RfC should be the final stage in content dispute resolution.
 * NebulaOblongata (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Iskandar323 et al have already given their opinion; 3O cannot be invoked in discussions with more than two participants. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be very interested in seeing the results of a RfC discussion or a discussion on the original research noticeboard on this topic to gauge how the community determines what is and what is not appropriately relevant, as that's something I'm still learning myself. Snuish (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

BTW, how old are these quotes of Sina? People do mature and calm down. Become more reasonable. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Regardless, I don't think it belongs here. Like Iskandar323 said "dragging in the comments is a bit synth-y as well as slightly tangential." NebulaOblongata (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's non-critical information either way - people who are desperate to know the precise nuance (or lack therein) of Sina's views can go to his page. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This particular quote is incidentally not in fact at Ali Sina (activist) at present, though the page as a whole is threadbare, so perhaps it's no surprise. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and added the quote to Ali Sina (activist). Thoughts? NebulaOblongata (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

"Islamophobic wiki"
All google search results for Islamophobic wiki only link to this site. NebulaOblongata (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's the metric you'd like to use, WikiIslam Islamophobia leads to quite a few search results. Let's also take a look at some of the sources and context in which WikiIslam appears:
 * ·Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam
 * ·Telling the Truth about Islam? Apostasy Narratives and Representations of Islam on WikiIslam.net which specifically characterizes it as "often perceived as being anti-Muslim, if not Islamophobic"
 * ·The Perception of Indonesian Youths toward Islamophobia: An Exploratory Study. Islamophobia Studies Journal.
 * ·''Islamophobia or Legitimate Concern? Contrasting Official and Populist Understanding of Opposition to Muslims
 * ·The video Three Things About Islam: Islamophobia online or a religious dialogue''
 * ·Mattias Gardell's Islamofobi
 * Snuish (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is such a bad retort. The argument is against calling it an "Islamophobic wiki" in the lede. No citation calls it that. NebulaOblongata (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bad retort? You didn't really present an argument in the first place—just a brief sentence. You haven't made clear whether your concern is about "Islamophobic," "wiki," or the phrase as a whole, and your edits have been focused on removing the word "Islamophobic." Do you have any proposed alternatives? Snuish (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The website has undergone a major overhaul since 2021. Larsson's characterization is outdated. NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ... according to EXMA. It can't speak for itself. At a bare minimum, establishing this would need a reliable, secondary source similarly stating it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WikiIslam has been trying the "Larsson's characterization is outdated" argument for the past ten years, if not more: "Larsson was very critical. Today, with its new policies, new guidelines, thousands of more pages and the inclusion of pro-Islamic content aimed at presenting a positive image of Islam, WikiIslam remains the same only in name." Snuish (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggested lede
None of the sources referenced in the current article use the terminology "Islamophobic wiki". As I have demonstrated above, only Wikipedia uses this language. This falls under WP:SYNTH.

I suggest the lede be changed to:


 * (Note: This re-worded/edited to remove weasel words, based on feedback below)

The above statement is in line with Larsson's argument which specifically characterizes it as "often perceived as being anti-Muslim, if not Islamophobic" NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This isn't a violation of WP:SYNTH. There's no conclusion being asserted or implied by the phrase. We have sources describing the WikiIslam as anti-Muslim/Islamophobic. We have also sources describing it as a community-edited website, i.e., a wiki. Though not identical, combining the two words is along the lines of WP:CALC. Snuish (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It's definitely not NPOV:


 * There's a difference between:


 * Donald Trump is a xenophobic American politician.


 * Donald Trump is an American politician who is often perceived as xenophobic.


 * It's disingenuous to say that they are equal in NPOV.
 * NebulaOblongata (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't have a particular issue with rephrasing it (since Islamophic wiki does imply it is absolute fact, not opinion), but 'often' and 'perhaps' are weasel words. The straightforward way of writing this would be:
 * WikiIslam is a wiki focused on criticizing Islam that has frequently been labelled as anti-Muslim or Islamophobic. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I support Iskandar323's suggested text. NebulaOblongata (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Iskandar323, the choice between frequently/often/perhaps won't change the weasel wording, which is caused by "labelled as" or "perceived as". Per MOS:WEASEL, weasel words aren't even a problem if they're in the lead and are acting as summary of content in the body. Given that the best sources describe the site as Islamophobic, my first thought is to present that description in wiki-voice. Is it seriously contested by any reliable, secondary sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so. I haven't really done enough source analysis to determine how contested or not the terminology is; there are of course plenty saying it. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is based on the assumption that there is widespread consensus on WikiIslam's Islamophobia. If you closely examine the sources that are presented, they point to the a single source that's Larsson's 2007 paper " "Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam". WikiIslam has undergone an overhaul in the 15 years since then. Let's examine other sources that are used to support the "Islamophobic" tag.
 * "Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam (2007)" is authored by Larsson where he states "For highlighting negative and biased perceptions about Islam and Muslims, the site is often perceived as being anti-Muslim, if not Islamophobic"
 * "Telling the Truth about Islam? Apostasy Narratives and Representations of Islam on WikiIslam.net (2013)" authored by Larsson and Enstedt cites source #1 and repeats the argument
 * "The Perception of Indonesian Youths toward Islamophobia: An Exploratory Study" quotes Larsson's 2007 paper and cites source #1
 * "When Islam Is Not a Religion: Inside America's Fight for Religious Freedom" The author Asma Uddin isn't a scholar by any means but a lawyer - This isn't WP:RS.
 * "American Muslims in the Age of New Media" — I cannot verify the author Nadia Khan's scholarship. Some sources say she is a graduate in Arabic and studio art or a PHD student in Islamic studies.
 * "Understanding Religious Apostasy, Disaffiliation, and Islam in Contemporary Sweden" by Enstedt - Cites #2 which is his work with Larsson
 * There isn't scholarly analysis done of the content of WikiIslam since 2007.
 * NebulaOblongata (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't require scholarly sources, though they're certainly great and among the sources that meet WP:RS criteria. Asma Uddin does not cite Larsson's work. Neither does Nadia Khan from what I recall. WP:RS does not exclude Uddin's or Khan's work. In regards to your points #2, #5, and #6: while they may have cited Larsson, their descriptions of WikiIslam are written in the present tense and not in the past tense. Do you assume that the authors responsible for these works, which were peer-reviewed or publisher-reviewed at the time of publication, did not verify that their analyses were still correct? If they were or are incorrect, you'll need to provide published sources that contradict them. Snuish (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I am waiting for Larsson's latest research, as well. Also, seems like I was wrong about Asma's scholarship, so I take my word back. NebulaOblongata (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your link to Asma Uddin has,
 * But you claim that Asma Uddin isn't a scholar by any means. Strange, TrangaBellam (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. It was a genuine oversight. NebulaOblongata (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV requires that articles include and appropriately balance all significant viewpoints published in reliable sources. That WikiIslam is anti-Muslim/Islamophobic is uncontroverted in such sources. Snuish (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do reliable sources describe the site as "anti-Muslim/Islamophobic"?
 * Yes
 * Is this a significant / widespread opinion?
 * Yes
 * Now that we have got that out of the way let me explain my concern, which is the use of "wiki-voice" in the lede. It's a clear violation of WP:WIKIVOICE. Let me copy-paste a relevant portion of the policy for quick reference:
 * "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.""


 * Significant opinions expressed about subjects should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. The policy could not be any more clear.
 * Let me know your thoughts. NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:WIKIVOICE also states "Avoid stating facts as opinions." So where's the debate regarding it being anti-Muslim/Islamophobic? Snuish (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying popular/significant opinions are facts? NebulaOblongata (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That it is an anti-Muslim website is uncontested. See the Jew Watch article, for example, where we use "antisemitic website." There's no need to beat around the bush when the secondary sources are unequivocally clear. Snuish (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Use of past tense with
So, this and this happened. Just because a statement is written in the past tense it doesn't necessarily imply that its validity as of today is no longer true.

Let me explain this with examples that are quite similar to the issue at hand.

Imagine having the following statements in the Wikipedia entry for Bill Gates today.


 * 1) As of 2018, as per tax authorities, Bill Gates was a billionaire.
 * 2) As of 2018, as per tax authorities, Bill Gates is a billionaire.


 * Statement (1) in no way implies that Bill Gates' stopped being a billionaire after 2018. It simply means that as per the last records we could access (dated 2018), Gates was a billionaire. (Maybe the IRS is still working on his 2019-22 tax calculation as on 16 June 2022.)
 * Whereas, to have the statement (2) in Bill Gates' Wikipedia entry is plain wrong.

NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Snuish2 and @TrangaBellam Your thoughts? NebulaOblongata (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure that the issue we're dealing with is entirely analogous. Regardless, why are you asserting that the second is wrong? Is your argument based on grammar? I'm quite confident that we can find "As of [date], [present tense]" statements. Snuish (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Snuish. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's not about grammar but style. Though I must admit, I can't really find any Wikipedia guideline for tense usage when using "as of". NebulaOblongata (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Content rewrite
Removed, since sourced to primary source. We can expand upon it once Larson (2022) arrives. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Removal of EXMNA's announcement - Reason?
I believe that the following that was removed from the article should be reinstated.

"In March 2021, EXMNA announced that it had created new content standards on WikiIslam, archived and deleted articles that did not meet those standards, and initiated re-writes of other articles."

I would want to know what the issue was here? Are we questioning whether such an announcement was actually made? Is the source an issue? I don't think so because published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself.

I might be missing something here. Thank you!

NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I moved your comment here since the above comment by TB seems to be addressing the same removal. Hope you don't mind. Snuish (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All good - I will wait for @TrangaBellam to respond. Thanks for letting me know about the movement of text. NebulaOblongata (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is too controversial to use any primary source. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Using a primary source with attribution should not be an issue in that case. We aren't writing this in Wiki-voice. I don't think anyone is claiming that such an announcement was not made. Are you? This seems like unnecessary nit-picking. What is your problem with the statement, really? NebulaOblongata (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is too controversial to use any primary source. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a Wikipedia policy statement that supports your objection? If not, I am adding it back. NebulaOblongata (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY is the policy. If you add it back, you will be at 3RRn for slow-motion edit warring. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I will ask you again. Can you point me to policy statement(s) from WP:PRIMARY that are being violated? I see this as an attempt to status quo stonewalling because you are unable to demonstrate how the addition of the proposed text violates WP:PRIMARY. NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

NebulaOblongata blocked
As NOTHERE, but is also apparently editing on behalf of Ex-Muslims of North America, ie COI/PAID. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Islamophobic
User:Doug Weller.

MOS:LABEL states: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

Islamophobic is a value-laden term. It is used without attribution. The sources call it anti-Islamic. They mention the use of "Islamophobic", but as far as I can see, they do not call the website that in their own voice. Therefore, the label must be removed, or at least attributed if sources are found describing it as such. 117.251.198.179 (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Notified: User talk:TrangaBellam. Reason: TrangaBellam originally introduced this formulation in late 2021.. Snuish (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind moving back to how it was originally written: "WikiIslam is an anti-Muslim and anti-Islam wiki." It was quite faithful to the sources and strongly supported. Snuish (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's see what TrangaBellam says and how he justifies it. Doug Weller  talk 10:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is some useful material above on this talk page and in the reception section of the article that can be used to advance TrangaBellam's position. We have numerous articles and books that discuss WikiIslam in the context of Islamophobia and a few articles that specifically call out WikiIslam as Islamophobic, i.e., Larsson (2007) and Enstedt & Larsson (2013). I still think, however, "anti-Muslim" has the most support; we also see "anti-Islam" in some instances. Snuish (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Does 'anti-Muslim' or 'anti-Islam' differ from 'Islamophobic'? - both are given as synonymous terms on Islamophobia. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources that we have at hand on WikiIslam seem to understand Islamophobia as something more extreme than either "anti-Islam" or "anti-Muslim." For example, Enstedt & Larsson (2013) uses "Islamophobic" thusly: "For highlighting negative and biased perceptions about Islam and Muslims, [WikiIslam] is often perceived as being anti-Muslim, if not Islamophobic." Snuish (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. The difference is that the latter is a value laden term. Terms people use to dismiss criticism as baseless, irrational or invalid for whatever reason. MOS:LABEL explains it. I have yet to see a source using this label for the subject in it's own voice, aside from Wikipedia. It must be removed, or in any case attributed if sources are found.
 * On a tangent, the use of partisan, biased hacks from universities founded on "Islamic values" and similar rags with a declared agenda to fight criticism of Islam as "reliable sources" whose opinions are worthy of inclusion here and on the Ex-Muslims of America page is disturbing and a blot on Wikipedia.
 * 117.251.198.179 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, both Larsson (2007) and Enstedt & Larsson (2013) describe WikiIslam as Islamophobic. I assume that you're referring to Syaza Shukri in the Islamophobia Studies Journal in your tangent. If you believe that the source does not meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, WP:RS/N would be an excellent place to have that discussion. I seriously doubt, however, that the source fails to meet the guidelines. Snuish (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it? As far I see, it only says "it's perceived as Islamophobic". Weasel words, not the same as calling it Islamophobic in it's own voice. 2007 isn't quoted, but I assume despite it being a "study on Islamophobia", Larrson hasn't called it "Islamophobic" directly there either. If my assumption or reading is incorrect, I would be okay with an attributed statement, somewhere down in the lead.
 * 117.251.198.179 (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Enstedt & Larsson (2013) also states that WikiIslam's content "constitute[s] an important element in an Islamophobic world view that presents Islam and Muslims as diametrically opposite to all other world views." Regarding Larsson (2007), we have a scholar that summarized the article as follows: "Larsson argues that WikiIslam ... should be seen as an Islamophobic web portal." Snuish (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. I will stick to the original argument against using loaded language, then. I would prefer a summation of attributed views later in the lead.
 * 117.251.198.179 (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussing these views later in the lead would effectively be burying the lead. The description of WikiIslam as either anti-Muslim or Islamophobic has been the salient feature noted in most of the sources that discuss WikiIslam. For example, Islamophobia or Legitimate Concern? Contrasting Official and Populist Understanding of Opposition to Muslims includes WikiIslam among a survey of anti-Muslim websites; in other words, if it were not anti-Muslim, it wouldn't have been included.
 * The better question is what characterization is most apt: anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, Islamophobic, or some combination thereof? All three have support from reliable sources. Using "anti-Islam" exclusively is problematic because it would ignore descriptions provided by most sources as either anti-Muslim or Islamophobic. MOS:LABEL does not prohibit the current content of the lead since there are reliable sources that support the characterization. Snuish (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-Muslim and anti-Islam would be fine. As the original argument went, Islamophobic is a value laden term and shouldn't be used without attribution. I take it that there's consensus for this change since the original author hasn't responded and you don't oppose replacing Islamophobic with anti-Islam and anti-Muslim. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Larsson is still being quoted. We can say "described'. Doug Weller  talk 15:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While I'm not opposed to using anti-Muslim and anti-Islam, I'm also not entirely opposed to the use of Islamophobic since it has some clear support from the sources. I also wouldn't replace Islamophobic for the reasons you've cited because I'm not entirely following your argument. Are you saying that "Islamophobic" is value laden while "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Islam" are value neutral? Snuish (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. "phobic" is a loaded term. I'm not sure I can explain it better than the guideline linked at the start and the loaded language Wikipedia page. Doug, "described" wouldn't be enough, attribution guideline requires something like "described by Firstname Larsson as Islamophobic". 117.197.85.21 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Of course. But note that “phobic” here doesn’t mean anxiety disorder. Doug Weller  talk 16:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be weird if the first sentence started with "X thinks Y is [loaded term]". That stuff usually goes somewhere down. I prefer a simple, unattribured "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Islam" descriptor if we must put those descriptors there, and if the "authorities" here insist on valuing the garbage currently cited there. I will put in a pending change, I believe there's some kind of consensus. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there is consensus unless for saying described and attributing it. Doug Weller  talk 19:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Between you agreeing for an attribution and me opposing any label, I agree there's consensus for at least that. I'll put in a edit again, attributing the opinion. If you disagree with the specifics please refactor instead of yet another unproductive revert. If Snuish or any other editor expresses preference for anti-Islam and anti-Muslim to Islamophobic, which I was under the impression that he had already done so, I believe that will be a reason to replace Islamophobic wholesale. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Goddamnit guys. We agree that the unattributed loaded term in the lead is problematic. I've given a WP:PAG based argument for it. There's consensus for it. But seemingly no one wants to do anything about it, reverting edits seemingly for optics-related reasons rather than caring for any policy.
 * Is moving the term two fucking sentences down somehow "burying" it? It's still in the first paragraph for fucks' sake.
 * There's consensus for attributing the term. If you don't like my wording, put in a new one rather than reverting against policy and consensus. I'm begging you guys.
 * 117.197.85.21 (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You edit has been contested by being removed. Don't continue to restore it. Meters (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fucking hell. User:Meters have you read the discussion above. Do you not see an agreement that an unattributed use of a loaded term is not appropriate? Am I hallucinating? How much more discussion does this need? The edit has been "contested", I have given my reasons for the edit, the other editors seem to agree my reasons are legitimate and I interpreted policies and guidelines correctly, and yet they seem to not have to do anything about it, and continue to revert any attempt at improvement for various reasons while continuing to do nothing about the core issue. Truly Kafkaesque. What more "discussion" do you want to be had before you allow the edit? How much more agreement does this need? Is anybody going to anything about the blatant violation of the guideline against use of loaded terms? 117.197.85.21 (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And user:Snuish2 undid your changes. So yes, it has been contested. Meters (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the fucking thing dude. I don't contest that it has been contested.
 * User:Doug Weller, since I'm apparently not allowed to make any edits, can you please enforce the guideline and the consensus here to attribute the term? Do it whatever way you prefer, but get this done, get this out of way instead of forcing me into this endless bureaucratic nightmare of discussions with no resolution. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC) update 117.197.85.21 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be patient and allow this discussion to conclude instead of editing in haste. You're repeatedly calling "Islamophobic" unattributed when in fact it is not. Is the best formulation? Not necessarily. But is it unattributed? No. Snuish (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I propose something along the following lines: "WikiIslam is an anti-Muslim[citations] and anti-Islam[citations] wiki focused on criticizing Islam.[citation]...[Academics/Scholars] have also called the website Islamophobic[citations] and it has been frequently featured in discussions of Islamophobia.[citations]" I'm not sure if the sentence regarding Islamophobia should be the second sentence in the lead or the last sentence of the lead. Snuish (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Read WP:LABEL again. It requires in-text attribution. You seem to be interpreting attribution to mean citations. You need to specify who describes WikiIslam as Islamophobic. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Please continue to use "in-text attribution" when appropriate as opposed to merely "attribution" to avoid any confusion. Snuish (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Academics" is too imprecise there. I would prefer to name the academics there. I also don't see the point of latter half about discussions, it doesn't seem like lead material. But in any case, this version is better than whatever is currently there, so please make the edit while further discussion continues instead of letting the inappropriate content stay there. There is clearly consensus for that change. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:INTEXT has a similar example using "researchers." I'd like to get more feedback from other editors before moving forward. Snuish (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been stalled for a week. More input, specifically on this issue would be helpful. But while we wait for it, can you please make the edit you proposed? I support it, Doug supports it, and obviously since you made it you support it. It may or may not be refined by further discussion, but it is clearly superior to what we currently have, and the current version goes against guidelines. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I will not make that edit without the input of additional experienced editors due to the large proportion of new users on this page with undisclosed conflicts of interest who have focused on removing or changing the same material. Snuish (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So despite more than a week of time and input of 4 editors and pings to the original author with no opposition to argument that the current wording is in violation of the guidelines, we still need more input to replace the fucking violation with literally anything you or I propose? And I get reverted for changing text that no one here disagrees is in violation? What kind of nonsense is this? FFS! Make the damn edit. Or let me make it. It's been a week. Argue and collect inputs all you after the obvious fucking guideline and consensus is implemented. Stop these stalling tactics. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not interested in discussing anything with an editor who can't seem to edit without dropping the F bomb. Meters (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did edit without dropping any F bombs for the first half. It is just very sickening and frustrating to see editors refusing to make a basic edit without being able to give any policy based reasons. No one here seems to actually disagree that we shouldn't be using Islamophobic without in-text attribution. But they all refuse to edit it out, and don't want me to edit it out until... what? We agree on a better version? Then just put whatever version you prefer and discuss it afterwards dude, but please act on the central point we're discussing which you don't have any reason to oppose. Snuish proposes a version but refuses to implement it until "further discussion". How much more discussion does he want? And why? We can discuss it to death after he has implemented it. Otherwise it just seems like a tactic to stall removing the guideline violating text for yet another week. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does it seem like you're working on a tight deadline? Besides your absence from this discussion for a nine-day period, I don't see that there have been any undue delays in responses here. No one here is stalling. Snuish (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The undue delay has been everyone's refusal to change the problematic text without refuting the policy based reason I cited. You and others insist on talk-page discussion, but we've discussing this for days, and the only conclusion we have come to is that the text is indeed problematic and should be changed. Yet no one is ready to make the change until... what exactly? I'm not sure. There is no deadline, but there's a mental limit on how much bullshit I can tolerate. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see how we came to that conclusion. Do you want this page to be semi-ed? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It already effectively disallows IP and "inexperienced editor" edits, what more will a semi do?
 * Can you give a policy based reason for why we have a loaded term in the lead without in-text attribution? As far as I see editors here agree there isn't one. That only leads to one conclusion: it needs to be replaced.
 * 117.197.85.21 (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If not you, can I make the edit you proposed? Will you revert that too? 117.197.85.21 (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposed changes. The Islamophobic descriptor is amply supported by a minimum of four high-quality academic sources, and there are no academic sources contradicting that descriptor. However, the wording "WikiIslam is an anti-Muslim and anti-Islam wiki" is an acceptable alternative, since anti-Muslim is a synonym of Islamophobic. —  Newslinger  talk   10:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:LABEL requires in-text attribution for loaded terms like Islamophobic. Either just say anti-Muslim or anti-Islam, or use in-text attribution for Islamophobic. That's the core of the issue. Saying blah blah blah is acceptable but this is also acceptable ignores the thing being discussed. Use whatever the fuck you want but follow the fucking policy. I'm sick of this nonsense. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I support something along the lines of Snuish's suggestion, which stays true to the cited high-quality academic sources: "WikiIslam is an anti-Muslim and anti-Islam wiki focused on criticizing Islam. According to academics, the website is Islamophobic and has frequently been featured in discussions of Islamophobia." When there are multiple academics that describe WikiIslam in the same way, it is unnecessary to identify them individually.
 * 117.197.85.21, please keep in mind that many of your comments in this discussion violate the civility policy, which leads to your comments being taken less seriously. —  Newslinger  talk   11:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The above certainly seems to cover all of the bases and leave little room for further grumbling on the issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Can you please "commit" the edit while we grumble further?
 * Further grumbling: "multiple academics" might be an overstatement. I only see Larsson and Enstedt calling it "Islamophobic" in their own voice. Further, I don't think the spirit of WP:INTEXT and WP:LABLE guidelines support such uses, specially in this case. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Do any reliable sources say that it is not Islamophobic? -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me explain the situation once again. It is a kind of a "Will you stop beating your wife?" type of question. My perception is that WikiIslam is proudly prejudiced against Islam and people who adhere to that ideology, i.e. Muslims. But "Islamophobe" is not merely a neutral descriptor of that position, it is a loaded, value laden descriptor that implies that there's something normatively wrong with their position. Wikipedia policies do not allow such value laden judgments without in-text attribution. This policy is not followed here, which requires that it be either (a) removed, (b) replaced with anti-Muslim and anti-Islam or (c) attributed in-text to the people who make this judgment, (d) or some combination of the above three.
 * So, I'm just here begging you guys to do anything, anything of those three. Instead of doing that, I'm not sure what nonsense I'm currently participating in. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I speak for a lot of the editors here when I say it seems like you are drawing an arbitrary line in the sand. "Islamophobic" is barely more value-laden than anti-Islam and anti-Islam - it might semantically hint at a little more fear, loathing or hatred, but the fundamental sense of both is about prejudice. Both are value laden, and the distinction is fine indeed. However, perhaps instead of According to academics, the website is Islamophobic and has frequently been featured in discussions of Islamophobia." it could simply say: The website has also been labelled Islamophobic and been featured in discussions of Islamophobia." One professor and his PhD student may not be "academics", but it is enough to produce statements in Wikivoice. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Doing the count, we have seven separate sources associating this site with Islamophobia. Solid stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly I am not the only one drawing this arbitrary line. Many others, including the representatives of WikiIslam if the above section is to be believed, object to it. If my interlocutors genuinely believed they are the same, I doubt I would have been swiftly reverted for changing Islamophobic to anti-Muslim and anti-Islam. You wouldn't be insisting on the Islamophobic if it really was the same as anti-Muslim.
 * I only see two sources, at best, applying the label to WikiIslam, I'm not sure mere association is enough to use "academics".
 * And let me beg for the nth time. While we grumble here, can someone at least implement the basic version using "academics" instead of leaving the label without any attribution? It's not idea but better than nothing. How corrupt does the process have to be to stall such a small, policy supported request for so long? Shameful. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless you have reliable sources that dispute that WikiIslam is Islamophobic, then the word should stay. It is not appropriate to use a form of words that casts doubt, unless there is evidence in reliable sources that express doubt. We do not write Wikipedia on the basis of according to The Financial Times, the day after Monday is Tuesday[1]. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For the tenth fucking time dude. WP:LABEL. read the guideline. read the fucking guideline. Yes, it is absolutely appropriate to attribute the label, because it is loaded fucking language. How much hard is it to understand? It is not a neutral descriptor of the state of affairs, which would be moe like "WikiIslam is anti-Muslim". It is absolutely appropriate to attribute the term there. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that there is some arbitrariness to this distinction. That's the same point I was making above. "Anti-Muslim" and "anti-Islam" are also value laden. I like your proposed version of the text. Snuish (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Take 2
Okay, enough nonsense. Newslinger has put forward the following wording: WikiIslam is an anti-Muslim and anti-Islam wiki focused on criticizing Islam. According to academics, the website is Islamophobic and has frequently been featured in discussions of Islamophobia.. It is superior to the current wording, as it is more in line with WP:LABEL. I will replace the current version with this before further discussion, as most editors seem to favour something like it. Any objections? 117.197.85.21 (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * For having apparently participated only in a single discussion and perhaps spending a cumulative hour on your talk page posts, you seem to have gotten exasperated rather quickly. Snuish (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Spending an hour trying to explain what should have been patently obvious is extremely exasperating. I'm not sure what the disagreement is here—it can't be that hard to see that Islamophobia is a loaded term, specially when WP:ISLAMOPHOBIA redirects to WP:LABEL. It can't be that hard to see WP:LABEL disallows use of loaded terms in wikivoice without in-text attribution. Yet we keep going in circles. Without any explanation. I can only bang head on the wall about it. So, do I make the fucking edit or do you have any objection or alternate version to propose? 117.197.85.21 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nazi is a loaded term. If you write that Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a Nazi and have seemingly reliable sources for it, then the stuff in WP:LABEL applies.  If you write that Ernst Röhm was a Nazi, it does not, because there is absolutely no doubt that Röhm was a Nazi.


 * Unless there is doubt that WikiIslam is Islamophobic, then the stuff in WP:LABEL is irrelevant. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Come on Toddy, you know that's dishonest. That only refers to use of Nazi for people who are not officially members of actual Nazi parties. Calling Trump a Nazi would be the right example of loaded use. You can ask for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch if you disagree. 117.197.85.21 (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Words to watch? So you're citing a lot of the same policies as the now-banned NebulaOblongata, have the same level of familiarity with Wikipedia policies as he did, demonstrate the same level of persistence on getting the same content changed in this article, and share a lot of particular diction with editors who are currently banned for undisclosed COI's on this article. It would also explain your quick exasperation as this is just the latest in a long line of attempts that you've made to get the article changed.
 * Above, you asked, "So, do I make the fucking edit...?" No, you do not per WP:COI. What you do is keep yourself on the talk page, refrain from editing the article, and be forthright about your conflicts of interest per WP:COI as you and the rest of the EXMNA team have been asked to do for the last two years. Snuish (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
For the record, I see "anti-Muslim" and "Islamophobic" as equivalent synonyms, and have no preference between the two descriptors being used in the article, both of which are amply supported by high-quality reliable sources.

I have opened a sockpuppet investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/NebulaOblongata. —  Newslinger  talk   23:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Having read the discussions, I see little reason to change or significantly expand the existing simple formulation "WikiIslam is an Islamophobic[citations] wiki focused on criticizing Islam.[citation]". There is also no need to over complicate the lede with (what others have discribed as "value laden") further terms/synonyms beyond simply Islamophobia. Existing quotes and citations in the main text of what is a very short article are already sufficient for the detailed terms used in commentaries on the website.
 * However, if change is necessary, I think a good resolution are the suggestions of User:Doug Weller in using the word "described" and others supporting "According to academics, the website is Islamophobic and has frequently been featured in discussions of Islamophobia." (though like Snuish I too like the simpler alternative suggested by User: Iskandar323). A simple combination could be "WikiIslam is a wiki focused on criticizing Islam.[citation] The website has been described as Islamophobic and been featured in discussions of Islamophobia."[citations]. (using the simpler version of the 2nd sentence, without "also" and with Doug's "described" though also happy with "labelled"). The longer version of the 2nd sentence also seems fine. Gamma737 (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Both 117.251.198.179 and 117.197.85.21 blocked as socks of user:NebulaOblongata Meters (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Islamophobic?
How is wiki Islam Islamiophobic? It's only showing sources from islam 49.183.8.237 (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please review the remainder of the article. Snuish (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WikiIslam does use the Quran and Hadiths, but it usually twists a lot of verses to make it look bad or illogical. You can argue whether the verses from the religious book is real or not, but WikiIslam takes it quite too far. ZetaFive (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you bring an example? How is it a phobia to bring islamic sources and talk about it? 110.239.6.226 (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, there is a hadith where it says rape is permissible, while another one condemns it and says it is not allowed. WikiIslam chooses the permissible because it makes Islam look more negative, which is the entire point of the website. It was founded by an Ex-Muslim, and is funded by Ex-Muslims of North America, which is why whenever I do actually get in debates about religion on other websites, I choose not to use WikiIslam as a source as it cherry picks verses. And just like Wikipedia, some articles can be easily edited without creating an account, which brings up red flags. ZetaFive (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion above: Talk:WikiIslam/Archive 2. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that, due to the vague nature of the word "Islamophobic", it's best that the article itself doesn't explicitly state as such. I made a revision that is currently pending review that hopefully settles this discussion. Weirdarpeggi (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting it. See comment by User:Iskandar323 just above you. Doug Weller  talk 15:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Alright. I want to clarify that my revision wasn't meant to cast doubt on whether or not WikiIslam is Islamophobic. I just don't think the wording is appropriate or professional. The word "Islam" is mentioned thrice in the opening line. Also, I believe the organisation in charge of the Wiki, EXMNA, has changed its content standards and revised some of the articles on the Wiki (after the citations were published), which might make them outdated. I do not mind the page stating it is Islamophobic, but it might need rewording. Weirdarpeggi (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The project does not care about what you think. Wikipedia is beholden to reliable sources rather than personal sensibilities of anonymous netigens. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, and Wikipedia also needs to be written in neutral point of view. Just because some books claimed Muhammad as an anti-christ or false prophet, should we label him so in the lead of the article about him? Nope, right? The same should apply to this article. LiuWu87 (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If most sources that fell within the scope of WP:RS described Muhammad as something like that and led with that description of him, the Wikipedia page on him would probably do the same. Snuish (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Any wikipedia policy on that? The people who are critical of Muhammad of course the majority will say bad things about him, but not those who support him. The same should apply to this site, have you read the books that support it? Do they also say it is islamophobic, or has a prejudice against Islam without doing research first? Remember one of the Wikipedia policies, NPOV. LiuWu87 (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The most relevant portion of policy on that is WP:WEIGHT. Which books are you referring to when you say, "have you read the books that support [WikiIslam]," and what do those books state? Snuish (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you show me every source with direct quotations that clearly says this site is islamophobic? Just to set the record straight anti-islam or critical of Islam is not the same as islamophobic. LiuWu87 (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Use the find command on the page for "anti-Muslim," "Islamophobia," and "Islamophobic"; also refer to this discussion in the archives on the use of "Islamophobia" and in which I pointed out the context of WikiIslam's appearances in reliable sources. Snuish (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about anti-Islam and critical of Islam, not anti-Muslim. Please don’t twist it. Islam is different from Muslims, whereas Islam is the religion, Muslims are the adherents. LiuWu87 (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no twisting. You asked for support regarding the "Islamophobic" label. You also said "anti-islam or critical of Islam" isn't the same as "Islamophobic." Accordingly, I didn't rely on any argument in which being "anti-Islam or critical of Islam" is equivalent to Islamophobia. On the other hand, "anti-Muslim" is synonymous to "Islamophobic" in the view of many of the editors who have previously discussed this issue. Snuish (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding the use of "Islamophobic" on this page. The thread is Wikiislam. Thank you. Snuish (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you guys have any views by people who are not theologists? Or by any human rights groups? Obviously, many adepts of Islam will not like such resource and say whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We cite Göran Larsson, a tenured professor in the Department of Literature, History of Ideas, and Religion at the University of Gothenburg; not Göran Larsson (theologian). Who else, among the cited scholars, do you find to be a theologist? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC) TrangaBellam (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see: they are different people. I do agree it is OK saying in the body of the page: "Göran Larsson, Professor of Religious Studies at University of Gothenburg, argued that WikiIslam is an Islamophobic web portal". But I would not state it as a fact in WP voice in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes I agree. Do you agree to the current lead? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-Muslim redirects to Islamophobia. Therefore, my suggestion would be just to remove "anti-Muslim" from the 1st phrase, but leave "anti-Islam". One reason for this is that the parent organization, in 2nd phrase, i.e. Ex-Muslims of North America is apparently not an Islamophobic organization. If it were such, this would be different. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What we feel as editors, about the site or management, is irrelevant. Wikipedia works despite being a crowd sourced encyclopedia because it delegates the content-authority to reliable sources.
 * There is an unanimity among scholars — who discuss the site — that WikiIslam is "anti-Muslim". If you spot scholars (or other reliable sources) who disagree, please bring them. I will support unlinking Islamophobia, fwiw. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sufficiently familiar with this, so whatever. However, this page creates an impression of the subject being "framed" as anti-Muslim by bringing negative info that belong to other pages and by saying "anti-Muslim" multiple times without explaining why it is anti-Muslim. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is useful feedback. Thank you. Snuish (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I can see a number of things that look like "framing".
 * Page says: "The site's stated aim is to act in defence against a perceived global threat of Muslims and Islam" [ref]. It says "stated aim". I am looking at the wiki front page and do not see anything of that sort. A misinformation? I also do not see anything about "censorship" on their front page, etc.
 * "Reception". Third phrase in first paragraph repeats same claim by same author as first phrase. Second paragraph repeats the same claim by same authors as 1st paragraph.
 * The quotations are cherry picked to prove that the resource is anti-Muslim.
 * Like I said, please explain why it is anti-Muslim. "very one-dimensional" with "alternative interpretations [by Muslim theologians] seldom represented" - is it anti-Muslim? My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In regards to point 1, you need not check the wiki itself, but check the cited source. A wiki can change on a day-to-day basis. A secondary source, which is what the article cites, does not change on a day-to-day basis. The information in the "overview" section is verifiable to a reliable source. In regards to point two, I'm not sure what this is meant to get at. In regards to point three, are you saying that the article is conveying the content of the cited sources in a misleading way? I'm fairly confident that it does not; in fact, whole quotes are typically provided with the use of the referance page template. In regards to point four, I'll check the sources to see if there's anything more useful to add. Snuish (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * do not see anything of that sort. A misinformation? - Ffs, check the citation. Do I need to teach you about reading the cited sources, now that you have finally understood that there can be people with the same name?
 * The quotations are cherry picked to prove that the resource is anti-Muslim. - Huh? Please provide the alternative quotations, that you would have used. I have said repeatedly that I will appreciate new sources that show Wikislam in a different light; what precludes you from bringing them to the discussion?
 * please explain why it is anti-Muslim. - I am not Larsson. We, as editors, are not allowed to accept (or reject) reliable sources — much less, peer-reviewed scholarship with dozens of citations — depending on whether we find their arguments to be justified or not. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Misininformation" - I mean a misinformation in the cited source (a quick checking shows that the statement is apparently false: the website does NOT state it, unless I am mistaken). This is one of reasons one should use multiple sources - a cross-verification. My very best wishes (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To quote Snuish, A wiki can change on a day-to-day basis. The concerned lines were removed on 22 May 2013, 12 days after Larson's article was published. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For fairness, I have added the temporal qualifier: "As of 2013," TrangaBellam (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it can change, just as for any other website. This can be for different reasons. For example, a new parent organization or a new editorial board can decide, "hey, we have now a different policy or even a different goal". That could happen here. If we say that a "stated goal of this resource" is "...", this must be the most recent version of such resource, and such goal or a policy must be indeed stated on this resource. If not, this is misinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To repeat myself: For fairness, I have added the temporal qualifier: "As of 2013," I do not see what more we can do.
 * Wikislam tampers with their content, everytime it faces criticism; we cannot be willing handmaidens in their effort until and unless scholars accept that they have indeed changed. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reacting to criticisms is a good thing. Perhaps they decided they were wrong? Why cite something 9 year old, which is no longer applicable to the site simply because it is not there? Citing scholars is fine, but one can cite something else. My very best wishes (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reactions to criticism can also be insincere and efforts to avoid further criticism. After the publication of Larsson's first article, WikiIslam created a few dozen "pro-Islam" articles tucked away in a corner of the website while leaving up all of their anti-Muslim content under the pretense of being a neutral website. This came out after WikiIslam's latest renovations, so it's clear that academics still do not have a positive impression of the website. Regardless, it's not for us as Wikipedia editors to gauge, which is why WP:V exists and we cite independent sources instead. Snuish (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify this for me, can you please point out to any page that is particularly racist/Islamophobic on this site? Quickly looking (e.g., I do not see it). My very best wishes (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be prioritizing your own research and thoughts on the matter as opposed to the content we can find in independent sources. Snuish (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Then let me rephrase. Which specific articles in this resource have been described as Islamophobic in RS? My very best wishes (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to any of the sources cited in the article? If not, I'd be happy share whatever I do have access to. Snuish (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's one page that the site hosted until late 2020 and probably led to some of those conclusions. That page and its subpages on Muslims were kept up until late 2020. Feel free to dig around in its archives for more. Snuish (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It's good they do not have it now. Their data are sourced on sub-pages, and yes, this is all very bad, but is it all because of Islam? This is a well known fallacy mocked so many times. For example, Cucumbers will kill you. All people who were born in 1880 and eat cucumbers are already dead. 99% people who have cancer eat cucumbers. And so on. Of course some of that might be related to the religious history and culture of these countries, but each specific dependence would need to be investigated and scientifically proven. My very best wishes (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The site said about “Islam is a global challenge. It should be met with a global response.“ But Larsson based on that text concluded that the site considers that “Islam and Muslims as a global threat.” It is, I think, a misrepresentation, since Islam is not the same as Muslim. Islam is the religion while Muslim is the adherent. Being anti-Islam does not automatically make someone anti-Muslim. One can dislike the doctrines of a religion but still be friendly or live in the same family with its adherents. LiuWu87 (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the resource is about Islam as religion, not Muslims. But you are incorrect because the definition of Islamophobia includes a prejudice towards Islam. But this is just a matter of sourcing. Do you know RS that say the resource is not Islamophobic? If so, they can be used on the page. No need in the RfC at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Precisely; I do not even demand sources that explicit contradict the anti-Muslim/anti-Islam label. Any scholar that has something positive to say about the site. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The borderline between "legitimate criticism" and prejudice is very much subjective here (that's why I do not like it), but there is nothing we can do except fairly summarizing what RS say on the subject and avoiding MOS:RACIST. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn’t the website (wikiislam.net) itself a reliable source? Also wp:YESPOV LiuWu87 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No. See WP:UGC. Snuish (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPSPS
 * LiuWu87 (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFSOURCE applies, and even if you were to find an appropriate circumstance in which to use WikiIslam as a source on itself, WikiIslam is not a "reliable source" but is a self-published or questionable source discussing itself. Snuish (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYCARE
 * LiuWu87 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WikiIslam is not a person. WP:SELFSOURCE remains the most relevant section of the guidelines. Snuish (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * } LiuWu87 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what exactly you have in mind, but see WP:PRIMARY for more information on the use of primary sources. Snuish (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s a little too vague. Which part of it do you want to use as an argument? please quote it here. LiuWu87 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can the two of you take this discussion elsewhere? Waste of time and space. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Found this on the site (1), might be useful for further consideration.
 * LiuWu87 (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can include something like "The stated purpose of the wiki is ..." (and that must be something stated on the website right now, not 9 years ago). We can also say they deny placing any Islamophobic content on their site. But the emphasis must be on what independent 3rd party WP:RS say. You said there are several RS that do not label this wiki as Islamophobic. One can use them on the page, along with other RS, to achieve balance. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:MISSION provides some arguments against including something like "The stated purpose of the wiki is..." We should not be quoting their mission statement unless an independent source gives us the appropriate context. We also can't expect Wikipedia editors to periodically check a citation to a user-generated page to confirm that the text on Wikipedia is still current. Snuish (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an essay. This is covered by Verifiability. If 1-5 conditions are satisfied, we can do it per policy, and we do it on many pages. It says "WikiIslam aims to provide accurate and accessible information from traditional and critical perspectives on the beliefs, practices, and development of Islam." . That is their aim. OK. If they succeeded should follow from other sources. This is a neutral way to describe things. As about updating, no one has an obligation to update. However, if anyone updates, this must be most recent version of the resource, not the version 9 years ago. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is that mission statements are often self-serving and hence violate the first condition of the link you provided, i.e., WP:ABOUTSELF. 2600:1702:8E0:3BA0:1502:83AF:7897:D606 (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It says "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Something like Stated aim of the wiki is providing information "on the beliefs, practices, and development of Islam." would not be unduly self-serving. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes Why do you think that our page on, say Breitbart, does not cite their self-description? Why it is the case that every single bit about their history is sourced from independent sources? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because this subject is very different from the subject of this page and because it was described differently in multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that I do not follow your arguments - the same content policies govern every page in the wiki. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the policies are the same, but subjects are different. Also, it is very much obvious that the content of resource is indeed about Islam (and that is what self-description is saying). We do say that B. is an American far-right syndicated news, opinion, and commentary website (in the first phrase). We then say "Breitbart News's content has been described as misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by academics and journalists". We do not say: "B. is a website of American fascists" in first phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We do say that B. is an American far-right [..]
 * If you wish, we can state WikiIslam has been described as ... TrangaBellam (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. Whatever. I just responded to a posting at NPOVNB. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It was an inadvertent use of rollback on my part but please do not attempt to bypass discussions. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Our lead on Breitbart does not say, Breitbart is an American news organization, that attempts to create an evironment conducive to truthful reporting and the free and open exchange of ideas. Breitbart News's content has been described as misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by academics and journalists.
 * Get a grip. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree entirely with your edit. Not a single independent source has noted this stated aim, and yet Wikipedia's first sentence does so. A pillar of this encyclopedia is that content is based on "reliable, independent, published sources." The lead of any article should provide "emphasis...to material [that] reflect[s] its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources" per MOS:LEADREL. Instead, you've chosen to put a statement of a promotional nature up front and center that has not been noted by any sources in this article. Snuish (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing promotional with saying that wiki WikiIslam has a stated aim of covering subjects related to Islam . I included nothing about "truthful reporting and the free and open exchange of ideas". Making this up shows your bias, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you meant to respond in part to TB, since I haven't mentioned "an open exchange of ideas." Regardless, TB likely provided that as an illustration, not to quote you verbatim. I maintain that the mission statement should only be quoted once an independent source takes note of it and can provide the appropriate context. Snuish (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not quote it completely and perhaps my point is different, i.e. we indeed should follow the example of page Breitbart. Meaning the 1st phrase should simply say what the subject is (i.e. a wiki about Islam), while second phrase say that the content has been described in sources as misogynistic/xenophobic/racist/wonderful/whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I understand your point. However, I don't think the mission statement accurately conveys what WikiIslam is, given that the information it collects is primarily negative, as Shukri and others have noted. I'm certainly fine with the formulation we find at Breitbart, but we need a better way to write the first sentence. Unless someone else gets to it first, I will review the various sources over the next few days to see how we can best formulate the first sentence. Snuish (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am leaving this to you and others. I guess the actual problem here is that the content of the wiki has been significantly changed during last few years. If it was something like that, I would say, yes, this is an outright anti-Muslim site, no doubts (and that is why these older sources described it as such). But in the present state it does look like an educational resource on the subject of Islam. It seems that creators have struggled a lot to fix the bias of their resource, which is generally a good thing. I am not an expert here though, that's for sure. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a very fair view but we, as editors, cannot be arbiters of the change. I would have been more convinced had I not spotted Larsson's recent presentation which, I gather, is to be published very soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if we disregarded the views presented by Larsson's recent presentation provided by TB above, Wikipedia's articles are meant to be behind the curve by design. In other words, the article can only be significantly updated once reliable sources take note. Snuish (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if we disregarded the views presented by Larsson's recent presentation provided by TB above, Wikipedia's articles are meant to be behind the curve by design. In other words, the article can only be significantly updated once reliable sources take note. Snuish (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)