User talk:Mo khan247

January 2011
Please don't add derogatory and improperly verified material to Wikipedia articles, such as you did at Ergun Caner. The references you cited--YouTube, websites, and the like--in no way are reliable sources, and in a biography of a living person such claims and such references are unacceptable. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * MoKhan247: the problem with your main source is this Wikipedia official policy. We need indirect support of the material as presented. E.g., if you write about Shakespeare, you shouldn't write: "his characters are deep and convincing", and point to Macbeth's full text on line. Instead, you should point to an English literature scholarly book and write: "according to Dr. John Smith, his characters are deep and convincing" (source). When facts are derogatory by themselves (as happens when you write about a man who notoriously committed a crime or a very bad deed, which is probably the case here) avoid "personal" language. Imagine we're talking about Richard Nixon and for some strong and valid reasons you don't like the guy. You can't write: "Nixon resigned when he feared even more exposure for his lies and offenses in the Watergate scandal; he certainly deserved a punishment, but Gerald Ford eventually pardoned the bastard". Instead, try something like: "In the face of likely impeachment for his role in the Watergate scandal,[1] Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. He was later pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford, for any federal crimes he may have committed while in office." (the latter is from the current text of the Nixon entry). :) --Filius Rosadis (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rosadis: so why is it that the links to Norman Geisler and John Ankerberg so-called refutations of the criticisms and yet we are not allowed to post links of these criticisms?


 * That's a problem indeed. After unprotection something has to be done about it. Look at the articles's talk page. Proposed changes are beeing discussed there. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

<--John Ankerberg and Norman Geisler are people whose opinion is worth something, because they are notable by Wikipedia's standards. It's as simple as that. Wikipedia works by having reliable secondary sources to back up statements in articles; fakeexmuslims is simply not a reliable source (I mean, come on--the very name already means that it's a partisan source). This nonsense about my edits protecting Caner is really just that, nonsense: There are plenty of references in the article that report criticism of Caner. This is not Crossfire, where proponents and opponents each have a turn--this is an encyclopedia, where balance matters, but proponents and opponents matter here only if their opinions are published in reliable sources. Your opinion is simply not relevant (and neither is mine), and accusing me of picking only pro-Caner material is, simply put, indicative of blindness. Filius, as much as I appreciate your mediations and contributions, the problem with Mo khan's last remark is the "we," and I urge you to consider what that means and why such tonalities cannot be expressed in Wikipedia articles. It also begs the question of a conflict of interest: "Mo khan," I think I know what that stands for, since I read the material, but do you have an involvement? Drmies (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute: Mo Khan247, are you the real Mohammad Khan? (sorry if I sound a bit skeptic, but since I started editing the Caner entry I've dealt with so many lies that I doubt everything concerning names, dates and places ::)) Man, never seen anybody soooo full of s***t!) If so, be aware that there's a Wikipedia policy about conflict of interests, be careful when writing about yourself and your own work. It's not forbidden (I remember when Umberto Eco said he had corrected some -minor- data in his own article, that was ok), but you have to be cautious.


 * Anyway, the Mohammad Khan who initiated the blogosphera boom about Ergun Caner is a notable person by Wikipedia standards, perhaps not enough to justify an entry, but certainly enough to be quoted or mentioned. Why? Because I know him via the newspapers, that's the simplest way I find to describe the situation. He's been covered and expressely mentioned by the Associated Press, The Washington Post, half a dozen Baptist media and hundreds of blogs. Take a short look:
 * Liberty University demotes seminary president by Bob Allen, The Baptist Standard | The Texas Baptist Newsjournal, June 28, 2010, retrieved 3-1-11: Questions about Caner's veracity surfaced publicly after Mohammad Khan, a 22-year-old Muslim college student in London, produced and posted 17 You Tube videos labeling Caner one of several charlatans claiming to be former Muslims and misrepresenting Islam to audiences after 9/11.
 * Skeptics challenge life stories offered by high-profile Muslim converts to Christianity, by By Omar Sacirbey, The Washington Post, June 26, 2010, retrieved 3-1-11: "In recent months, however, skeptical bloggers, such as London-based Mohammad Khan of FakeExMuslims.com, and Oklahoma-based Debbie Kaufman of the Ministry of Reconciliation blog, began unearthing documents and statements by Caner contradicting his claims."
 * Ergun Caner of Liberty University's Seminary Still Facing Questions About Muslim Past, Urban Christian News, May 18, 2010, retrieved 3-1-11: "The first to prominently question Caner was London-based college student Mohammad Khan, who began posting videos of Caner's sermons and criticizing him on points of Islamic theology and Arabic pronunciation." (my note: "pronunciation" has nothing to do here. Nobody turns "la tu'allimoo" into the ridiculous "bakhasha owtara mowtara" just by mispronunciation. Sorry, had to make it clear).
 * Muslim-Turned-Preacher Faces University Inquiry - Allies of Liberty University seminary president largely silent as inquiry on Muslim past grows, ABC News/US, by Tom Breen, Associated Press Writer, June 6, 2010, retrieved 3-1-11: Several videos of Caner posted to YouTube by a London-based Muslim student named Mohammad Khan, one of the earliest bloggers to zero in on Caner's biography, have been removed over copyright complaints by Liberty University's seminary and by John Ankerberg."
 * Finally: Ergun Caner and Arabic: A Review, by James White, himself a notable person. And before you ask, yes, youtube references are allowed in bio (including BLP) articles, especially when they belong to properly identified official chanels, as is the case with Rev. White. See:
 * Barack Obama, footnotes 102, 211, 221, 247 (featured article)
 * John F. Kennedy, footnotes 191, 198
 * Fakeexmuslims is of course a strongly anti Caner site (no neutral point of view) and it's the site that started the blog boom, as far as it looks like, so it's part of the history (meaning its use as a reference envolves original research). Ankerberg's site is extremely virulent and biased, but in the current proposal it's just an external link. Fakeexmuslims is only acceptable in that section. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As an external link it might be acceptable--there is a noticeboard where that should be judged, in my opinion, given the contentious nature of the article and the non-neutrality of the website, which it why it will never be accepted as a source. There is plenty to say here: Khan is mentioned in the Washington Post article by Wan et al, so that helps notability, of course. The blog might well be mentioned in other places. What this means is that the blog and its author can be mentioned as players in the scandal--but that's a far cry from using it as a source of information, as editor Mo Khan has done. If the blog is reported on in reliable sources, it could be included--that's sort of how this works. Something similar applies to the Christianity Today piece--it could be brought into the article as proof that notable Christians still stand (or stood) by the subject, but it can't be used to cite facts about, for instance, the subject's greatness or truthfulness (I hope this is obvious--Filius, your point about it only being an external link is very valid). Drmies (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)