Talk:Muslim Students Association

message: Just wanted to post that as of this timestamp, the last two edits, 66.x.x.x, are mine, Wikipedia sometimes just forgets that I'm signed in.
:MSTCrow 07:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nationally, the MSA identifies itself as Sunni, but most of the individual clubs on college campuses are welcoming to Shi'a members.  BhaiSaab  talk 19:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This article seems to suggest a huge link between Muslim Students' Associations and terrorism/terrorists. Any one new reading this article will get an extremely skewed perception of the organization, especially considering that their local university/college MSA most likely has nothing to do with what's presented in the article. I strongly propose moving all negative criticism to it's own section, and adding more information about the independence and individualization of local MSAs. I feel this article may breed hatred against new MSA that are trying to form simply to represent the needs of Muslim Students on campus, and not for any political purpose.
74.216.194.69 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to try to rewrite and add to this article as soon as I can collect more sources unaffiliated with the MSA.--Zaxim 17:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Issues

message: I'm pretty sure that we need to tag this article for general clean up and NPOV critisism. For example the article talks about the Queensborough Community College-speech controversy, and in that section provides general information about the structure of the MSA.
In the main desc it also immediatly dives into Discover the Networks and the controversy that surrounds it.  In my opinion I think that the controversy allegation be placed into their own section, while retaining certain elements of it in the main desc.
Forgive me if I'm completly wrong, I'm quite new to editing.  Despite using wikipedia for a good deal of time. --Zaxim 18:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: This article is seriously flawed. There is no single group called the "Muslim Students Association". Many colleges have organizations of Muslim students in the same way that they have Indian students associations or chess clubs, for example.
If the article is trying to describe Muslim Students Association National, then the title should reflect that, and the article should describe the purpose, history, structure etc. of MSA National. In this case it would not be relevent to mention actions of individual Muslim student groups that may or may not be affiliated with MSA National. As of now, the article inaccurately attributes the actions of various Muslim student groups in the United States to "The MSA".
Whereas some Muslim student groups have chosen to affiliate themselves with MSA National, all Muslim student groups are not part of MSA National _by definition_ in the way that a local "Campus Crusade for Christ" is affiliated with a specific national organization. The premise of this article is akin to saying that any Christian student group on a college campus is a manifestation of the Campus Crusade for Christ.
In addition to the serious inaccuracies above, this article is also clearly biased. I suggest deletion for this article, and I also suggest the creation of a relevant and neutral article on MSA National.
--Imran 19:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's simply not true. DRK 19:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DRK, I'm curious to what you are stating is untrue? I've looked at some of your edits and I respect the amount of effort you've expended on wikipedia.  I think you probably would agree that this page needs to be fixed? --Zaxim 20:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please provide examples of either factual inaccuracies or pov edits. Imran/Inhendley's assertion that MSA does not exist seems unlikely when there is a website for it (http://www.msa-natl.org). DRK 20:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd read his argument more carefully, he is drawing a distinction between MSA-National, and the various MSA student groups that exist in colleges all over the US. The article as it is now assumes all of those are one and the same, which is definitely not the case. - Valarauka(T/C) 21:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that not the case? The various MSA student groups are affiliated with MSA-National. Saying that the actions of the individual groups do not reflect on the national organization is nonsensical. DRK 21:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't all affiliated, nor does affiliation imply control. The affiliation with National is primarily to foster communication and provide support to local chapters. - Valarauka(T/C) 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You made some pretty far-reaching changes, and ppear to have blanked more than half of the article. For this reason I have reverted you. Please discuss your changes in detail.VR talk 10:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm currently reviewing your changes and comments. One immediate issue I can see is the over-dependence on using the MSA-national website as a source. Though it can be used, if most of the article is sourced to it, in the long run this will raise questions on the contents' notability.VR talk 09:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flawed

message: Is there a reason that the revert warriors are removing the statements that the info is coming from Discoverthenetworks.org? JBKramer 17:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DTN 

message: I have had this article protected because the revert warring was rampant. You guys now have to demonstrate that you have reached a compromise before this article will be unprotected. If you wish, I will mediate the discussion, and hopefully help you work this out, and find a comprimise that everyone agrees to.
If this is to occur, I need full co-operation from everyone involved. Please post below whether you will accept mediation to try and reach a compromise, or any questions you have. Daniel.Bryant 04:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure... I'm not sure mediation is neccessarily neccessary. If by Friday the consensus on Talk:Discover the Networks is that the website is unreliable then I wont object to removing content sourced to that. Notice I have chosen not to way in, as I do not particularly care. However, I do care when sourced content is removed. I'm a stickler for sourcing. It's what makes Wikipedia a credible source. DRK 05:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Perfectly fine by me. The only revert I made to the article was to keep the disputed tag up there, which I felt was necessary while the debate continued. - Valarauka(T/C) 06:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: The UC Irvine group has an article that should either be merged, or has good content that should also be incorporated here going into more detail about how they spend a lot of time protesting "crimes" of the Israeli state and protesting / disrupting pro-Isratel speakers. Is there any evidence that MSA promotes or tolerates islamic extremists? Bachcell (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as the content is clearly relevant to the MSA, it should be here. From what I know, the students tried to distance themselves from the disruptions, so not entirely sure how much is relevant.VR talk 00:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Muslim Student Union]] 

message: Both sections have only one source and are scant on factual information or corroborating sources (not true of the other controversies).
The Siddiqui section doesn't seem warranted in my opinion because it is largely a conjecture. The cited author says "if Siddiqui was drawn into terrorism it may have been through her contacts and friendships made at the MSA in MIT in the 1990s." For the only source about this topic to be speculating on whether it even happened makes me think this is not a notable controversy (and frankly makes me question how we can include it in an encyclopedia, without any evidence that it is actually true).
The Racism section is based on one source citing "social media users" complaining about bias. Again, there's really no evidence here for any of this (anyone can tweet anything, that isn't proof) and it doesn't meet the Wikipedia standards for reliable news source because it is an opinion/editorial piece being used to ascertain fact. (see here for more: hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations) And there aren't corroborating sources that this is a controversy. Would at the very least like to see if there was ever a response by any MSA or MSA National with regards to such accusations...
Please comment if you'd like to see the sections retained and reasonably convince others that this is a better decision. I plan to delete the sections after 5 days, unless good reasons are mentioned or the sections are given better sources and more factual evidence as references.
Mavriksfan11 (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've improved sourcing. These should be in.Icewhiz (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the addition of sources but for the Siddiqui section none of those take care of the concerns I've highlighted above. I am not denying that Aafia Siddiqui exists or went to MIT or joined the MSA there or any of the well-known events of her life. What I find hard to give a seal of authority to is the concept that she was "radicalized" there. None of the sources you've added claim that. And that (the idea that she was radicalized at the MSA in MIT) is the only reason we would include it in this article. Your addition to the Racism and Arab bias section is welcome, but it doesn't add any of the new information from that source. I'll change that. Mavriksfan11 (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vogue disagrees. Siddiqui is mentioned in conjunction with MSA in several sources.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not true. Siddiqui is mentioned in conjunction with MSA because she was a part of it. But whether or not her radicalization occurred in the MSA is the event whose veracity we are questioning. The Vogue article (the only one which even mentions a link between her participation in the MSA and her radicalization) says, "As I pieced her story together from interviews, court documents, and published reports, I came to believe that if Aafia was drawn into the world of terrorism, it may have been through the contacts and friendships she made in the early 1990s working for MIT's Muslim Student Association." I suppose we can at least meet in the middle in changing the topic title to "Aafia Siddiqui's posssible radicalization at MIT" since there is no definitive proof of this.Mavriksfan11 (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Deleting sections under "Controversy" entitled "Aafia Siddiqui's Radicalization at MIT" and/or "Racism and Arab Bias" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion