Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/CltFn

message: I'm not quite sure where I should put my comments. I have worked on the Islam in the US article, and have butted heads with CltFn there, so I suppose I'm involved with the dispute. However, I made no effort to resolve matters. I have such a long history with CltFn that I no longer believe that there is anything I could say to him that would make him act reasonably. I have clashed with him at various pages related to the academic study of Islam, such as Christoph Luxenberg, Hagarism, Historiography of early Islam, and many others. From my POV, the problem is that he's trying to use academic materials to "debunk" Islam and embarrass Muslims. However, it does not seem to me that he has had any academic training and he consistently misuses academic materials. I say this not from the perspective of a devout Muslim who resents criticism, but  as a failed academic who nonetheless got a thorough grounding in proper uses of sources, historical research, etc. It bugs the heck out of me when he misrepresents mainstream scholars, or the state of affairs in Islamic studies. 
As an example, let us take the Islam in the US article. We have various estimates of the numbers of American Muslims, estimates that range from 1.1 million to 7 million. They date from 1997 onwards. CltFn wants them arranged chronologically, as he believes that they illustrate a theory of his (personal opinion) that the number of Muslims and especially practicing Muslims in the US has been dropping since 9-11. The other editors are happier with an arrangement by size of the estimate, as that best illustrates a clustering between 2 and 5 million. We do not believe that CltFn understands that it is NOT OK, speaking statistically and sociologically, to treat studies conducted by different groups, using different methodologies, coming to wildly variant conclusions, as strictly comparable and illustrative of a trend in American Islam that no one save CltFn seems to have seen. 
Or as another example, he likes Crone and Cook's 1977 book Hagarism, and insists that it is well-regarded by other scholars. His evidence for this is that it is found in a number of course syllabuses. We can quote other scholars till we're blue in the face, scholars saying the book's hypotheses are dubious, and point out that it's in the bibliographies because it's part of the history of the field, not because it is highly regarded ... but he doesn't care. It says what he wants it to say, it offends Muslims, therefore it is true and important. 
This are just a couple of the endless controversies that CltFn leaves in his wake. The problem is not that he criticizes Islam, the problem is that he does so ineptly, pig-headedly, and without any sign that he is able to compromise or work with other editors. A strictly academic, critical POV on Islam would be a great additJion to many Islam-related articles that are currently mere sermons or hagiographies but ... CltFn is not qualified, by training or temperament, to provide it. Zora 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to make a relatively concise point and put it under "Outside view" and then see how popular we are and if others endorse it. gren グレン 10:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *sigh* well, you can see what I've written on the main page. gren グレン 10:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

message: I also want to agree with most of what Zora has said.  My exception would be the importance of Hagarism.  My perception about it has been formed in great part to Rudi Matthee's commentary on it and I don't hold it's authoritative but I consider it "an important founding piece".  I would argue that Hagarism is well regarded but we shouldn't confuse well regarded with true (which is what I feel CltFn is trying to push).  It pioneered an interesting direction which is still being pursued.  Its flaws are being hashed out in subsequent scholarship.  As Crone said, that's how studying history works.  You posit a thesis and try to prove it, people assess it and build from it.  CltFn argued that Crone still believed this just because she had not written a retraction.  This is where his behavior became incredibly problematic since he argued that it was important, there was no retraction, so therefore academics had more or less decided this book was the Truth about early Islam.  I don't fault him for calling it important.  It's incredibly hard to get a basis for importance of semi-obscure academic works from secondary sources.  It is just one of those things that seems to be known by academics.  The best example I can give is works on Mawdudi.  I have never seen it written that the Vali Nasr work is the definitive English language study--yet, every professor I have asked refers me to it first.  It's what stems from CltFn's insistence on its importance and then his arguing and reverting to get his way that is the problem.
He also has a tendency to misrepresent sources.  Crone herself asked me to remove a quote from Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam because it was nowhere near the thesis and she (and I) thought it was being used to make it look like she was calling the Arabs pugilists.  I got a copy and read through her book and the quote completely missed the point--but it had been posited as representative.  This is a huge problem and it may be insulting to say this, but, I think others would agree that we have this trend.  People who are argumentative and really want to push a point can find good quotes and with lovely demagoguery put the quote in the article as the author's point.  People whom I greatly respect like Zora have to read full book (or at least chapters) to really judge if these quotes represent the works they purport to.  It's very difficult to keep up, by the time you have read enough to realize a quote is wrong it's easy enough for someone to put another up from another work doing the same thing.  This is why--for the most part--I will quote from scholarly articles and book reviews--because it's easier to create a concise and accurate summary of them.  This is not a problem that I feel we have any easy way to fix--yet, it needs to be fixed.
I haven't been paying attention to CltFn (or Wikipedia for that matter) lately but just checking his recent contribs you see a controversy on Dawn of the Dead (2004 film) where he has uploaded two images linking the film to Islam.  It's not that this is a huge violation of policy but this is what he does.  Not to mention he has apparently gone back to not sourcing his images.  Even screenshots should mention the source they are from... and those don't appear to be full resolution shots from a DVD.  So, are they divx rips, did he do them himself.  He has gotten better with sourcing things after we had a few problems with that.
Just for "the record" I don't endorse any talk of sock-puppetry.  I have no idea if CltFn uses sock puppets or not.  If it can be established he did--fine--if not, fine.  I don't particularly find most mention of it productive.  I am also not involved in any of the new disputed evidence... but it appears to be a continuation of old trends.  This is a longer more rambling version of what I will hopefully make concise and put on the main page. gren グレン 10:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gren's comment 

message: From my own limited experience I agree with the main evidence and with the comments by gren and Zora.  CltFn engages in active POV pushing, and does so by presenting missleading edit summaries, slow revert warring (perhaps to avoid 3RR) and a refusal to engage in productive discussion on talk pages.  I also agree with gren, however, that the policies cited may not directly deal with these problems.  I also believe that at times CltFn engages in more explicitly bad faith editing than gren gives him/her credit for.  In but very few encounters I have had with CltFn as an editor this has become apparent on at least one occasion.  CltFn may push a POV that is disruptive to the many entries listed already, but the issues I want to address aren't with POV pushing but with willfully misrepresenting information in doing so.  Providing half of the "facts" is one thing, distorting the facts is another altogether.  Here are varying examples arranged in the order of my encounters:
*Conscious Bad Faith: On John Esposito CltFn justified putting back reverted information he had added orginally about a donation from a Saudi Prince to an organization at Georgetown University run by Esposito by referencing Georgetown's press release .  I changed the information to accurately conform with the press release since the statement that the donation's intent was "to promote a favorable image of Islam in the United States" can not be referenced anywhere .  CltFn did not revert me so I figured my clear explanation was understood.  Yet weeks later he added the same information to the mention of Esposito in the Bat Ye'or entry, reverted its removal once, and then brazenly reverted my removal of the information despite my clear explanation of why the information he presented was false .  When an editor uses the edit summary "actually it is completely true", yet they are not only familiar with the untruth of their statements, but have actually introduced the evidence of this untruth themselves in another entry, then I have to see this as consciously in bad faith.  I reverted again, with the reference this time, and documented the incident on CltFn's talk page.
**UPDATE: It appears that after waiting some time CltFn has again added some of the same false information about Esposito back onto the Bat Ye'or page. See here.  What explanation can there be?PelleSmith 15:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PelleSmith's Comment 

message: Karl Meier signed in endorsement to his own summary, perhaps by mistake. i proceeded to remove it. ITAQALLAH 15:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor note: removed self-endorsement