User talk:Editor atlas

Original Research
Please refer to the WP:Original Research policy on Wikipedia and do not delete sourced material. Thanks. Snuish2 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

-> The policy clearly states - "directly support the material being presented." Since all of the three researches are old and cite removed content, this clearly doesn't support the current version of wikiislam. Therefore, it is absolutely unnecessary to make such a statement. Thank you. Editor atlas (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for engaging on your talk page. The citations do "directly support the material being presented." In other words, the sentence in the article is supported by the citations. It is your personal assessment that they are not applicable to the "current version of WikiIslam." You will need to provide reliable sources that provide contrasting opinions. Snuish2 (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Content of those researches does not reflect the state of the website because the cited articles have been removed. I read all the three articles and crosschecked their references. It is a valid criticism that should be stated in past tense in "reception" section. We don't need an alternative source in this case. Thank you. :) Editor atlas (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've read the sources as well and have read the articles on WikiIslam. I think the criticisms remain quite valid, given that numerous articles on WikiIslam are still written to advance a certain position or argument. The description of WikiIslam in In the Tracks of Breivik: Far Right Networks in Northern and Eastern Europe is definitely still applicable. But again, that's my personal opinion and doesn't belong in the article. Are you proposing that the reception section include a criticism of the reception? Where would the criticism come from? It would need a reliable source since Wikipedia can't say "According to Editor Atlas, these are outdated." Or are you proposing something else? Snuish2 (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The articles that have been cited address very specific issues which have long since been resolved. That is no way a justification to keep using them as though they are applicable today. In the Tracks of Breivik: Far Right Networks in Northern and Eastern Europe uses two deprecated links and removed quotes. Furthermore, it cites only one research i.e. 16. Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam. Therefore, even it does not apply. You are right, we are trying to keep it as objective as possible. But "The wiki has been described by scholars and writers as Islamophobic and anti-Muslim." is like saying NSA uses exact same tools for mass surveillance today that it was using back in 2013. I am suggesting the criticism of wikiIslam should be in reception in past tense, because it has drastically changed since it was accused of Islamophobia and anti-muslim rhetoric. Editor atlas (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The reception section is largely already in past tense "Theologian Göran Larsson argued...The apostasy testimonies on WikiIslam were characterized...In a survey of "anti-Muslim websites," the "apparent aim" of WikiIslam was described..." Regarding "...it cites only one research i.e. 16. Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam": Whether the book cites something or not, and how many citations the book contains, is irrelevant. It is a reliable source with an established publisher, so it can be used on Wikipedia. What I'm apparently having trouble explaining to you is that our personal assessments of the website do not matter. What matters is what has been published in reliable sources regarding WikiIslam. If it has drastically changed and the previous criticisms are no longer applicable, we will need a reliable source to support that position in the article. "But 'The wiki has been described by scholars and writers as Islamophobic and anti-Muslim.' is like saying NSA uses exact same tools for mass surveillance today that it was using back in 2013." I'm not sure that this is a good analogy. If the only reliable source on NSA's mass surveillance techniques was seven years old, for example, then the Wikipedia NSA article would use only that source to describe the NSA's mass surveillance techniques. Snuish2 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I was referring to this quote "The wiki has been described by scholars and writers as Islamophobic and anti-Muslim." It should be in reception section as well. "Whether the book cites something or not, and how many citations the book contains, is irrelevant." It is absolutely relevant what the article is citing. We can't deduce existence of aliens if a source is merely referring to discovery of an exo-planet. Yes, we need reliable sources, till then we treat it objectively. "If the only reliable source on NSA's mass surveillance techniques was seven years old, for example [...]" Exactly! Isn't this the same in wikiIslam's case? Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam was published in 2007, others were published in 2013 and 2014. And in the quote, we are using "has been" present perfect tense. How is this justified? Editor atlas (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would that sentence go in the reception section? The introduction summarizes the article, and that is what the sentence is meant to do. See MOS:LEAD. I am not at all certain how your alien analogy is relevant here. The present perfect is entirely adequate:
 * "The time of the action is before now but not specified..."
 * "The present perfect tense refers to an action or state that either occurred at an indefinite time in the past..."
 * Snuish2 (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more." MOS:LEAD Honestly, I don't understand why you should be insisting, the quote is clearly a misrepresentation of wikiIslam's current condition. We have already established that the sources do not directly reflect the current state of the websites. Thank you for the definition, however, the complete definition would include present perfect as an action that began in past and continued to present, which is clearly not the case in "has been". While it holds true for the article it was quoted in, using the quote as such is a misrepresentation. Where is NPOV here? This quote should be moved to reception and phrased appropriately maintaining our objectivity. Editor atlas (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Which reliable source indicates that it is a misrepresentation of WikiIslam's current condition? I've been trying to get that out of this discussion. If you can provide additional resources that say otherwise, you can demonstrate why the article is not NPOV. The present perfect has two distinct uses. I've provided one above, and the sentence is consistent with that usage. Snuish2 (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All you need is an unbiased opinion to see that you are using the quote as though the criticism holds true indefinitely. Grammatically, it should be "had been" instead of "has been". You seem so proficient in English, how can you not understand this? Don't hide your bias behind articles with outdated information. I'll leave this conversation at that. Thank you. Editor atlas (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)"
 * This argument is rather contrived. You are arbitrarily eliminating one possible use of the present perfect tense and inferring another. "Had been" is perfectly fine if you can find a reliable source indicating that WikiIslam has changed. It is not the province of Wikipedia's editors to keep up with a website's changes and use their personal evaluations to update an article. Snuish2 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiIslam - COI notice
Hello, Editor atlas. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page WikiIslam, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Snuish2 (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I object, I'm trying to maintain the neutrality of the article. Anyhow, I digress. Editor atlas (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors with a COI still have numerous ways to influence the content of an article: by discussing the issues on the talk page or by using the tools available at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, including bringing up the issue at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard (WP:NPOVN), which you may be interested in. Snuish2 (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)