Talk:Ibn Warraq

message: I have seen material on the internet that purports to identify Ibn Warraq by name. In my opinion it would be very wrong to put his name into the Wikipedia (even if this particular attempt to identify him is fallacious). DKleinecke 21:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning 

message: The quote needs to cite its source. -- Reuben 16:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone else think there are too many quotes? There are more quotes than actual information about the author. Also, the quotes (if they are to be left on the page) need to be cited inline or at the very least more context needs to be provided. Thanks. DevanJedi 13:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: I've heard that Ibn Warraq means "son of the scribe"? Is this true? If so, it might be worth mentioning in the article. Andjam 04:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My dictionary defines it as meaning mainly "paper manufacturer, papermaker"; it can also mean a copyist of manuscripts. AnonMoos 17:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now separate article Warraq... AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literal translation of name 

message: I've added Ibn Warraq to the category of Humanists, since he appears on the secular humanism article.
: Given the discussion of the last section, and the unfortunate link found on an old version of "Ibn Warraq"'s favorite web site (I graciously repost it here: ), it seems that quite a disappointing 'humanist" is added to the list ! TwoHorned 20:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanist 

message: As fallout from other related articles such as Ali Sina and Faith Freedom International we're seeing edits like this,  which add large numbers of links to Islamic sites without explaining the relevance. For consensus can we please add each web site as a new subject in the talk and allow us to verify it's notability in turn ? Ttiotsw 05:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added an external link tag since their are no critical links and the section is an inconsistent pileup.--Kitrus (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: External linking policy does not require critical links, especially on BLPs. If you feel there is an issue with inconsistent organisation, why not put forward a proposal or even be WP:BOLD not WP:DRIVEBY'in? John Nevard (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding web sites. Suggestion that we discuss in talk first before adding to article. 

message: "Herbert Berg has labelled him as polemic and inconsistent in his writing."
:Good referred and sourced point. I think it's worth putting it in the article. TwoHorned 20:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics

message: From the source for the information about reasons for the penname: "The author of Why I Am Not a Muslim uses it due to concerns for his personal safety." Some other aspects of it are not stated as unambiguously as this is. So caveating this in the wikitext is puzzling. --Otheus 12:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, may be. But I don't know Ibn Warraq saying that by himself. The reference in question is extremely in favour of Ibn Warraq, and, nobody knows a single thing about him/her. He/Her choosed to wear a mask. Let him/her assume all the consequences, among them is the fact that everything about Warraq is unclear. TwoHorned 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if he was called "Mr Smith", the whole point is that we have reliable sources that on balance we can say that there is a person called "Mr Smith". That the person has been published leads us to presume there is a person. In the long history of religious and political (actually is there any difference ?) protest the use of pseudonyms has been a very necessary precaution to protect people from harm. Live with it. Even if we knew the persons real name; what changes about what the person writes ? - nothing. Ttiotsw 00:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed the quotes. In quotes implies Ibn Warraq said this whereas the reference just says "The author of Why I Am Not a Muslim uses it due to concerns for his personal safety." and thus isn't actually quoting him. Ttiotsw 00:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with that latter point. There are many likely explanations for using a penname. May be he did that for his safety, but this is just the ref's opinion. TwoHorned 08:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. -72.70.31.11 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Penname

message: How does that blog's report on his supposed personal facts comprise information "known" about this anonymous writer? I couldn't figure out their sources and fact-checking but it could just as easily be made up as his name. It may be best to adjust the wording to retain uncertainty.  The Behnam 12:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not an anonymous writer , he uses a pen name thats all. He is a well known scholar and makes regular public appearances and speeches .--CltFn 17:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Behnam is right, because a blog is not a WP:RS. I didn't notice it in the first place, hence that reference must be suppressed in the article. TwoHorned 21:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs are self-published internet-based material. The Blanket is an on-line journal that started as a print journal regarding voices for the "Irish Republic" (IRA). It has (or had) editors and a publication board which can be seen here. Therefore, it is not a blog. --Otheus 10:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I put this issue to rest by including a reference from an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Company's "Radio National". Please see the reference if you have questions. --Otheus 11:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem is that, in your reference, it's not Warraq who says that, but the "summary". In the interview, ibn Warraq does not says he used the penname for his safety.TwoHorned 18:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem. If it was in quotes then Warraq said it ad verbatim. It is not in quotes thus it is what the presenter (in this case) has said (it is not just in the summary but also what Lyn Gallacher says as the introduction). It is not in the interview per se. Is this a WP:RS ?. Yes is probably the answer. Ttiotsw 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: TwoHorned, a journalistic interview has a responsibility to provide an accurate summary on the interviewee. It is highly probably that the interview received this summary from Warraq himself, then did some level of fact-checking to ascertain the validity of that source. With the older reference, you definitely had a point here. But I think now you owe it to the reader to show why this source is not reliable. Just to be certain, however, I made it clear in the reference that the facts were cited from the introduction to the interview. --Otheus 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say so. Anyway, the problem with Ibn Warraq is that we'll always find journalistic sources, not academic. The whole problem with Ibn Warraq just gets down to that. TwoHorned 21:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For better or worse, that's probably 80% of Wikipedia. --Otheus 23:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known 

message: I am fairly sure that Ibn Warraq does not reveal his face except in meeting with selective audiences.  The secularislam.org website still has a blank face next to his profile.  Are we sure that this picture is alright?  There is quite a large risk if this is wrong, you know!  Epa101 21:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is him. And he does show his face publicly. I wonder where you came up with that idea.--CltFn 01:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no copyright information. From WP:CENSOR which has been bandied about: "that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed." From WP:BLP: An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm." So, please do no harm by making his image public. This would enable people who have threatened his life to target him more easily. Thanks. Arrow740 03:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "do no harm" don't you understand? Arrow740 04:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Do no harm" is something we should certainly consider here. It's important to note that we're bringing further attention to the personal appearance of an individual who uses a pseudonym for his own personal safety. With that in mind, we should also consider that his picture is listed on the "Collapse of Europe" site posted above- whether this means that he is fine with his picture being posted, or is simply unaware (which seems unlikely), is really anyone's guess.--C.Logan 08:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i think the prime concern here should be with regard to the sourcing for the image, which IMO is currently insufficient. if his image has been properly published (such as the image provided by Epa) then it may be used. concern about his safety isn't much of an issue here, it's not like he's been photographed in his own privacy by paparazzi. if he comes out into the public eye to speak at conferences, he obviously isn't as worried about people seeing his face as Arrow740 is. if he decides to start using his real name one day, that too is information not to be withheld. not so sure why Arrow isn't as stringently invoking WP:NOT#CENSORED as he has done previously. ITAQALLAH 11:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: He clarified the matter in this interview.  He has only recently started to show his face, but it is a deliberate policy to spread his ideas more widely.  Therefore, the use of his photo is justified.  Epa101 (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this picture 100% sure?

message: Ibn Warraq is not an atheist.  He is an agnostic according to http://www.apostatesofislam.com/apostates.htm  This seems to be in line with what he writes.  I have never seen him declare himself to be an atheist; he does argue against God, but this is always the Abrahamic sort of God.  How do we get him out of Project Atheism?  Epa101 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project atheism

message: It seems that a user is trying to cut the criticism section that has been here and edited by numerous users is sourced and a counterweight to the otherwise positive spin on Ibn Warraq. The sourced criticism clearly applies to his writing, which is not terribly academic. Ibn Warraq is not a scholar, just a writer that has a bias for works of outright orientalism and contoversial scholarship. Having wikipedia say that scholars take that view of his writings is not poisoning the well. Also, the fact that it might have been edited by a banned user does not mean it must be cut. Jayran 15:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The negative criticism in that section appear to have been cherry-picked, and was added by a sock puppet of a banned user. That is unacceptable, and especially in an article regarding a living person. I have removed the disputed content per WP:BLP. -- Karl Meier 08:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm reverting it back in because WP:BLP makes no suggestion that a good edit by a banned user must be removed. Also, only the reference to Berg was by a banned user it appears. It is hardly cherry-picked - real scholars in this field do accuse Ibn Warraq of being a polemicist and not a real scholar. People like Spencer, who have never gone through a single academic channel praise him, while actual scholars that go through peer-review often criticise him. Ibn Warraq receives little attention from academia but it is important to note that they almost invariably mention him being a polemicist. Jayran 17:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: removing the section under the pretext that it was added by a banned user (for which no evidence has yet been given) is really quite dubious, considering that it was i who wrote most of it, barring the comment from Berg, which i have personally verified. Karl Meier contests that the views presented have been cherry picked; if there is anything they - or any other respected academic scholar - have written which present alternative views, then please be my guest and insert them. unfortunately, partisan writers aren't likely to get much positive feedback from their work except by partisans. ITAQALLAH 13:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayran, Itaqallah: Okay then, there is no need to spend time arguing over whether or not a banned user should be reverted. My latest revert was because the material in that section was one sided critical, and therefore against WP:BLP. Itaqallah might believe that the vast majority of RS have been critical towards the articles subject, but as the ArbCom has already mentioned, even if 90 percent of the sources has been critical about the person, then we are still not allowed to turn the article into a one-sided attack page against a living person. Another issue is, please keep in mind that WP:BLP also apply to discussion page. -- Karl Meier 07:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: three sentences in an appropriate section discussing reliably sourced criticism cannot realistically be perceived as "turn[ing] the article into a one-sided attack page against a living person," especially when nowehere else in the article is criticism discussed. WP:BLP does not forbid mention of criticism in BLP articles, nor does it specify that it must be balanced with positive views if none such exist amongst reliable sources. WP:BLP states that any criticism to be mentioned must be sourced to highly reliable sources, which the passages in question are (if you don't agree as to their reliability, we can discuss this further). ITAQALLAH 11:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The man posits himself as a scholar in this field but if the only reviews of his work by actual scholars in the field is scathing, this should be included. Citing banned users and wp:BLP doesn't change the fact that he isn't well-received by actual academics or scholars. It is hardly an attack on him as it is only threee lines. If the majority of the article was criticism, then yes, that would be an attack. Major scholars in the field, publishing under the academic journals pertaining to the subject are reliable sources no matter how you try to spin it. Jayran 14:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The man does not posit himself as a scholar in this field.  He says that very clearly in the prefaces to his book.  The only people who posit him as a scholar are radical Muslims and their apologists, who are usually too stupid to know what a scholar reads like. Epa101 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Arrow740, if you are having trouble deciphering WP:PEACOCK, please do specify where you are experiencing difficulty. ITAQALLAH 16:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: peacock terms

message: just to clarify, it doesn't appear that the victims of jihad conference was a UN backed conference, the page says: "In the context of the 61st session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. We cordially invite Representatives of Members and Observers States of the UN Commission on Human Rights, UN bodies, Specialized Agencies, Intergovernmental Organizations and NGOs" - thus the conference was organised by the IHEU "in the context of the 61st session of the UN Commission on Human Rights" - and hence the invitation extended to UN bodies/agencies. is there any evidence suggesting otherwise? ITAQALLAH 14:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To access the United Nations documentation go here   or if you cannot access that page directly  go  to  and click on the link associated with SUBCOM  57th  08/07/2005 E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/NGO/6  ( fourth from the bottom).--CltFn 14:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: United Nations

message: See Wikipedia:External_links#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view--Kitrus (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links tag 

message: *For future reference (or to potentially utilize somewhere in the article) here is a list of articles he has published in the New English Review: . Cheers!Calaka (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles from the New English Review

message: Could someone please confirm that he is a libertarian? Otherwise he shouldn't be in that category.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.188.189 (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian? 

message: This doesn't seem to be a very reliable source, esp. in the biography of a person whose alive. It has a particular bias against Islam. Is there a reason why its considered reliable?
Can we get another source for info we're getting Ibn Warraq's life?Bless sins (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable source

message: There are many problems with the characterization "anti-Islam polemicist."  If we are to believe that "polemicist" is neutral, then what are we to make of the criticism that Ibn Warraq's writing is "too polemical"?  
Also, the entry does not refer to him as a scholar.  Other sources do.  Confusingly, the section of criticism is called "peer criticism," although in that section Ibn Warraq is charged with engaging in polemic rather than scholarship.  Are those critics Ibn Warraq's peers?  They seem to want to exclude him from their group, which is, implicit in their criticism, the group of scholars.  Should Wikipedia oblige his harshest critics?  Then the section shouldn't be called "peer criticism."  
I suspect one could acknowledge that Ibn Warraq writes polemics against Islam without taking a stand on the quality of his scholarship.
Finally, the phrase "anti-Islam," though it appears to be justifiable with regard to several of Ibn Warraq's polemics, creates confusion when applied to the man, the "polemicist."  Later in the article it is noted that he regards Sufism favorably.  That is not consistent with being anti-Islam.  It would need to be explained.  Also, it is said that there is a tradition "throughout the history of Islam" of using "Ibn Warraq" as a pen name.  That rather implies that Ibn Warraq is writing within Islam, even if he's writing in a tradition of apostasy.  That's not something I can answer or even address, except to say that there seems to be some question as to just how far outside Islam he stands in order to criticize it.
It seems to me that Christianity and Christiandom have historically been the target of numerous polemics, some of them quite famous, yet the term "anti-Christian polemicist" is not used in this encyclopedia as of this moment.  I suggest that's because "anti-Christian polemicist" is a prejudicial term, and I suspect "anti-Islam polemicist" is no less prejudicial.
Mr. Sextus (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Islam Polemecist 

message: 'part of a series on Islamophobia'? What? Are you guys serious? Maybe he's scared of heights or something, but I don't think his books and articles can really be compared to that. Richard Dawkins' works on religion certainly have less scholarly credibility than Warraq's; put Dawkins' page in a 'series on religiophobia' or get rid of this nonsense now.
*Richard Dawkins' works on religion have less credibility than Warraq's? - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspeak strikes again 

message: The article is trying too hard to prove Ibn Warrar a polemic and a revisionist. For that, certain sources are quoted selectively. But that's not Wikipedia is about. The article should be fully neutral: first of all, the intro should be free of any judgement. Secondly, there are enough credible sources that praise Ibn Warraq's work which are - without any doubt - based on excellent scholarly sources. The article needs to be "wikified" and rewritten in a more neutral way, neither praising him nor condemning him. --Lysozym (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but this might seem biased. No scholar has praised Ibn Warraq. Ibn Warraq works are based on 19th century points of view which are rejected now due to lack of evidence.--BelalSaid (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: What is the "THe Campus enquirer"? Are there any online links to it?Bless sins (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "THe Campus enquirer" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ibn Warraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/08/17/losing_his_religion_boston_globe?mode=PF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ibn Warraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160319163542/http://www.center:80/ to http://Center
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611202723/http://fp.arizona.edu/mesassoc/ to http://fp.arizona.edu/mesassoc/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The "praise" for "Ibn Warraq" mainly comes from magazines like The Spectator, The Atlantic etc. They are all worth noting, but they are not academic sources. On the other hand the criticism mainly comes from academic sources, including peer-reviewed journals. Some pieces from the Middle East Quarterly praise Ibn Warraq, though I'm not totally sure if that counts as academic. An Academia vs Media sectioning is better than simply taking yay vs nay positions.VR talk 05:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academics vs media 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ibn Warraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113233008/http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/222546/part_2/i-am-not-afraid-to-say-the-wests-values-are-better.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/222546/part_2/i-am-not-afraid-to-say-the-wests-values-are-better.thtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210092618/http://www.spectator.co.uk/intelligence/242761/we-should-not-be-reluctant-to-assert-the-superiority-of-western-values.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/intelligence/242761/we-should-not-be-reluctant-to-assert-the-superiority-of-western-values.thtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.center/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111028193651/http://www.dr.dk/odp/player.aspx?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dr.dk%2Fodp%2FActivateLink.html%3Funiqueid=290740&mt=newstab&st=news_TVAvisen&furl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dr.dk%2Fodp%2Fdefault.aspx%3Ftemplate%3Dnyhed&guid=DR2200803092230&autoplay=0&back=default.aspx%3Ftemplate%3Dnyheder%26day%3D0#c11&surl=http://geo.dr.dk/findLocation/?id=290740&ListType=nyheder&location=None&uri=http://www.dr.dk/extention/playWindowsMediaODP.aframe to http://www.dr.dk/odp/player.aspx?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dr.dk%2Fodp%2FActivateLink.html%3Funiqueid=290740&mt=newstab&st=news_TVAvisen&furl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dr.dk%2Fodp%2Fdefault.aspx%3Ftemplate%3Dnyhed%26guid%3DDR2200803092230%26autoplay%3D0%26back%3Ddefault.aspx%253ftemplate%253dnyheder%2526day%253d0%23c11&surl=http%3A%2F%2Fgeo.dr.dk%2FfindLocation%2F%3Fid%3D290740%26ListType%3Dnyheder%26location%3DNone%26uri%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.dr.dk%2Fextention%2FplayWindowsMediaODP.aframe
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A Request for Comment discussion is underway @ Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies#RfC Is Ibn Warraq a reliable source ?.
For information and record.
Bookku (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC Is Ibn Warraq a reliable source ? 

message: * Reviewed by Daniel Pipes Middle East Forum Middle East Quarterly Spring 2022
 Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a RS. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref