Talk:The Religious Policeman

message: There have been enough long screeds on this talk page debating the identity or otherwise of TRP. This page is supposed to be for discussing the article, not the subject thereof - and as far as the article is concerned, the evidence has been presented from both sides, and it's there for readers to make their own minds up. It's not for the page to attempt to determine  his exact identity (Wikipedia is not for the publication of original research). Can we leave this subject now? There are other bits of the article to edit, you know. --Mike 07:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, all we have to go on there is your POV. --Mike 15:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough, enough, enough! 

message: I wonder how many of TRP's fans think it's _obvious_ that Salam_Pax and Riverbend are fakes, for much the same reasons? Of couse, both of _them_ occasionally post in Arabic... --Chaotic nipple 03:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why such a keen interest in discrediting Arab political blogs?--Phasis 12:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would suggest that it's dangerously close to violating WP:NOR, which is basically there to prevent personal axe-grinding. It would also be worth checking out what Wikipedia is not. --Mike 14:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand me, I think both of them are legit, but plenty of (mostly right-wing) bloggers think they're fakes. Including several who have linked to TRPs blog. And they use some of the same arguments too, like "He speaks english too well to be an Arab!". It was just an amusing thought. --Chaotic nipple 04:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a random thought -  

message: Based on his own site counter, out of 16,860 visitors over the past 7 days, 13,584 came from North America, Europe, or Australia. I think we can conclude that it's an ojective fact that his audience is "Mostly western". --Chaotic nipple 03:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, because people will be filed under where their IP addresses geolocate to, not the physical location of the user (for instance, a lot of Saudis on satellite connections will appear to be in Europe or the US, and that's before you get into corporate networks, proxies and large NATted networks). A user's IP address also tells you nothing about the ethnic background of that user, so assuming that those 13,584 "North American" visitors are all white conservative Americans, which seems to be what you're trying to allege, is technically incorrect. --Mike 12:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't say anything about anyone's skin color, let's not go jumping to conclusions here. --Chaotic nipple 04:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saudi Arabia has a population of 27,019,731 including non-natinoals or "guest" workers.  Out of this, 2.54 million have internet connections (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html).  By contrast, the United States has a population of 295,734,134, more than 10 x that of KSA.  Of that US population a far larger proportion have free and open internet service.  Many Saudi providers do block TRP - as well as many other sites critical of the government, or simply blogspot in general.  Additionally, the IP address does not define national origin (i.e., there are many people from many places living in the US).  --Phasis 12:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mostly Western 

message: I think "Common Subjects" should be the first section.  It is the meat of the article since it tells you what the site is actually about.  Criticisms of something, e.g. identity of author, should occur *after* you finish describing it.
:I agree. --Phasis 00:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. "Criticisms" sections in Wikipedia articles are generally evil as they tend to turn into weaselly soapboxing of the "Many people believe that (my opinion here)" type. I think a short summary of the identity controversy is important, but it shouldn't dominate the article quite so completely. This is probably one of the things which makes the page look like it's about a non-notable website - it should tell you about the subject first, and then expand where necessary. --Mike 14:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the entire bit on identity needs to be parred down and just generally reorganized - as it is now, it is weaselly, very tit  for tat.  And there is more content to add.  For example, RP's on-going discussion on maids.--Phasis 12:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree entirely - I think the thing to do is wait until the "identity" editing has settled down a bit, then edit it down to be shorter and NPOV - need to get rid of the he-said-she-said stuff in there. Maybe time to concentrate on the content.. --Mike 14:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  section ordering 

message: It has been suggested that this entryshould be merged with the Mutaween entry. I disagree for the following reasons:
- That entry describes the role, rationale and activities of Mutaween or Religious Policemen. 'The Religious Policeman' entry describes a blog which uses that title because it satirises the Saudi Religious Police, the Saudi Arabian government, and human rights within Saudi Arabia. The orientations and subject matter of the two entries therefore differ greatly.
- Any merging of the two entries would bring together two communities whose outlook could be widely different, strongly antipathetic, and lead to unnecessary conflict. The 'Mutaween' entry will largely appeal to Muslims whose religious and cultural outlook tends to be serious and traditional. The entry for 'The Religious Policeman' will appeal to a wider international and multi-religious community whose attitude to Islam will vary from dubious to explicity antagonistic.
- The 'Mutaween' entry falls within the scope of the Law Enforcement project. The 'Religious Policeman' entry falls within the scope of the Blogging project. These different classifications alone argue that the two entries should remain separate.
PJO'M (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to merge this entry with 'Mutaween' entry.