Talk:Faith Freedom International/Archive 1

message: How does this website meet WP:WEB? BhaiSaab talk 13:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree -- not notable enough to merit this article. What do other people think? BYT 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im still waiting for RS that establish N. --Striver 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be "trivial coverage." See WP:WEB. BhaiSaab talk 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:WEB]]

message: I have noticed numerous instances among us of failing to be WP:CIVIL. Why don't we take a breather, Muslims, Kaffirs, Jews, and Christians, and reason it out? FFI is notable because it is a nexus of criticism of Islam, especially through its message board. Should it matter that various pro-Islam sites overshadow it? WP:WEB is a useful guide, but sometimes it fails to truly determine notability, especially if smaller groups with unique arguments are involved.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe we should take this page, its AfD, etc. to RfC

message: The link, http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&catid=&topic=19  , has a number of op-ed authors. Ideally we need to take each, check article and name and other sources for that name and see if its just page scrapping (RSS etc) or actual op-ed stuff (e.g. first Cinnamon Stillwell op-ed I saw looked like page scrape). And then the link http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=4&page=1 has author names who have contributed articles. Need to do the same and ideally post back here into talk what you find. That should (or not!) allow up to build up a inbound link from other notables sites back to faithfreedom and thus establish notability of faithfreedom. There is a lot of noise in those author lists but something should crop up though I think its just Ali Sina that is mainly verifiable (due to his contribution to Ibn Warraq's book Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out). Remember it is the "truth" but verify who said what and when and where.  Ttiotsw 21:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Op-ed Author list link (need researching to help the article)  

message: This was added on the 18:02, 5 December 2006 by an user Truthspreader and then at 18:38, 5 December 2006 a since-banned (1 year) user BhaiSaab added the AfD nomination. This thus allowed just 36 minutes for anyone to get the article up to scratch. Given this was fallout from the article delete of related article for Ali Sina very soon before the flow of tags from unencyclopedic to AfD was not made in good faith. I have removed the unencyclopedic tag as it states, "An editor has expressed concern that this article may be unencyclopedic and ought to be deleted. This is a primarily a statement about the article's subject, not necessarily its quality or veracity. Please review what Wikipedia is not and try to resolve the objections on the talk page." ...and yet the subsequent AfD which proposed deletion and was rejected with "The result was no consensus to delete, reasonable argument that the site meets WP:WEB... but please improve referencing in article." means that the previous unencyclopedic tag that predates the AfD has been proven to not be valid as the admin says it satisfies WP:WEB. Ttiotsw 04:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing unencyclopedic tag 

message: This tag was added by user Striver at 18:52, 5 December 2006 i.e. 14 minutes after the AfD and thus is related to the AfD. The admin closed the AfD with "The result was no consensus to delete, reasonable argument that the site meets WP:WEB... but please improve referencing in article." means that the previous notability tag that postdates the AfD and predates the conclusion has been proven to not be valid as the admin says it satisfies WP:WEB. Ttiotsw 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing notability tag 

message: An edit,  added a shedload of links to dodgy looking Islamic sites. Certainly not clear how they are notable. This adds undue weight to the opposing sites and less weight to what we are discussing which is Faith Freedom International and (indirectly the founder of that site Ali Sina). Ideally can we have a consensus that any link is first discussed here (each as a new subject) before it is added unless it is a reference used to add verifiability to the text. Ttiotsw 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This link was deleted by Mak82hyd - I'm not surprised. I dont feel like contributing until Wikipedia has policies that deal ruthlessly with this kind of POV vandalism. You could go ahead and add that link back in. Good luck everyone, with the revert wars. I really feel though something should be done about the phenomena of POV vandalism. This is common everywhere in Wikipedia on all controversial articles, not just on topics on Islam. My suggestion is that once a topic reaches a nice quality, editing should be locked and people should only be able to make suggestions and only a few people who are authorized to make the changes should change, based on consensus reached. This will prevent POV vandalism and the Edit Wars. --Matt57 02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a revert and the web address got deleted anyways, the site worldnetdaily is american conservative website which is bias against muslims. Mak82hyd 00:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Matt57.  It looks like User:Sefringle handily accomplished the re-insertion needed. As for your suggestion, I hope you succeed in getting it put into policy. 74.102.58.135 06:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding web links. Please talk first then add after consensus. 

message: We should look at the old Ali Sina page. See here. Not everything is relevant to this new page, but some of this stuff is. That stuff should be moved here.--Sefringle 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should include the imformation about the debates on this article.--Sefringle 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, some information should be imported because te site is by its founder and we can have information on the founder. Looks like an anonymous IP imported a lot of that stuff. Lets see how much of that is filtered/censored out later. I hope you get the Mecca page into the article drive. It would be nice to see a page on that city which doesnt show that this is an exclusively Muslim/Islam related city. It should look like a normal any kind of city plus ofcourse it should include its importance to Islam but to be exclusively about Islam as it is right now, is not the best way. It would be interested to see what kind of changes can take place in that page to further this mission. --Matt57 19:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you first explain why you deleted the link to WorldnetDaily as I pointed out in the above section? --Matt57 03:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that was appropriate but we are back to the same old game Wikipedia is unable to handle. Edit wars and repeated POV vandalism; constant pulling of the article in either directions. This is just wrong, I mean Wikipedia's inability to handle this. Maybe it will help somewhat adding in materials little by little instead of in chunks to get past this constant censorship. --Matt57 13:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From the old Ali Sina page

message: But we need more. Are there any more that can be found? This article is here to stay now. It was deleted in its prior Ali Sina form because of non-notability (no external links). I hope more links can be found to make this article comply even stronger to WP:WEB. If we had had those external links then, the article wouldnt have been deleted. I remember it was me who filled up somewhat this article with FFI's links - that was even pointed out by FayssalF. Now we need some more good links and references. --Matt57 13:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We have good external links for this article now 

message: In Warraq's book Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out,  Appendex B titled "Ex-Muslims of the world unite", page 433, there is a whole 3 page section on FFI. It mentions its website URL and mission statement. This is a valid mention of FFI, so I think this could be a reference for the article. The page range is 433-436. Although this is FFI's mission statement from its website quoted in full and is not a description by Ibn Warraq. This reference can atleast be added to the references. Ali Sina's own testimony of leaving Islam is in page 137-157 of this book. This can also be a reference. The title of his testimony is: Why I left Islam-My passage from faith to enlightenment.--Matt57 14:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the part about FFI can be refrenced in this article, but the part about Ali Sina's testimony of leaving Islam is not relevant, as this article is not about Ali Sina, but about FFI.--Sefringle 06:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As Ali Sina is the founder of FFI Then he can be mentioned. Obviously he can't be mentioned in other articles unless it is specific to the subject. He is notable. An example for you would be like saying that Bahá'u'lláh cannot be mentioned in an article on Bahá'í as the subject is only about Bahá'í. That doesn't make sense as the ideals and background of the founder of 'x' are relevant to an article on 'x'. Obviously I chose Bahá'í as they too are hunted and killed for some weird reason. Ttiotsw 07:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "page 433, there is a whole 3 page section on FFI. It mentions its website URL and mission statement." so, just to confirm, these "whole three pages" are occupied by FFI's mission statement from its website and its website URL? that doesn't seem to be the non-trivial mention as specified by WP:WEB. ITAQALLAH 03:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FFI's mention in Ibn Warraq's book - potential reference 

message: These are not good links but a tactful way of marketing the website. This is called power linking. What a fools world !!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.165.78.57 (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: I just came across this article and was surprised to find it. This site is not even a real legal organization and the guy, Ali Sina, is not anyone famous. Wikipedia is supposed to educate people about real things, not just little organizations. If faithfreedom were to become a widespread debate in the world, then it would be something important. But honestly, if faithfreedom is on wikipedia, it also legitamizes a lot of websites to be on wikipedia, hurting the quality of this project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sartaj (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been discussed here.--Sefringle 06:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Your plea presents a fallacy and proposes self-censorship. Quoting Paine, “Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.”, the core principe of Islam is submission. Submission is the antithesis to reason. Ttiotsw 08:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sartaj, it doesnt matter if Ali Sina exists or not. All you have to do is see whether the article meets the WP:WEB criteria.--Matt57 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sign your talk messages. What revenues? Why do revenues matter here anyway? Like I said the standard to be used on this article is WP:WEB. The references are there to see. See the last section of that page (links about..). This is mass 'propaganda' according to you. You're not supposed to put in your own opinions and conclusions in an article. You're a beginner here. Please see the standards used on Wikipedia and read a bit. --Matt57 03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this on wikipedia? - ...because Wikipedia is not censored 

message: As announced yesterday on the FaithFreedom Forum in the Action section, Ali Sina and the directors of the site are instituting annual awards.  Should this development be included in the Wikipedia article? 74.102.58.135 08:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say lets at least wait until the awards have been announced. Whats needed the most right now is more links for FFI's notablity so no one dares to nominate this article for deletion again. --Matt57 23:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Development: Annual Awards 

message: Now that the notability of FFI has been established (I hope more links will be brought in, the more the better), my question is: If FFI is notable, isnt Ali Sina too? If so, more information that existed on page should be brought here as Sefringle tried to do. Also actually under the new title, we can write more. Previously we could only include information on Ali Sina, but now we can also include other information on the website that may not be directly related to Ali Sina. I've also included a logo as you can see. The page looks better now. --Matt57 22:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: matt, why is Ali sina views and debates are being written in FFI page. its not his page its about website so just write about website not about the founder. how can i write about yusuf qaradawi who made the islamonline.net website on the website page, its wrong. just write about FFI on the article what his founder said or thinks does not matter.
**ffi is notable according to admins but not ali sina, remember his article was deleted because of notability*
Thats why i am removing what ali sina said or thinks. i hope you can understand.Mak82hyd 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In this article most if not all citations and references have been given from the same website but not from other neutral websites. websites which mentions ali sina or FFI are sister websites of ffi and one worldnetdaily is american conservative website(which is declared as anti islamic and biased, by many people). Mak82hyd 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two sections I added from the old Ali Sina page are because they can easily be related to Faith Freedom as well. Ali Sina's views are the views of Faith Freedom, mainly because Faith Freedom is Ali Sina's website.--Sefringle 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  how is FFi ali sina website? how do you know that Ali sina is human or something else can be a group name? whats the proof? can you take whatever in the name of ali sina is said...no.Mak82hyd 22:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FFI is Ali Sina's website because he says so. Do you have proof that the website belongs to someone other than Ali Sina? No you dont. The Debates are a PART of the website and should be included in the article. I have given you the example - should I go ahead and delete information on Muhammad on Islam's page because the article is to be about Islam and not Muhammad? No. Muhammad was the founder of Islam and therefore its important to talk about him in the Islam page. In the same way, FFI was founded by Ali Sina and an article on FFI will have a lot of information on Ali Sina, due to this same reason. Ali Sina and FFI are both notable now that we have the external 3rd party links there now. --Matt57 03:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Ali Sina and FFI 

message: Previously we could only talk about Ali Sina. Now we can talk about anything else in the website so hopefully the article can be expanded now.--Matt57 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has a new scope now 

message: I don't care whether Alexa rankings are mentioned or not, but as long as they are not actually used to establish notability, there's nothing wrong with them. Even the article on Wikipedia mentions Alexa rankings. — coelacan talk — 16:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa rankings 

message: Articles about faithfreedom.org that are not external links should be mentioned here instead of within the external links section of the artilce. For example, the mention of faithfreedom in Richard Dawkins' book should not be mentioned in the extenal links section of this page, considering it is not a link to any website.
Specificly, I am talking about this:
:Faith Freedom International is listed in the appendix of Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion as one of the few Islamic related "...Friendly address(es), for individuals needing support in escaping from religion" (page 379).
--Sefringle 03:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles about faithfreedom.org

message: The speedy deletion due to copyright violation tag has been added by an editor who has had a long history of controversial edits with this article. It was reverted as suspected vandalism by another editor. I agree with them. The article fails to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion on the ground of copyright violation, namely, was the material was copied from another website which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, or was there no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving or was the infringement was introduced at once by a single person rather than created organically on wiki and then copied by another website such as one of the many Wikipedia mirrors or was the uploader not asserting permission (for images: no assertion aside from tags) or fair use, or the assertion is questionable. 
Given the history of the tagging editor with respect to this article I do not feel the tag was added correctly so I am reverting this edit. 
Please explain exactly where the copyright violations have occured. Ttiotsw 10:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using copyvio claim for speedy deletion tag is wrong. 

message: I added the  template because (a) it is 100% true, and (b) most of the "references" in this article are just external links to the subject's website ... it is still lacking reliable 3rd-party coverage to meet WP:V for WP:N ... many should be deleted per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided - Links mainly intended to promote a website ... and the one for ranking.com requires registration to see the subject's PageRank, so that one's Right Out per the same ... because of the plethora of self-references, this article has the appearance of simply being a vehicle to draw traffic to the subject's website. — 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been extensively discussed in the Afd debate a month ago. The sites mentioned now are acceptable, and prove notability. --Sefringle 06:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding a cleanup template is NOT "vandalism", and surviving an AfD with No Consensus is certainly NOT the same as "now are acceptable, and prove notability" ... I am restoring the tag, and if you remove it again, we'll see what the closing administrator has to say about it. (They should have added the template in the first place.) --72.75.85.159 07:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) The decision was to keep the article, and there was no mentioning of any cleanup tag. 2) Please log into you main account so that we know who we are talking to. -- Karl Meier 12:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The external links present now are notable. They werent there before when the article was deleted. Notability has been established. --Matt57 13:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article need cleanup per the AfD discussions 

message: Please don't remove sourced statements made by Sina on his website. If you believe that they lack context, then feel free to rpovide context, I am not sttopping you from that. 
Also, please take a look at WP:RS#Extremist_sources. It says "...they [extremist sources] should only be used as sources about themselves and their activities...".
Thus whatever FFI says about the students of Javed Ghamidi, and letter to Dr. Zakir Naik is only an allegation. FFI is not a reliable source.Bless sins 19:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the content that Bless Sins want to add is that it mention some of the things that Muhammad/Islam has been accused of being, but not why Ali Sina has accused of him/it being these things. To include it out of it's context makes what he says seems like pointless attacks, and that is of course not acceptable. -- Karl Meier 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SO what's wrong with including the "why Ali Sina has accused of him/it being these things". Please feel free to provide the context, if there is one.Bless sins 21:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just mentioned to you, what is wrong with what you insist on including. Anyway, it is you and not me that want to add the disputed content, so it is up to you to make it acceptable and not out-of-context. -- Karl Meier 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl Meier, this is my argument: I see no context to these statements. If there is bring it forth and post it on the talk page (or on the article directly). How can you ask me to post something that doesn't exist?Bless sins 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: This line 'ex-Muslim's site trashes Muhammad' is simply a direct abuse of wikipedian so called scholaristic artical. The civilized words could be used such as 'rebuttals' or 'refutes'. And even these words also would be used as refuting some concept or providing rebuttal to some allegation and it could not be used something like "trashing someone". VirtualEye 09:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Factual accuracy is just as important. Tha article is titled "ex-Muslim's site trasher Muhammad". "ex-Muslim's site trashes" is therefore an inaccurate title.--Sefringle 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that this is "abusive", what about his comments that Muslims are "bullies"?Bless sins 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to an Ex-Muslim's site

message: Sina not notable according to last AFD so i am removing his stuff only FFI stuff can be there. what he said or think does not matter, if its on his site let ppl go and read there plz. 
and how can we write from the same source of which we are talking about.???? Mak82hyd 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His website is about his views, so his views do matter. Instead of deleting, it might be better  to rewrite this section trying to omit the words "Ali Sina."--Sefringle 04:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this article seems to be about FFI in some areas, but then tries to mask content from the deleted article on Ali Sina as relevant here . i didn't know websites "believed" anything, and this may be an indication that content from Ali Sina has been replicated here, with his name simply substituted with FFI. the lead needs work too, as the lengthy quote describing itself is no more than self-adulatory. perhaps that block quote can be relocated elsewhere and we can concentrate on writing a brief and neutral lead about the website. ITAQALLAH 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AfD regarding didn't say anything about the notability of Ali Sina. The article was deleted for other reasons, and the closing administrator mentioned that. -- Karl Meier 07:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This claim of notability is nonsense and you know that as others have repeatedly reverted. Please read the closing comments of the AfD  which specifically stated that the delete was due to lack of reliable sources and specifically,... "The issue is still reliable sources, and the project simply cannot ignore this fundamental requirement. If actual reliable sources can be found outside his own website which document his existence then by all means re-create." - the point was thus that if we had reliable sources that document his existence then we could re-create not that he was not notable. We have a number of articles that indicate his existence e.g.  as a transcript makes me presume he is human and not a "ghost" as detractors are want to propose. We have not re-created the article so as to focus efforts on just the FFI article so please give it a rest. Ttiotsw 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: er.. yes.. notability is established through independant reliable sources. it's clear what the closing admin meant, and admins Centrx and JzG among others understood it in exactly the same way at the deletion review: lack of reliable sources indicates non-notability, regardless of how many e-fans he has. as i said before: if you don't have enough independant sources assessing the individual (trivial mention is insufficient), then it suggests he is quite simply not notable enough a personality. when more 'reliable sources' do pop up, it may indicate that he has passed the threshold of notability. the above comments do not address my concern, this article should not be replicating material from the deleted Ali Sina article. you see, this is where the required reliable sources come in: we use them to build the article and provide relevant information about the subject. the discussion on "views on other faiths" is convoluted, confusing (the subject switches between the website and "he" i.e. Sina), and misleading: a number of FFI writers don't share the same views about other religions as Sina. the first two critiques actually apply to numerous sections in this articles. an easy solution to this would be to cease providing shelter for irrelevant material about Sina being presented as directly relevant to the FFI organisation. ITAQALLAH 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to know a lot about Faith Freedom. Do you post to the forums? Arrow740 04:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: While some of Ali Sina's views on other faiths may not be the views of all the contributers to FFI, most of the contributers to FFI do agree with his views on Islam.--Sefringle 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually this time I agree. We should mention the death threat allegations and send interested parties to the website. However likely they are alleging an illegal act by someone is a serious libel and we should avoid it without substantial evidence. --BozMo talk 09:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please provide below the exact phrase that suggests FFI is located in Iran.Bless sins 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sina not notable as per previous AFD

message: This section is totally anti-Christian. My assumption is that some moron must have tried to smear Christianity as a sort of vendetta because he/she thought Ali Sina was some kind of convert to Christianity. This section is a dastardly and unprovoked attack on Christianity itself (who cares if its sourced? Just look at the way the information is presented most of the section is attacking Christianity) Would anybody like to debate this? Canadia 02:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So edit. Arrow740 03:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Canadia, I wouldnt mind if this section was reduced. Ali's focus is on Islam, not Christianity. --Matt57 02:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you know of websites that have been linked which match the Wikipedia criteria of Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided then please highlight them for us. I know that some websites that have nonsense try to get added now and then but these usually get reverted (e.g. www.faithfreedom.com is an example). Ttiotsw 09:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Kirby, less than 1% of the website's focus is on other religions. This article should reflect that. Perhaps you just want to be sure that this article talks about Islam as less as possible. Sorry, thats not going to happen.--Matt57 02:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Since Faithfreedom focuses on Islam, we need to give more of a focus of this article to the views on Islam, and less to other faiths. --Sefringle 02:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But Wikipedia is not a paper dictionary encyclopedia, so why not have both? Instead of making the "views on other faiths" section smaller, why not make the Islam sections bigger? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested to see you do that. Arrow740 03:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Kirby, yes please try to expand the Islam section, thats a good idea. I might look into that too. --Matt57 03:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll try, but let's see what Canadia thinks about this proposal. I'll be editing it here. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Views on Other Faiths

message: This article is relying upon a very large number of http://www.faithfreedom.org/ citations themselves. This presents a problem for neutrality. I would strongly suggest that these be thinned out if this article is ever to be taken seriously. As things stand now with 31 links leading from this article to Faith Freedom's website the article is a virtual Faith Freedom link farm.  19:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed. if this website truly does pass WP:WEB, we should be able to report objectively about the subject using reliable secondary sources. i do not believe that is the case. ITAQALLAH 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: i have tagged the article accordingly, as per the above comments on lack of secondary source usage. also, the external links provided at the bottom apparently establishing FFI's notability are not reliable sources, and in a number of instances the coverage is trivial. i am not convinced that this article meets WP:WEB standards. ITAQALLAH 00:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many Faithfreedom links

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB
Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing.
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links.....
"...our policy on attribution to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability.............content are deemed notable, based on the following critera..... includes reliable published works in all forms, .............except for the following: 
...Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address.....brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site...."
Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article WP:WEB
The current FFI article has 47 references, of which 35 refer to itself, i.e FFI.com, 7 refer to FFI rankings like alexa etc. 5 refer to other sources.
3 external links: The first link being FFI itself and the second link being the old FFI page. 
6 links for notability of which 1 link has no mention of FFI or Mr. Sina.[(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_21251667.shtml] Another is a reference to a fourmn article again, cross linked with each other.
What exactly is this?? and why is it still here ? If here, why does any atempt to clean it gets reverted? Why has deletion got no consensus.
Z2qc1
:The website is notable. See: Wikipedia:Notability (web) which says: "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." This has all been repeated 2 times already, when people tried to get it deleted. Removing the tag. Please continue debate on notability here before inserted the tag. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:WEB

message: The FFI main page says:
We strive for the unity of Mankind through the elimination of Islam, the most insidious doctrine of hate. Islam can't be reformed, but it can be eradicated.
I'm merely using their own words. Matt, initially agreed with eradicate, but now you say it is a NPOV word? Fine, we'll just use eliminate then.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 06:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded the lead sentence to have only their stated goals. The rest is the usual polemic you get. I'm neutral here; all religions are more or less bad for humanity and Islam is no exception. Ttiotsw 08:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thats a better goal, thats what they've said explictly. thanks --Matt57 11:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In rough summary what FFI says is that while the rest of the world has modernized and became more tolerant of other cultures and religons, Islam has prevented such action from occuring in the muslim world. Basicly, they are saying Islam has no place in the modern world, because it is backward. Does that clarify their message?--Sefringle 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:NOT#FORUM, where it says "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate." Your opinions of Ali Sina or what you think of what he stands for doesn't belong here if it doesn't impact the writing of the encyclopedia article.--Sefringle 21:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: See here. These are not my words, they are FFI's. --Sefringle 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead discussion 

message: I had edited the death threats sub section, it keeps getting reverted without any discussion from the reverter, i dont understand why?
The earlier section had 183 words. the word Ali sina, FFI, website, threat being repeated over and over again. The following is my edit i wish to place. Please tell me if i have left out any revelant information.
"FFI founder claims to have received death threats. One which includes a reward of 25,000 $ for killing him. It was also threatened with a law suit, however the law suit never took a factual form."
Please idicate any important points i have left out.Z2qc1
:The Infidel Guy has interviewed Ali Sina but the relevant program has a disturbing claim (taken from http://www.thedebatehour.com/list_of_shows.html ..."Tape 253 - The Psychological Profile of Muhammad (THIS PROGRAM REMOVED AS ALI SINA HAS BEEN RECEIVING DEATH THREATS.)" Ttiotsw 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou on that and I do like the challenge of digging stuff up. Found that Ali Sina's death threat issuer is the same one that issued one against Sania Mirza. Have updated that Wikipedia article to reflect the name of the "scholar" (I understand it from the reference  to be a certain Syed Yousaf Bin, the chief patron of the Ulema Board, in Hyderabad). Still have to do more as the link between the two is from  and that is simply an email published on that site with no editorial input. Really need a picture of that article in the "Muslim Jagaran" that says 10,00,000 rupees (i.e. Ten lakhs). Ttiotsw 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Search the word "million" on that page. --Matt57 20:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death threats 

message: I had found that in Feb 2007, the website had 1200 members "The site has 1280 members as of february 23, 2007.since its inception a few years ago." Recently the website went though "housekeeping" and the member list has now increased to around 8,000.as on April 07. . Could this be used as a notability factor or can we say that its being doctored and its beguiling readers and users. Can i include this fact in the main article ??? May be i am wrong now or was wrong earlier. Z2qc1 Signed after being notified Z2qc1
:Sign your posts. FFI doesnt have a "membership". A forum member is not a member of the website or organization. --Matt57 13:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, like I've told you many times, membership does not mean registering with the forum. Tell me now: If a spammer registers in the forum, is he a member of FFI? FFI does not have a membership. Is that so hard to understand? Um, if I register on CNN.com to comment on their website, am I a member of CNN now? --Matt57 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members

message: the challenge section has been removed as there is nothing to suggest this comical 'challenge' is remotely notable. it is through secondary sources that we ascertain what about this topic merits mention - we only report what others have reported on the subject. ITAQALLAH 02:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the challenge is not notable, lets take out the Debates too. They too arent notable. Also not notable are Ali Sina's views on Islam and all the rest of the information in the article. Right? Or wrong? We could just delete the whole thing saying that none of the content is notable. What do you think? --Matt57 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: absolutely. we use secondary sources to write articles and determine what merits mention, not primary. whatever the secondary sources report, is what we report. we don't report about the Qur'an using the Qur'an itself. ITAQALLAH 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why arent you deleting most of the article? Its all Primary source, right? Why are you holding back?--Matt57 16:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the proponderance and reliance upon links to FFI (34 out of a total of 41?) for this article, much like the Ali Sina article, article deletion shouldn't be out of the question.  16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Matt, there's no point engaging in warring where half the article will be constantly removed and restored. i have removed one section accordingly, and if there are no objections brought forward by the article contributors on talk, then we can proceed further. ITAQALLAH 16:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give the exact Wikipedia policy according to which you deleted the content. --Matt57 17:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", or WP:ATT: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" we write articles using independent reliable sources, and should certainly never rely so heavily on primary sources as has been done here. in what way are sections such as 'Death threats' or 'The Website's Challenge' worthy of mention? as said previously, we report about topics in the way other reliable, third-party sources have reported about them, and "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." also see WP:RS, and the explanatory essay WP:IS. ITAQALLAH 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. But we can simply delete it now, and then have it at a user's subpage to clean it up, and then when it respects Wikipedia's policies, the article can be recreated in the main namespace.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenge 

message: The articles does not cite its reference about  having a debate with Dr. Abu Saleh, Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi & Dr. Alireza Assar. Dr. Palazzi is a renowned person (believing wiki's article on him)Wiki cant allege about something and not refer it.
How much can we include about what happened in the debates ?? Like on the debate with  Mr.Reza we have allowed views of both parties to be included in a couple of sentences. What about views of others and how many sentences should we allow to include?Z2qc1 01:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Debates

message: Hello.  I've expanded the article a bit based on one of Sina's letters.  I hope that you all find my edits suitable.  Also, the letter is under external links? Should it be removed now that it has been used as a reference? Thanks.  The Behnam 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the writing seems kind of clunky in retrospect, so please feel free to tweak it.  The Behnam 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: The tag says "An editor has expressed concern"... 1. It doesn't matter whether or not the article has established notability. What matters is how editors feel. And myself, along with a few others, question the notability "established" in the article. Seeing how the latest afd was a no consensus, I don't see how it can be concluded that the notability has been established. Please do not remove the template until the issue is resolved.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:N#Notability is not subjective--Sefringle 03:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article relies too heavily upon the actual website for its material. Notable websites do not have this problem.  03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep the tag up while the issue is resolved.  It is only proper.  Thanks.  The Behnam 03:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more appropiate tag then is , not notability. Notability means there is no proof of notability, not that there is a lack of primary sources.--Sefringle 03:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sefringle, you need to study the  tag a little more closely. it doesn't say the article topic is not notable, it says that its notability is under dispute. i, and a number of editors here, feel that per the lack of non-trivial coverage by third party reliable sources, the article fails to conform to WP:WEB, as has been discussed substantially above. ITAQALLAH 13:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has non-trivial coverage. Did you see the external links section?--Sefringle 00:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we have been arguing that the coverage provided by these links is actually rather trivial, or the sources are not reliable enough to meet WP:WEB, which is a stipulated condition. as this dispute concerning its notability is still present, i would recommend reinsertion of the tag which recognises this. ITAQALLAH 15:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're gonna have to file an RfC becuase many of us dont agree that the coverage is trivial. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i'll tell you what, we can start a new section and go through each link one by one first. ITAQALLAH 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, make a list of all mentions of FFI and Ali Sina and prove each one of them as trivial coverage. You should also read the previous AfD's, where people commented affirmed that FFI/Ali Sina are notable. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ali Sina isn't notable, as community consensus had shown in the previous AfD, which was re-affirmed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. FFI's notability is also disputed, one AfD resulted in deletion, the other resulted in no consensus. so i don't know what you're talking about. ITAQALLAH 09:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm OK with ITAQALLAH suggestion. Meatspace (and the article is low-importance anyway) being what it is I don't have as much time to spend on this article as others so I'm not going to drive this though will respond as I see fit. I would have thought that there are many other articles in Wikipedia that need a lot more TLC than what ends up on this one but hey whatever. Ttiotsw 03:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability tag 

message: *  My inclusion was not a misrepresentation of the source.  See the source:
"This is a communist lie. Khomeini was not dumped on us by any Western government. He was dumped on us by the Islamists and the communists. This very woman who is now accusing the West of dumping Khomeini on us marched in the streets shouting anti American slogans and hailed Khomeini. Her hero, Mansoosr Hekmat, backed the Islamic Revolution. Of course BBC had a great role in this. It incited people and volunteered to be the mouthpiece of the Islamists the way Al Jazeerah is the mouthpiece of Al Qaida today.
But BBC is under the control of the leftists. It was the political Left and the communism International that went to bed with the Islamists to bring Khomeini to power."
The paragraph is talking about the Islamic Revolution's causes.  It says "of course the BBC had a great role in this. It incited people and volunteered to be the mouthpiece of the Islamists."  This is saying that the BBC had a role in the Islamic Revolution.  Whether or not this is correct or Ali Sina was correct in saying it does not matter.  He said it, and thus it can be attributed to him.
And of course there isn't even anything to argue about the part about leftists.  Sina explicitly says "but the BBC is under the control of the leftists."  How can you call putting that in "misrepresentation?"
::The problem with your edits is that sometimes I do not believe that you represent the opinions of Ali Sina in a way that is fair. One example is that when discussing the criticism he has voiced against Azar Majedi, you simply list all the words that he has called her, and do not mention anything about the actual criticism that he has raised against her opinions. To me it appear to be a biased attempt to misrepresent Sinas opinions and make him look like a raving idiot, that is essentially attacking her and her opinions for no good reason. As for the BBC part, perhaps some of that could be restored with a little more context around it. I don't think it needs it own section though. -- Karl Meier 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it should be relevant to have 5 quotes in that section and repeat every word he has used praising her, when we can simply sum it up and say that "Ali Sina has praised her"? Why do you believe that all the more specific words that he uses, is so important that they must be included? -- Karl Meier 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I added was from the article: "Who said all cultures are equal? How can a “culture” that condones wife beating, honor killing, stoning, child rape, eye gauging, hand chopping, polygamy and other barbarities be equal to a culture that supports equality, freedom of expression and democracy?". The part that I removed need, as I mentioned in my edit summary, need more context if it is to be included. In the article Sina says that multiculturalism can be useful and acceptable in the context of some specific places and cultures living together. Your version of the section only mention the quote "It is not that I am against multiculturalism" and seemed to me like a OR attempt to "prove" that Sina is somehow contradicting himself. -- Karl Meier 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I must admit that I don't know anything about the issue, or how old the emblem might be. However, FFI is an organisation for ex-Muslims and is about Islam, and Sinas personal opinions on archaeological issues doesn't seems relevant to include here. -- Karl Meier 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A tag can be added, and I and other editors can remove them if we believe they are absurd and irrelevant given the content of the article. I am not the only one that oppose the inclusion of that tag, and I don't see why WP:OWN should be relevant in this context. -- Karl Meier 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is a bit harsh to say that I "destroyed" your edits. Most of the content that you added is actually still there, with some adjustments. -- Karl Meier 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections to Karl's removals 

message: as proposed above, i have decided that we can go through each link one by one to see how and where notability has been established. here is the relevant extract from WP:WEB from criteria 1 (criteria 2 and 3 are inapplicable here):
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. 
*This criterion includes4 reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. except for the following: 
**Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
**Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores. 
* - no mention of FFI by Hugh Fitzgerald at all.
* - one mention, trivial (see trivial coverage criteria #1 and #3)
* - WorldNetDaily cannot be considered a reliable source
* mention of the website once, thus trivial and passing (#1).
* unreliable website, passing mention, see #1
* a message board post by Ali Sina, how does this establish notability?? (in any case, #3)
* one mention, trivial and passing. (#1)
* no mention of FFI at all.
* again, trivial mention (#1)
*Ttiotsw's attribution to Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' which again appears to be #3 in the trivial coverage definition.
*Matt's attribution to Ibn Warraq's book, which is apparently a URL and a copy/paste of their mission statement, which does not fulfill neither the non-trivial requirement nor the requirement that the 'content itself has been the subject of... ...works whose source is independent of the site itself', as stipulated above.
as we can see, almost all of the links provided constitute trivial mention (as defined above) or do not mention it at all, and the one which is about the website is unreliable. if anyone has any resources establishing notability, please provide them. ITAQALLAH 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're making the mistake of seperating Ali Sina from FFI. Ali Sina is the FOUNDER of FFI. Go back and reevaluate please. Second, the mentions are not trivial so you're wrong. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly with Matt57's above comments. I believe that Itaqallah's endless and continued revert-warring against consensus in order to place his tag amounts to disruption. -- Karl Meier 17:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Matt57: as you can see, this article is about a website - not about a person (nor a person and a website). i wonder if the rest of the community will agree with your conflation. you say the mentions of the website are not trivial- but can you argue why, bearing in mind the above extract? Karl Meier: per your own history of 'endless and continued revert-warring', which you continue even now, i can only perceive your comments as rather shallow. i'm not quite sure what you feel needs clarification about the  tag ("An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline ..."). in fact, there have been numerous editors suggesting lack of notability, so there is no consensus in that regard, and as such your tag removal to conceal the presence of a dispute is what is disruptive. ITAQALLAH 19:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ItaqAllah, its not a "conflation". The article starts with the sentence "Ali Sina redirects here, as it is the name the founder of Faith Freedom International uses.". This was put in by the admins when the redirect was made. Ali Sina and FFI are the same. According to an adminstrator's comments in a previous AfD "this site has clearly been the subject of multiple non-trivial references in reliable secondary sources, several of which are already linked.", so I dont know what you're trying to do. This is plain disruption. If you try for another AfD, its going to be a keep. I can go back and make a list like yours, proving that these are not trivial mentions. I might do that sometime. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you can see the fate of the Ali Sina article here, which obtained community consensus as non notable. the only reason for the redirect, is that those searching for Ali Sina will be redirected to the next best result. it doesn't mean Ali Sina == FFI, and i don't believe any sort of sound logic can bring one to that conclusion. as for the admin who said that, what links is he talking about? i don't see any reliable, non-trivial mention here. ITAQALLAH 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: also, plrease do address my above comments. show me where there is non-trivial coverage (as defined by WP:WEB) of the website. if you cannot do that without conflating the website with Ali Sina, you demonstrate that the website itself is not notable enough. ITAQALLAH 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, your whole evaluation is invalid as you are seperating Ali Sina from FFI. Both exist only because of the other. Ali is the founder of FFI. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: on the basis of that premise of mutual dependancy, which i don't agree with, can we conclude that because Ali Sina is not notable, then neither is FFI? ITAQALLAH 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ofcourse not. The mentions are not trivial and they are multiple in number therefore satisfying "multiple non-trivial published works". --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Apostasy from Islam is a serious issue in Islamic countries. Any mention or support for apostasy is not considered to be trivial. In that respect I question how you can consider how Dawkins' mention supporting FFI to be trivia. If apostasy is in fact more of a trivial matter than that in which we are led to believe then fine, Dawkins is trivial but I suspect that the paucity of Islamic related cites supporting apostasy is due to the seriousness of the condition of the believers and the threat in which the apostate presents to the Islamic states. In a liberal Western view (I must mention I had roast pork tonight with a stuffing of sage and 18 month old cheese and I have drunk the best part of 1.5 litres of beer and at least 1 litre of wine whilst blasting out music videos from one of the laptops to the amp trying to stop the dog from jumping on the table) the mention is trivial but in the Muslim view it is not. As an Atheist I must thank the Mozilla project for giving me this spellchecker that allows me to correct words. You tell me how long I would last in an Islamic country ?. Wikipedia represents not a Western view but a world-view and this is inclusive of Islamic countries. In those countries any coverage of FFI would be non-trivial. Ttiotsw 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You're equivocating on the word "trivial".--Kirby♥time 22:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Guy, thank you for the confirmation. This will help close this needless debate that has been going on for some time now. The external links establish notability and I was about to go through the links and show how each of them fulfilled the criteria. We have coverage in Asia Times and many other places, which is definitely not trivial as some editors imply. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Kirbytime, you're putting the tag back in repeatedly without discussion. FFI/Ali Sina have multiple non-trivial mentions in various places including Asia Times. Please do not tag this article again without discussion. I understand that as a Muslim the content of this article may be offensive to you but you can put the tag in only if you have explained a good rationale for why its not notable.  --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  notability again 

message: Note it is "an" editor; singular. If multiple people sign this, it would be overkill and justify the inclusion of the tag.--Kirby♥time 02:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an unfair straw poll, because the opposition cannot vote. Second, wikipedia is not a democracy.--Sefringle 03:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Kirbytime, each of those users including you will have to explain why its not notable and why each link qualifies as trivial coverage. Please evaluate the links now. Explain why the coverage in Asia Times is trivial. If you want to revert without discussion, you will likely get blocked again like you were yesterday. I hope from now on you learn to discuss and justify your edits. By the way, giving a link to WP:SOAP does not count.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sefringle, I put our votes there. It looks like Kirbytime wants to spend time over something which will not go the way he wants it to go. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't a straw poll. This is just to affirm that there exist users which question the notability of FFI, and the existence of such users merits the inclusion of the notability tag. Saying "oppose" is meaningless. What exactly are you opposing?--Kirby♥time 03:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kirbytime, technically you dont even have to get multiple editors. The template (if you read it) says "an editor". So why are you looking for multiple people to join in? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Should I tag every muslim whom I think is not notable, even after notability has allegedly been established through an Afd? According to that arguement, I should. Just because one or two people think someone or something isn't notable doesn't mean it is. This discussion seems like WP:POINT.--Sefringle 03:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you seriously think that they are not notable, why aren't you tagging them?--Kirby♥time 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So now you know that it takes only one editor to raise the notability issue. Again, you cannot put the tag in without discussing it why. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I didnt see you discussing the tag anywhere or explain why its trivial coverage. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I checked, the tag says "A user", not "Kirbytime". I can place the tag on behalf of other users, like Netscott and Itaqallah. Second, I have discussed it, please see here, which, after writing that, I subsequently placed the tag. It has been reverted ever since.--Kirby♥time 04:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot place the tag unless it is you who discusses it. If ItaqAllah wants to put in the tag, he'll do it himself. Thats why we have our own logins. Your references section did not deal with the coverage in Asia Times. Like I said, explain how that is trivial coverage. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hogwash beyond belief. Do you have ANY WP policy or guidelines proclaiming that the person who places the tag must be the same person with the digression?--Kirby♥time 04:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain why Asia Times is not notable. Bottomline again: If you put in the tag without discussion, it will be reverted. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So does this count as a discussion or no? Also, I ask again: Do you have ANY WP policy or guidelines proclaiming that the person who places the tag must be the same person with the digression?--Kirby♥time 04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're failing to explain why the Asia Times article is trivial coverage. Have you seen that link? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the asiatimes ref mentions faithfreedom once last time i checked, and it describes nothing about the website in any sort of detail. it is trivial mention, please see the quote above. ITAQALLAH 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the admin editor said above, FFI is notable, but alright since you're finding this so hard to believe, I'll go through the list for each link and prove the notability. Just remember no matter how times you AfD this, it will never be deleted. Past AfD discussions have proved that. With time, any topic gets only more notable so I dont understand your desire to suggest that this isnt notable. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the admin says it is notable, but i don't see how he came to that conclusion. i do say, rather pre-emptively: please don't conflate Ali Sina with FFI. we are trying to ascertain the notability of a website exclusively - in the same way that Islamonline.net's notability is distinct from that of Yusuf al-Qardawi. ITAQALLAH 17:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i have removed the support/oppose !votes. this is not a straw poll as to whether the article is notable. it is to establish whether there are editors disputing notability or not. ITAQALLAH 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You dont need multiple people to put a tag in. The tag says "an editor". I've put the Oppose back in. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what exactly are they opposing? if it's use of the tag, then whether or not they oppose it doesn't matter in the slightest. ITAQALLAH 18:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Itaq, while I'm going over the links, why dont you talk to the admin above? Ask them why they think the subject is notable. Did you respond to their comment above? No you did not. Please do.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nah.. thanks for the offer though. ITAQALLAH 18:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So does this count as a discussion or no? Also, I ask again: Do you have ANY WP policy or guidelines proclaiming that the person who places the tag must be the same person with the digression?--Kirby♥time 04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commonsense suggests that the person putting the tag in would be the one who would defend the tag. If you expect ItaqAllah to defend the tag, he'll put it there himself.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: :Image:Wikiislam_logo.png-Logo of WikiIslam
WikiIslam is a website utilizing the Mediawiki interface hosted by Faith Freedom International in which contibutors "...can safely state opinions critical of Islam without fear of censorship." IP addresses are not collected (as they are on Wikipedia) due to security concerns, nor are articles required to adhere to Wikipedia standards of NPOV.
WikiIslam's public launch was in September 2006, and it has become a repository for information and imagesImages:The Koran and the life of the prophet Mohammed The Jyllands-Posten Cartoons critical of Islam and of use to those in need of stable reference links for their own articles. The Population Bomb, Islam Watch, 09 May, 2007
Should we add any of this content here?--Sefringle 03:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content from Wikiislam

message: There seems to be some edit warring as to what url's should be put in the template. My personal opinion is only the one to FFI's main page (http://www.faithfreedom.org). The others are inappropiate for the template, and belong in the external links section.--Sefringle 01:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. - Merzbow 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: URL's

message: :Image:FFI-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if this "bot" will next jump all over the CBS "eyeball", which has exactly the same fair-use tag and complete lack of "specific explanation" (unless "Summary: CBS logo" completely fulfills that requirement).--Mike18xx 08:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. In any case I did the needful, i.e. I put in the fair use rationale now.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:FFI-logo.png

message: I clicked on it, and nothing loaded.  Does anyone know where the article has been moved to?  That sentence may have to be deleted if no new citation can be found.  Epa101 11:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation 43 is broken