Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali/Archive 2

message: The article contains the text "Hirsi Ali still has six weeks to react to this before any final decision about her citizenship is taken", which should probably be replaced by an actual date.  But this wikipedia article is my only source of information about her, so I don't know what the true status is.  Given that she wrote an article for the latimes, though, I guess that she already moved to the US and lost her Dutch citizenship.  Rrenaud 23:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed quite confusing.  My guess is that the sentence should say she had six weeks, at that point in time, and is referring to the period from May 16 (the date given for the parliamentary debate), and June 27 (the date given for the announcement that she'd keep her citizenship).  I'll make this change in due course if no-one asserts this is not what's meant.  She's certainly now living in the US (there were multiples references to this in an interview she gave to the BBC), but I doubt she's lost Dutch citizenship.  That would only happen if she's already been granted US citizenship (which I'd doubt), and that Dutch law recognises the disavowal of other citizenships in the US (which I wouldn't take as read:  I know that the law in Ireland and the UK cheerfully ignores this as fanciful rhetoric...);  or she's voluntarily renounced it (which may not even be possible).  Alai 03:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She has Dutch citizenship, technically she never lost it. This is just a tense issue, as the article was expanded considerably during the 2006 crisis. I intend to radically review this article some time this year, because I believe it can become FA. Then I will look at these issues. C mon 13:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made that change, in the meantime.  Alai 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality problem with article, indirect prediction based on time from "now" 

message: This is a cross-post from the talk page of the anon editor who states that AEI is 'conservative'.
:Can you please provide a source for your assertion that AEI is a conservative organization? On their website, they present their agenda as essentially libertarian. The fact that Hirsi Ali is a pro-choice atheist doesn't really fit with the 'conservative' tag. RJASE1 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says right on American Enterprise Institute, "a conservative think tank". They may not be paleoconservatives in the mold of Patrick Buchanan, but they maintain very close ties with the current administration, and have a history of uncritically lauding their moves. They're about as nonpartisan as Karl Rove. If you want to dispute the characterization of AEI as a conservative think tank, please take it over there. grendel|khan 00:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take it over there...my objection to this is that, in the U.S., the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are POV-loaded and I don't think either fits Hirsi Ali. But you're right, the adjective in this case applies to the organization, not the individual. RJASE1 01:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right; Hirsi Ali is quite a fixture among conservatives in the United States because she agrees with them on issues of importance here--which has absolutely nothing at all to do with her domestic politics on other issues. So while she may be conservative to Americans, she may be something else entirely to the Dutch. (AEI, however, is still conservative.) grendel|khan 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very well established that the AEI is conservative, just as the Brookings Institution is liberal.  Just look at think tanks in any political science textbook.
If only conservative think-tanks are are offering her a position that says something about the liberal community. Dogru144 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not that surprising that conservative think thanks are more interested in her then liberal ones. It says much more about her then about the think-thanks. She is primarily noteable for her very vocal attacks on Islam, which many people feel are bordering on xenophobia. While she has a right for these views, and appears to be more informed then many of a similar ilk, it doesn't change the fact the views she are most strong about are not something which most liberal think-thanks are predominantly interested in. Liberals tend to be more interested in reducing conflict and/or recognising the problems of all religions, not on attacking Islam. She appears to dislike all religions and is pro-abortion which is something most American conservatives wouldn't agree with, but these views are not something she focuses on. Anyway this is OT so I won't be discussing it any further Nil Einne 02:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AEI political orientation 

message: Islam is backward, Muhammed was this, etc etc, what is the name for this? her entire career is about cursing islam, she is an apostate of the faith, associated with anti-Islamic content, what better example do you need. And then Netscott says no refence in article. Have you read this article? Critic is not the same as Anti-Islamic sentiment. I critic Muslims "Muslims need to be more involved in stamping out extreamism" but "Islam is a primative religion of pedophiles" is not a critic it is religious intolerance.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 13:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Halaqah, having that view is fine but if any particular individual is going to be labeled as having "anti-Islam sentiment" then there had better be reliable sources using wording along those lines relative to her (this per policy). This section is sparse with such citations.  14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not up to us to go around labelling people. Just the facts, especially as this is a living person. Metamagician3000 13:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why is there an antisemitic, and holocaust denier cat?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: She is anti-Islamic & Christianity

message: The holy Ayaan (original title: De heilige Ayaan) is a report from the Dutch [] investigative TV series but including english subtitles: http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vara/zembla/bb.20060804.asf -- Livinginabox 02:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subtitled Dutch Interview

message: left a tag on the article that it has POV issues, but never left a note on this page saying what his concerns were. I also had to remove a libellous quote from the new "Catholicism" paragraph that the source attributed to Theo Van Gogh, not Hirsi Ali. The paragraph as it remains is fairly innocuous, especially if you read the full quote from the source article. I'm going to wait a couple of days for objections, but if there are none I'll remove both the 'POV' tag and the Catholicism para (or find a way to put it in context). RJASE1  Talk  05:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on both counts. The article is generally very factual at the moment, not a hatchet job or a work of a hagiography. Metamagician3000 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we never heard back from Xsp85, so I removed the tag and the paragraph. RJASE1  Talk  23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV check

message: This section should be allowed. Since it will be unfair to Islamic people. Thats is her view on Christianity. She is also Anti-Christianity as she is Anti-Islam. She is atheist.
I removed POV, but keeping Catholicism comments. XSP85 07:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)
:Here is the complete quotation as described by the source given for the paragraph:
“	Do you see any positive sides to Islam?
That’s like asking if I see positive sides to Nazism, communism, Catholicism. Of course Islam preaches generosity and kindness and taking care of the poor and elderly and so on – but these values aren’t limited to Islam. If you weigh what is provided in terms of kindness and humanity against the evil that can come from a society built on radical Islam, you will see that liberals must stand up to this like they’ve stood up to other ideologies.	”
:I guess I would welcome some explanation of how this quote adds up to a position of anti-Catholicism - I have to admit I'm mystified. My interpretation is that she's saying any ideology has both positive and negative aspects that must be weighed against each other when deciding the overall value of the philosophy. Apparently  sees this as an anti-Christianity quote, but I'm not getting it.RJASE1  Talk  01:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: user XSP85 is drawing conclusions where none are warranted and trying to insert a section based on his interpretation of what he thinks she is meaning. That's really OR. Her statement is neither positive or negative on those ideologies, Thus I have removed this quote.--CltFn 04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to argue about this - different interpretations are possible. However, after reading Infidel recently I'm pretty sure she is anti-religion in general, as well as being opposed to other comprehensive ideologies such as Nazism and communism. She sees them all as false and fundamentally illiberal, though she especially opposes what she see as patriarchal aspects of Islam. Metamagician3000 12:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this section should stay. I also agree with user Metamagician3000.--redzone 1:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholicism

message: I understood that she has defined herself as an atheist for some years now.  THis Financial Times profile  refers to her as such.  In this sense she is against all religions. BrainyBabe 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine if sourced into the article. However, the Catholicism section was a dumb way to express that, unless we're going to have a paragraph for each religious sect that she doesn't believe in. RJASE1  Talk  23:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't contribute to the Catholicism debate.  My point is that there seems to be no difficulty in calling her an atheist. BrainyBabe 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that much is certainly clear. She dsscribes this in detail in Infidel - how she came to realise that she did not believe in God. See especially pages 280-81 where she describes her realisation while on a holiday in Corfu in 2002, and how it affected her. Page 281: "One night in that Greek hotel I looked in the mirror and said out loud, 'I don't believe in God.' I said it slowly, enunciating it carefully, in Somali. And I felt relief." Metamagician3000 03:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the "Religion Atheism" tag: last I heard atheism still wasn't a religion yet (although one could describe some fanantical non-believers as such I suppose but) in general this applies to both "strong" or "weak" (agnostic) atheism varieties so this label either needs to be removed or rewritten: "Beliefs Atheist" or better "Beliefs/Relgion None". I will be coming back to do so... Mattjs 10:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The general feeling around is that we should not have a "religion" of atheism in these boxes. E.g. I'm sure you'll find a lot of support for this on the talk page for the Richard Dawkins article. I support removal of the label, but her atheism should continue to be mentioned in the text of the article itself. Metamagician3000 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I think atheism should be included in the basic info boax about her: it is a strong part of her identity and has relevance on her notableness (noteriety?) and thus why she is included in the encyclopedia. BrainyBabe 12:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheism

message: Why is this at the top of the whole article?  If one section is likely to get spammed, could the tag not go at the top of that section?  It just looks so ugly. It's not as if the article is about a commerical product or a medical issue that would prompt salespeople to target it. BrainyBabe 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed, as no one has attempted to justify its inclusion. BrainyBabe 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. Metamagician3000 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the late reply - I think I may have mistakenly put it on this article when I meant to put it on another, sorry for that. That said, the external links section of the article probably needs to be pruned. :) RJASE1  Talk  04:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam tag

message: How are we able to describe it in such detail? Source? Metamagician3000 05:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New book

message: I've just taken the article to peer review to see what specific objections or general comments emerge. Metamagician3000 00:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Awadewit has written great peer review of the article and some others have also done good work over at the peer review. Could we put some work into addressing their points? Metamagician3000 12:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: The article stated her Kenyan education was:
"under sponsorship of the UNCHR"
but surely this is an error -- it would have been the UNHCR, wouldn't it?  The High Commission on Refugees pays for education.  Can someone check in Infidel or elsewhere and reinsert it correctly?  thanks BrainyBabe 14:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UNHCR or UNCHR?

message: As a self-declared critic of Islam, she should have been criticized by Muslims and others. Does the article include that? If not, then it should be included. --Aminz 07:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a GA review process for delisting if doing such would be controversial. I would oppose delisting myself. - Merzbow 05:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why? There is nothing about critical views with respect to her. Have you seen the Submission (film)? It is very insulting. --Aminz 05:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't clearly fail the criteria, so you can't just delist it. You have to give editors a chance to fix it first. - Merzbow 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please check out GA review process. I've added it there. --Aminz 05:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Aminz can "just delist" it, he just has to have a justification, which he does have, even if it may not be correct, that's how speedy delisting works. Of course, that doesn't mean someone couldn't of immedietly GA/R'ed it anyway.... Homestarmy 14:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it's polite practice to give the editors some time to fix the issues first, then delist. The project is not harmed by giving a 7-day reprieve (like that given to GA nominees in any case other than gross failure of the criteria). - Merzbow 16:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have now delisted it. --Aminz 05:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Returning to Aminz' orginal point, the article includes criticism of Ali's stances. I only took a cursory glance at the article and saw several mentions of criticism of this woman. Kyaa the Catlord 12:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical views 

message: What's the MA after her name? --AW 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says "After earning a master's degree in political science from Leiden University, ...". So I would infer that "MA" is short for "Master of Arts" which is a college degree more advanced than a "Bachelor of Arts" (BA) but less advanced than a "Doctor of Philosophy" (PhD). JRSpriggs 03:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought. There's no reason to have that on her name then, many thousands of Wikipedia subjects have masters degrees. --AW 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MA? 

message: The link of the reference which declares Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be "a chameleon" leads to an incomplete article of 'The Econimist'. This article is only viewable for registered users. However, for proper verification the entire article has to be available. Since this is not the case, and the editor who introduced this material with the link has not updated the reference, a Verify credibility-template has been placed on that section. If anyone can find the proper full article then the template can be removed. Please do not remove the template unless the section is properly referenced. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your position is a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. Sources used to verify information do not need to be accessible to every reader in order to be credible; if this were the case, books only available in university libraries would be verboten – a rather ridiculous position for an encyclopedia to take, n'est pas? The reference in question is an article published by an impeccably reliable newspaper which directly verifies the claims made in our adjacent article, and to quote the reliable sources guideline, "It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet". There has been no justified reason to doubt the credibility of the citation, and I am removing the abused tag as a consequence. 86.41.80.244 (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference leading to [http://www.economist.com/culture/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8663231 incomplete external article] 

message: In the AEI section [where I moved it from the lede], there is a highly positive review of Hirsi Ali's book Infidel from a Joshua Muravchik. Muravchik, you will note by following the link, is like Hirsi Ali affiliated with the AEI, which casts his objectivity and the neutrality of our mentioning it into doubt. Furthermore, the review was not published in an authoritative publication but was "posted on the summer reading list for the Middle East Strategy at the Harvard University website" according to our article. I wonder if, for such a proiminent work, there might be better reviews for us to feature, in the interests of encyclopedic standards and neutrality. I note, for instance, that it was reviewed in both The Economist and The New York Times. Any objections? 86.41.80.244 (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of Muravchik review of Infidel 

message: Both "Ali" and "Hirsi Ali" are used to refer to the subject in the article. This is unprofessional and most likely incorrect; we ought to use the correct surname consistently. According to NYT, CNN and BBC, the correct usage is "Hirsi Ali". Or am I missing something? 86.41.80.244 (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname 

message: This article has been nicely written, with both criticism and praise of Hirsi Ali well contained in the article. Restructuring of the article is therefore not required. If this article is to be restructed, then community consensus must be obtained. 
Apart from this, the IP editor who restructured the article removed valid content from the article. He is obviously ready to engage others in an edit war, and is hiding behind his IP address. I have thus requested page protection until community consensus is reached. Amsaim (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What content specifically did I remove? Since when is community consensus pre-emptively required for improvements? What substantive problems do you have with the current structure? What is this "hiding behing his IP address" nonsense - I don't see you revealing your name anywhere. Please clarify. 86.41.80.244 (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is usually considered polite to post a message requesting a discussion before making large edits to an article, particularly regarding restructuring. I would suggest that both of you discuss in detail what changes you'd like to make, and come to a consensus properly, rather than using protection or blocks. As for IP addresses, whilst registering a username is not compulsory, it does make discussions more coherent, as involved editors can take note of all contributions made by the same person. It doesn't matter if the user reveals their real name - its simply the continuity of a username that assists the flow of discussions. Colds7ream (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree. I have just declined the protection request, but I will fully protect this if the edit warring continues. GedUK  13:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I would dispute that the edits I have made are large; I have only added/fixed references and made cosmetic changes elsewhere. The "edit war" if one can call it that was over a tag – hardly a substantive issue. When I have considered major changes, I have posted to the talkpage (see below). In any case, thank you both for reviewing the matter. Perhaps now that Amsaim's obstructionist tactics have been frustrated he will come and discuss the substance of the material. 86.41.80.244 (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit wars don't have to be over substantial issues; believe me, I've seen them blow up over the smallest thing. Oddly, tags are often one of the reasons. GedUK  14:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are, but Colds7ream's comment seemed to suggest that the bone of contention in this case was large edits, restructuring and detailed changes which ought to have been discussed in advanced, rather than the "unreliable source?" tag for The Economist. I suspect the proclivity to edit war over tags is due to the fact that the warrior aspirant need not do much research in order to arrive at a position on the matter she can defend; not so for substantive disputes, which rule out the lazy. 86.41.80.244 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring the article 

message: It seems she has a new book out, titled 'Nomad'. From the description at amazon.co.uk, it seems like this one is also autobiographical, and not the fictional account of Mohammed meeting modern society that has been announced earlier? Mortene (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New book out 

message: Somewhere between the section on her "Youth" and "Early Career" her decision to leave Kenya and seek Asylum in Holland should be set down. What I know is only from reading a couple of newspaper articles, so I don't feel I'm in the best position to write this. From what I understand, her father's decision to arrange a marriage for her was the impetus for her leaving & this led her to change her name and birth date slightly presumably to avoid being found by her dad.  (There are some unclear statements by her about choosing her grandfather's name and how that was perfectly valid.) Since these discrepancies form the basis for Holland's later attempt to revoke her citizenship, they are important details as is her becoming a Dutch citizen in 1997. Ileanadu (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key Portion of Life History Missing 

message: There appears to be something missing in the last three paragraphs of Ayaan Hirsi Ali#Political career, and I placed a  tag just after "her party" as an example, but the rest is quite unclear. Can someone with good sources clean up this section? What needs explanation are: "her security measures", "stood for election to Parliament" (... and what happened?) "tenure in Parliament" (something missing?) -84user (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political career unclear 

message: I have a question, and I have no idea what the answer is.  The article's opening includes this sentence:
She is the estranged daughter of the Somali scholar, politician, and revolutionary opposition leader Hirsi Magan Isse.
Isse is now dead.  Is it proper to still refer to Ali and Isse as "estranged"? 98.82.0.102 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the word estranged should be removed from opener. Her estrangement from her father during his lifetime either is or should be detailed in the body. Donama (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that's what I was thinking as well. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estrangement 

message: Why is the photo from her book Infidel not being used in the article? This is the photo that most publications use.  Did a Wiki editor take the current photo with their instamatic?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia tends only to use free images in biographies of living people. Any exception to that means the permission, has to be very broad so that the various redistributions of Wikipedia content doesn't break any laws. If you find a better free image, upload it and use it here! Donama (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The photo is use 

message: The reference: "^ Journal of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's lecture at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard" looks to be broken.
It points to http://www.rogerhouston.org/rogerhouston/2006/05/ayaan_hirsi_ali.html which seems to no longer exist.
--Hugovdm (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 82 broken 

message: Does Hirsan Ali oppose male circumcision? The RTL link supporting that is broken, and the quote following doesn't seem to support it either.
DaBunny42 (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposes circumcision? 

message: Claims regarding the prevalence of a particular viewpoint are best cited and attributed to a secondary source that surveys and summarizes the field of opinion.  Language like "a firestorm of controversy" is unencyclopedic IMO and probably shouldn't be included no matter who said it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree, and I have tagged that sentence as needing cleanup. My quick check of the several cites failed to find the word "firestorm", but I listed several other problems that need fixing in the tag's reason field. -84user (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "firestorm of controversy and widespread condemnation of brandeis" 

message: So much material has already been quoted by her that many additional, repetitive quotes by Hirsi Ali in the "Views" section are not needed. Try to summarize/paraphrase her views; this is not a newspaper article. What do second-party sources say about her and about her writing, after they acknowledge that a former Muslim woman is criticizing Islam? Did she get any laws passed while in parliament? Did she get any programs established for Muslim women in the Netherlands, or shape any policy? What programs did she support? What did she do at the AEI? Did she publish articles there or do research? It is curious that major sources do not appear to report her numerous statements; many of the sources used here for cites are more marginal publications.Parkwells (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Views

message: This article is about a very public and controversial figure, but that does not mean that each speech and action that has been reported in the press needs to be included here, such as what she said at a speech at a 2007 conference in Australia. This is overkill and it makes the article seem circular in content, as the same ideas are repeatedly expressed. It also causes a reader to lose track of what Hirsi Ali has accomplished. Let's focus on the major events in her life and what she has achieved, rather than repetition of what she says and what others say.  The asylum/citizenship controversy is covered at length in two places and might be better covered just once. If there is to be so much content on what she says, there need to be other secondary sources to provide some perspective. I'm editing to try to reduce repetition of facts and positions; for instance, material about her and Verdonk is later repeated related to her claims in her autobiography about certain conversations between them, but there is nothing further from Verdonk. There appears to be no end to that.Parkwells (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Brandeis controversy needs to be summarized. Everyone jumps in on something like this in our 24-hour-news cycle, but everyone does not need to be quoted. Please use paraphrase and summary.Parkwells (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Perspective

message: Having so many citations to articles in Dutch, Danish or German make the sources difficult for English-language speakers to use in this, the English-language Wikipedia. I understand that Hirsi Ali was reported more thoroughly in Europe, but it would appear that some of these issues would also have been reported in the British press, particularly the asylum controversy that appeared to affect the government. I am willing to, and have used Google translate before, to get a good sense of articles in other languages. But, many cites in this article are insufficient to find the original articles; the cites often do not connect to specific articles, but to a publication's main page. This is sloppy editorial work. There may be other readers like me who want to read the original.Parkwells (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with incomplete cites and too many sources not in English

message: When the story broke about Hirsi Ali's omissions or distortions on her asylum application, there were many different reports, as well as responses by her at that time, and by members of her family, government officials, etc. I think it is enough to try to cover what was said 
:1) on the program about her application, 
:2)how she and 
:3)others responded at the time, and 
:4)what took place as the government grappled with it. 
I think it is highly inappropriate to insert in that coverage, quotes and statements from Hirsi Ali's two autobiographies, especially the one published years later in 2010. No comments from reviewers are included here. There does not seem to have been any attempt to find responses from people she made claims about, such as Rita Verdonk's asking for her support for the party nomination as leader. That is why I made a separate section for the autobiographies, and put there Hirsi Ali's statements/writing about the asylum application, etc.  - separately from the events of the breaking story and its aftermath. Otherwise it is even more confusing. Given the context, I think it is important to keep a sense of what was said when, rather than adding to the record from a later account by only one actor in the events.
Also, in terms of her books, it would be useful to provide coverage of their reception by reviewers in the mainstream press or academic journals, as is usually the case for books, and not solely by a fellow colleague at AEI. If none of her books has been reviewed by the mainstream press or academics, after all the international controversy about her, that should be noted.Parkwells (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: My editing re: asylum controversy

message: This section is way over the top, with country flags and paragraphs of exposition. This is not Facebook or a film contest. Each award should be briefly listed with the year, not with each presenter and other current info.Parkwells (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards section is too detailed

message: There are quotes in this article by Hirsi Ali criticizing Muhammed, saying how he would be considered today for certain behavior or statements. It would be useful to have some sources that discuss how Muhammed's behavior was considered in his own time, for instance, the age of his wife at marriage. Has her age been documented in sources outside the Koran, or is the Koran the sole source for these statements? Haven't any of Hirsi Ali's critics noted that she is using current values to criticize an ancient text? there seem to be holes in the coverage of this article, if you look beyond the use of quotes from newspaper articles in the "she said, he said" back and forth.Parkwells (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In her review of "The Caged Virgin" in The Nation (referenced and cited in this article), Laila Lalami makes a measured analysis of Hirsi Ali's arguments and finds them wanting in terms of academic and historic rigor. I recommend people read this to understand the issues better. Parkwells (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire Reception section is a huge joke. Evidently the "editor" of this "entry" could find only one individual, Christopher Hitchens, who wrote anything positive about her work.  Furthermore, why the criticism of Laila Lalami is treated with such deference is anyone's guess.  As for Nicholas Kristof, he may as well just start filling out a form letter in response to those who dare criticize Islam, because he writes the same exact thing about all of them. The Reception section is a biased mess.74.134.128.175 (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Are there deeper responses to her criticism?

message: This may be a trivial matter, but when presenting her name it has:
"Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Dutch: [aːˈjaːn ˈɦiːrsi ˈaːli]"
She may have moved to the Netherlands, but her name is NOT Dutch.  It is Somalian mixed with Arabic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.79.55 (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Here is a source with some criticism.. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: about 13k of criticism by third parties has been deleted.  I think this is appropriate, what X says about the pope belongs in the X article, not the pope's article.  I have restored a significant portion of the material which was well-sourced quotes of the author herself. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted criticisms 

message: (Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)
There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = Non-religious (Atheism)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:
It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.
:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox says:
*"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." 
:I might add that the infobox talk pages have a long history of rejecting the arguments of various editors who insist on trying to cram more and more information into the infoboxes, using the same basic argument: "yes this is well covered in the article, but this VITALLY IMPORTANT detail MUST be in the infobox as well because mumble mumble (waves hands)." Again and again, the overwhelming consensus has been to put only the bare minimum into the infobox and to expect the reader to read the actual article for the fine details and distinctions.
There is no consensus for it.
:This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
:A bit later, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. The result of that discussion in in the closing summary: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'."
:More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Wikipedia pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)". 
METHODOLOGY:
Before I started this project I searched to find what wording most pages use and found a strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages. More recently I did a count to see how strong that consensus really is.
First, I did a search on "Religion: None" in article space , grabbed the first 500 results, and deleted everything that wasn't "Religion: None" in the infobox of a BLP (including many pages such as Ysgol Bryn Alyn that use "Religion: None" in the infobox but are not BLPs). This left me with the following 280 pages:
 
* Abdurrahman Vazirov
* Achille Occhetto
* Adalet Agaoglu
* Afonso Costa
* Agata Passent
* Agnes Kant
* Ahilya Rangnekar
* Ahmet Altan
* Akhil Gogoi
* Akram Yari
* Albert Caraco
* Albert Rivera
* Aleksandar Vulin
* Alessandro Gadotti
* Alfred Charles Hanlon
* Ali Akbar (writer)
* Aliheydar Garayev
* Anders Carlsson (politician)
* Andrea Pason
* Andrzej Morozowski
* Anindya Sinha
* Anna Grodzka
* Ante Ciliga
* Anton Hofreiter
* Antonio Carluccio
* Antonio Maccanico
* Antony Flew
* Arthur Smith (comedian)
* Ashraf Dehghani
* August Spångberg
* Ayo Sogunro
* Bahadir Baruter
* Bart D. Ehrman
* Benoy Choudhury
* Bernhard Caesar Einstein
* Billy Leonard
* Billy Wharton
* Bob Ferris (Likely Lads)
* Bob Scott (politician)
* Brian Koppelman
* C. M. Padmanabhan Nair
* C. N. Jayadevan
* CJ Werleman
* Camilo Ballesteros
* Can Yücel
* Carlos Martínez Gorriarán
* Carlos Ominami
* Carmelo Bene
* Casey Patrick Tebo
* Çetin Altan
* Chadayan Govindan
* Charuhasan
* Chingiz Ildyrym
* Christian Lindner
* Christopher Hitchens
* Claudio Bisio
* Clive Soley, Baron Soley
* Colin Challen
* Cordelia Gray
* Cyril Desbruslais
* Dan Barker
* Daniel Dennett
* Danny Ledonne
* Dave Cross
* David Wearing
* Desiree Schell
* Donald McLachlan
* Duncan Scott (director)
* Edmund McMillen
* Edoardo Sanguineti
* Eduardo Ferro Rodrigues
* Eduards Veidenbaums
* Edward Roderick Davies
* Edwin Kagin
* Ehsan Jami
* Enrique Ferrarese
* Ephraim Evron
* Eric Maisel
* Eric Wiebes
* Erik Naggum
* Eugen Leviné
* Ewout Irrgang
* Faiz Ahmad
* Frank Baude
* Françoise David
* Gamca
* Gilbert Romme
* Gilles Duceppe
* Giorgos Kaminis
* Giovanni Spadolini
* Goparaju Ramachandra Rao
* Gopinath Muthukad
* Gorka Maneiro
* Greg Pason
* Greta Christina
* Grigory Kaminsky
* Grzegorz Napieralski
* Gustav Koerner
* Hanna Bakula
* Harald Beyer (politician)
* Hare Krishna Konar
* Heather Mac Donald
* Henk Vonhoff
* Herman Philipse
* Hugues Gentillon
* Ian Mearns
* Ian O'Doherty
* Ibn al-Rawandi
* Ilir Hoxha
* Imam Mustafayev
* Irena Krzywicka
* Irene Montalà
* István Vágó
* Ivan Macek
* J. H. Patel
* James Underdown
* Jamie Kilstein
* Jan Hartman (philosopher)
* Jan Terlouw
* Jeff Berwick
* Jenn Forgie
* Jennifer Michael Hecht
* Jerzy Urban
* Jesse Bering
* Jessica Ahlquist
* Jimmy LaSalvia
* Joan Smith
* John Ball (pioneer)
* John Beaman
* John Maxton
* Jonas Sjöstedt
* Jonathan Neale
* Josip Manolic
* Jovanka Broz
* Juan José Sebreli
* Juan Mendez (politician)
* Julia Scheeres
* Julian Sanchez (writer)
* Julie Elliott
* K. A. Mathiazhagan
* K. Balakrishnan (CPI-M)
* Kang We-suck
* Kazimiera Szczuka
* Kazimierz Kutz
* Kimun Ongkosandjojo
* Kinga Dunin
* Kingunge Ngombale–Mwiru
* Kitty Harris
* Kodiyeri Balakrishnan
* Koenraad Elst
* Laci Green
* Ladislav Hrusovsky
* Lazar Mojsov
* Lech Janerka
* Lee Jung-hee
* Leo Ford
* Leonid Gozman
* Leslie Alexander (businessman)
* Lewis McDonald
* Ljubo Cupic
* Lorenzo the cat
* Lucía Topolansky
* Luís Guillermo Peréz
* M. R. Radha
* Maarten Boudry
* Maarten van Rossem
* Magdalena Sroda
* Mahmud Aliyev
* Marcello Pera
* Marcus Bakker
* Margaret Downey
* Maria Peszek
* Marian Marzynski
* Mariko Yamada
* Martin Harty
* Matt Taibbi
* Matthew Asinari
* Maurice Williamson
* Mehmet Shehu
* Michael Newdow
* Michael Nugent
* Michael O'Riordan
* Miguel Ángel García Domínguez
* Mike Hicks (trade unionist)
* Mikhail Kalinin
* Milutin Mrkonjic
* Mir Bashir Gasimov
* Mir Hasan Vazirov
* Misir Ali
* Mookie Tenembaum
* Moovalur Ramamirtham
* Multatuli
* Murat Belge
* Myrthe Hilkens
* Naman Ahuja
* Nanasaheb Kunte
* Nanduri Prasada Rao
* Narendra Dabholkar
* Narendra Nayak
* Nathalie Arthaud
* Nathan Phelps
* Nedurumalli Janardhana Reddy
* Nenad Puhovski
* Nick Gillespie
* Nicola Bombacci
* Nigar Kocharli
* Nihar Mukherjee
* Nikolay Gikalo
* Nikolay Kavkazsky
* Noemí Rial
* Oliviero Diliberto
* Ophelia Benson
* Orion Metcalf Barber
* Oronzo Vito Gasparo
* Osvaldo Dorticós Torrado
* P. Krishna Pillai
* Pablo Iglesias
* Patrick Harvie
* Pedro Sánchez (politician)
* Pelin Batu
* Piero Angela
* Ploutis Servas
* Provash Ghosh
* R. J. Hollingdale
* Radovan Vlajkovic
* Relus ter Beek
* Remus Cernea
* Renata Dancewicz
* Renske Leijten
* Rob Burch (politician)
* Robert Biedron
* Robert Carroll (Australian politician)
* Roman Kostrzewski
* Ron Reagan
* Rosa Díez
* Rosie Kane
* Ruben Rubenov
* S. E. Cupp
* S.G. Sardesai
* Sadanand Dhume
* Sanal Edamaruku
* Sarbottam Dangol
* Sergej Kraigher
* Shibdas Ghosh
* Siraj Sikder
* Slobodan Penezic
* St Patrick's Purgatory
* Stanislav Hurenko
* Steven Whitehurst
* Susan Jacoby
* Susheela Gopalan
* Swaminathan Aiyar
* Tages
* Terence Hallinan
* Theo de Meester
* Thomas Gore
* Thomas Megahy
* Tom Copley
* Tom Flynn (author)
* Trifko Grabež
* Turan Dursun
* Tyler Curry
* Ugur Uluocak
* V. Subbiah
* Vali Akhundov
* Vashti McCollum
* Vicko Krstulovic
* Victor Stepaniuc
* Viduthalai Rajendran
* Vitaly Fedorchuk
* Vittorio Feltri
* Vladimir Ivashko
* Vladimir Polonsky
* Walid Husayin
* Walter Schütz
* Woolf Wess
* Yan Gamarnik
* Ye Xiaowen
* Zbigniew Religa
* Zhou Tienong
I could probably come up with another hundred or so if I checked more than 500 pages.
To test whether the above might be the results of my own efforts, I spot checked a couple of dozen of those pages and found that the vast majority of those pages have never been edited by me and that most have used "Religion: None" for months or years. 
I then did the same search on "Religion: None (atheist)" and  "Religion: None (atheism)" in article space and found five pages:
* Ernie Chambers
* George Will
* Johann Hari
* Vesna Pusic
* Zoran Milanovic
:This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages.
It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry
:In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies. 
It is highly objectionable to many atheists.
:Many atheists strongly object to anything that even hints at calling atheism a religion. 
:One of the standard arguments that evangelic christian apologists use in an attempt to refute atheism is "atheism is just another religion. You need faith to believe that there is no God". That's why so many atheists object to any hint that atheism is a religion and why before adding "(atheism)" there must be a reliable reliable source that establishes that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.
:In addition, "Religion: Non-religious (Atheism)" usually fails to tell the whole story. Most atheists do reject theism, but they also reject all nontheistic religions and a wide variety of non-religious beliefs. "Religion = Non-religious (Atheism)" actually narrows down the meaning of "Religion = None" to the point where in many cases the infobox entry is no longer accurate.
It violates the principle of least astonishment.
:Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = 1986 (banana)" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."
In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've removed the religion parameter.—S Marshall T/C 01:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = Non-religious (Atheism)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. 

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: Ali said that the procedure was in fact not done in the traditional way on her, it was much "milder". So the sentence is not precise and it is not clear if she was "fully" circumcised. In addition, Ali's personal history is important for the power in her arguments. So her personal history should be told as exact as possible and necessary. The article now gives the impression that she was fully circumcised (according to somalian tradition). Please reinsert details. --— Erik Jr. 09:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Erik Jr.: Do you have any sources saying the procedure had been "much milder"? --Mhhossein talk 19:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Guardian interview (theguardian.com/film/2005/may/17/religion.immigration) reference already there. --— Erik Jr. 19:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote had been totally stripped of important context, and could've easily have been misread as though she was supportive of the procedure. Highlighting the phrase "should have been" out of context was inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Grayfell: ...And as Erik Jr. said, the former wording was not accurate, too. Could you please tell us how it was "inappropriate"? I mean, what's the context you're talking about? --Mhhossein talk 13:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Highlighting this quote at all seems subjective. This is not the place to speculate on whether she was "fully" circumcised, and (as the scare-quotes indicate) this is not a clearly meaningful distinction anyway. Why do we need to go into this much detail based on a couple of sentences in a much longer paragraph? The Guardian article, prior to the detail cited, spends multiple paragraphs explaining the specific reasons why FGM would be different if performed by a man, and why (according to Hirsi Ali), it's traditionally performed by a woman. Omitting all of that but including the "much milder" line is just luridly focusing on her body parts. If the intention is instead to provide background on her opposition to FGM, this is already disproportionate to the rest of the article. Her opposition is currently summarized in single paragraph without any of the religious and cultural context which the Guardian article specifically provides. The article provides this both directly and by quoting Hirsi Ali. The phrase "should have been" absolutely would need context to clarify that she does not state she should have been mutilated at all. This is clear from the article, and leaving that quote in without that context is using a trick of language to subtly suggesting that she thinks the procedure was performed incorrectly. If anything, the article indicates the opposite. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This version is better now. In spite of your explanations, we would add the paragraph, if I felt the need to build a consensus on that. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 17:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, but you still have not answered my concerns about how this one detail is biographically relevant. Grayfell (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genital mutilation - personal history 

message: Please consider the results of this investigation. Thanks. --Mhhossein (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is clear that the May 20th, 2006 article in the Asian Tribune was a plagiarization of our 2006 wikipedia article. Here's a copy of Wikipedia a few days before on May 17, 2006: . Jason from nyc (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Jason from nyc: Yes it was. But what should be done about the reference? Mhhossein (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes what was? Wikipedia editors did not plagiarize. The author at the Asian Tribune plagiarized. There are ample references that support our article aside from the shameful Asian Tribune article. Nothing needs to be removed from the text. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Jason from nyc: Yes the Asiatribune was plagiarizing. I just wanted to remove the tag. I did not aim to remove the materials and I don't know how it occurred. Anyway, Thanks for reverting! --Mhhossein (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bringing the whole issue to our attention. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Copvio 

message: Could anyone add more necessary details to the lead. "Reception" is among the things needing to be added. --Mhhossein talk 05:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: She has admitted lying about her past, why this article doesn't mention this is beyond me. Why her lies are continued to be stated as fact is beyond me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/1518532/Critic-of-Islam-to-quit-Holland-after-lies-are-exposed.html
* The documentary referenced can easily be found on Youtube
 --Mhhossein talk 05:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with adding the link, just not at the start of the article, and thought that the later section needed to be shortened down and structured better. David A (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The newyork post source does not supprot her being somali-born. I agree with you with the rest. --Mhhossein talk 11:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Dear Mhhossein, the inclusion of that episode into the article has obviously been done long ago (if it ever was actually lacking), that's why I removed the flag in yesterday. And I would recommend that you stop inserting references focused on that episode into parts of the article which have nothing to do with that episode. Whatever your agenda for such acts may be, it abuses Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 2A1ZA: Thanks for replacing the source. The source now supports that "Somali-born" part. --Mhhossein talk 12:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayaan Hirsi Ali Has Admitted Lying About Her Past 

message: User:David A: We really don't need those too many citations unless they are meant to support something in the article and other sources can't do that job. Please see Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 11:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are only a few references, not remotely an overkill, and they are important to underline that there were considerable protests against the inclusion in several prominent newspapers. David A (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation overkill 

message: I am now going to remove from this article a conspiracy theory insinuation from a highly dubious source.
The half-sentence to be removed is in bold:
:She received a residence permit within three weeks of arriving in the Netherlands, although it was typical for applicants at the time to have to wait eight months for a decision.
It is the general disease of articles related to the Middle East or topics around Islam that some people try to insert insinuations about alleged all-encompassing conspiracies into articles. For more background see the War against Islam article.
Let's keep this article here clean of such. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 2A1ZA: Is "although it was typical for applicants ... " conspiracy theory? --Mhhossein talk 17:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The half-sentence "although it was typical for applicants ... " adds ZERO substance, as the time to proceed asylum/migrant cases very much depends on characteristics of the individual case. And the half-sentence "although it was typical for applicants ... " has ZERO relevance for the topic of this article here. The only possible motivation to put this half-sentence into the article is to produce an insinuation that there were invisible dark forces at work. With no discernable possible motivation other than to further conspiracy theory. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that 2A1ZA seems to make sense. David A (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 2A1ZA: Thanks for the explanation. However, we have to assess your claim, i.e. "asylum/migrant cases very much depends on characteristics of the individual case", by comparing it to reliable sources. --Mhhossein talk 11:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Erik Jr.: I'm in agreement with you. I don't think why we have to avoid a material supported by RS, unless proven otherwise is correct. --Mhhossein talk 19:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "[[War against Islam]]" conspiracy theory insinuation from this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Hirsi%2Bwins%2Brights%2Baward%2Bfrom%2BDanish%2Bcartoon%2Bpaper/2963014/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090709064611/http://www.aei.org/scholar/117 to http://www.aei.org/scholar/117
*Added  tag to http://thebrandeishoot.com/articles/14184
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) 18:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is Varadarajan's view, i.e.  so important to be included in the lead? --Mhhossein talk 13:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Al-Andalusi did the job! --Mhhossein talk 15:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that she has multiple fatwas calling for her assassination is certainly important enough to include somewhere in the article. If you wish to character-assassinate her by cherry-picking sources that demonise her positions, then fine, it is not technically against the rules, although it may be too POV, but you cannot censor valid information from Wikipedia as you see fit. If you do not wish to keep it in the lead, then move it somewhere else. David A (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varadarajan's view 

message: I added content to balance the lede with a summary of criticism section. All citations are articles published in reliable, peer-viewed academic journals. The best kind of sources for Wikipedia. User Kleuske removed some of the claims, arguing that "Better sources needed". , can you explain what do you mean by "better sources"? Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep the discussion central. I've addressed this issue above. In short WP:UNDUE. Kleuske (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This section was created before you added your comment. Kindly move your comment here to continue the discussion. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I am discussing it, which is the goal of those tags. Kleuske (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balancing lede with critics POV 

message: , I see you insist on replacing "Islamic extremist" with  "Mohammed Bouyeri, a second-generation migrant from Morocco". The wording "a second-generation migrant from Morocco" is suggestive, and it is quite obvious what you're hinting here. Why don't you take a page from Ayaan's book and spell it all out somewhere in the article? I'm sure you'll come across some of her views on immigrants that are in line with yours. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please WP:AGF and discuss edits instead of the editor. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was mostly interested in his name being spelled out, and as such I restored the old sentence that you removed. David A (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[Mohammed Bouyeri]], a second-generation migrant from [[Morocco]] 

message: Hello! This article has Ali tagged as an "Individualist Feminist." I couldn't find anything about this on the page. A cursory web search found pages by those who identify as this mentioning her or her work, but that doesn't mean she ascribes to their philosophy. Can we either remove this or add some proof?Teddywithfangs (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If not supported article text with references it can safely be removed. — Erik Jr. 08:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For all intents and purposes, it seems to me Ali qualifies as an "Individualist Feminist". I quote from the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_feminism): "Individualist feminists attempt to change legal systems to eliminate class privileges and gender privileges and to ensure that individuals have equal rights, including an equal claim under the law to their own persons and property." Ali does exactly that, not only does she seek to eliminate class privilege and gender privilege, but also cultural privilege. She accuses Western feminists of cultural relativism i.e. Western feminists tend to turn a blind eye to female oppression in Islamic communities, for fear of being accused of racism, which Ali believes is inconsistent with the notion of equal rights for men and women, in whichever culture people live. Jeroen1961 (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Choosing a label for someone doesn't make it one the person chose. I can't find a resource where she uses this term to describe herself, so I'm removing the category label. Teddywithfangs (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Individual feminist

message: According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which wikipedia has ruled is a reliable secondary source, she is an anti-Muslim extremist. If that's enough to label Jared Taylor a white supremacist, as it was shown it was, it must also be enough to apply a label in this case.  24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the SPLC has maligned Hirsi Ali.  They are hardly an objective organization.  Where is this "ruling" that they are a reliable secondary source for Wikipedia, and source for what, exactly? Unschool 04:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly WP:POINTed nonsense, as this IP has aggressively lobbied against the use of SPLC on other talk pages. Issues with Taylor have already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere, such as that article's talk page where many, many sources support his supremacist status. The SPLC, like all sources, need to be judged on context. This source could be discussed, but preemptively poisoning the well by comparison to white supremacy isn't the way to do it. Grayfell (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Muslim Extremist

message: You can't just exclude the way her name is spelled and pronounced in the Somali language that she speaks natively. I don't agree with her on many things, but this is a necessary change needed for this article. Zakawer (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The somali spelling should be mentioned in the lead. For the rest of the article use English spelling. AadaamS (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since Mrs. Hirsi Ali is of Somali descent, shouldn't you include the Somali spelling for her name (and Somali pronunciation)? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. 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/20080407213316/http://www.theglobalist.com/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=947 to http://www.theglobalist.com/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=947
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002133455/http://pen.org/page.php/prmID/1167 to http://pen.org/page.php/prmID/1167
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928140712/http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Evening+Standard+article+on+Islam+in+Britain to http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Evening+Standard+article+on+Islam+in+Britain
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716234644/http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2007/2/7/violence-is-inherent-in-islam-it-is-a-cult-of-death.html to http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2007/2/7/violence-is-inherent-in-islam-it-is-a-cult-of-death.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928140712/http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Evening+Standard+article+on+Islam+in+Britain to http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Evening+Standard+article+on+Islam+in+Britain
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716234644/http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2007/2/7/violence-is-inherent-in-islam-it-is-a-cult-of-death.html to http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2007/2/7/violence-is-inherent-in-islam-it-is-a-cult-of-death.html
*Added  tag to http://www.europeanfreedomalliance.eu/articles/The_Owl_and_the_Ostrich.htm
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) 14:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. 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/20070701113955/http://www.opzij.nl/opzij/show/id=18755 to http://www.opzij.nl/opzij/show/id=18755
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114060809/http://www.madrid.org/lapresidencia/contenidos/mejor_imagen/200503/galeria_02.htm to http://www.madrid.org/lapresidencia/contenidos/mejor_imagen/200503/galeria_02.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080323011817/http://www.readersdigest.co.uk/rd-european-of-the-year-2006-i-52.html to http://www.readersdigest.co.uk/rd-european-of-the-year-2006-i-52.html
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) 21:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified