Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Islam and Controversy task force

message: I created this taskforce modelled on the other Islam related taskforces, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Muslim scholars task force. Any suggestions? The taskforce page is basically empty as you can see. This taskforce has been created so editors critical and non-critical of Islam can join hands in improving articles critical of Islam. Also hopefully, edit wars can be prevented or atleast reduced using this approach. --Matt57 00:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've needed this for a long time. Arrow740 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have. I think this was the best way to create such a collaboration. I believe the WikiProject Islam is not enough NPOV. There are many places on WP where people non-critical of Islam have grouped together, but there was no place there people critical of Islam could group together for collaboration. Hopefully this should help in improving the Criticism of Islam related articles. Although the members of this group will be from both sides, the main aim will be to improve these articles and so hopefully we can work together. --Matt57 01:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think Wikipedia should be hosting camps for pro-Islam and anti-Islam groups. The Wikiproject Islam page isn't meant for pro-islam views only. Your saying there isnt a place for people critical of Islam to get together, is this the place for that? If so, your not promoting NPOV but anti-Islam POV. At best this area is redundant because Wikiproject Islam already exists and doesnt exclude any opinion, at worst its meant to promote islam-bashing. Shams2006 01:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your response was not surprising. Would you say that Criticism of Islam also exists for 'Islam bashing'? Criticism of Islam is a major article which has many sub-articles. I already stated above that everyone can get together and improve the articles in this area. There are many people who are interested in this area, hence this sub-project. Please check the main page of the project and see the full list of Taskforces there. When those task forces can exist, I dont see why there should be an issue about having this taskforce. This is one of many task forces which are all grouped according to a certain topic or area of interest in Islam.--Matt57 02:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably strike out the sentence in your comment above that this place is for people "critical of Islam" to gather. I've spent a lot of time on the CoI pages and I'm not here to be critical of Islam, I'm here to improve the quality of articles about that criticism, both the criticism itself and the responses. We all leave our various ideological allegiances at the door when we come to Wikipedia as editors. - Merzbow 06:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally have felt...unwanted in the other Islam-related groups. That's probably what he was referring to. Arrow740 11:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Striver got the point below; there's nothing else for us to join. Arrow740 02:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Merzow, I've struck it out now - yes my original motive is for us to get a handle on these articles and to somehow prevent them from being POV Edit war battlegrounds. Now the issue is: How should we use this taskforce to make these articles better? Thats the issue now. I asked Striver for his advice who's done this kind of work on Islam articles. --Matt57 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can strike out the comment but that doesnt change the purpose you created this grouping for. Arrow apparently feels the same way you do. The purpose this group serves is as a gathering place for anti-Islam people. If not that its redundant as Wikiproject Islam already exists. I dont think Wikipedia intended to allow for groups devoted to criticizing a single topic. There are groups (wikiprojects) which specialize on categories of topics, such as things related by nation or religion or culture or subject, "criticism of Islam" is a single subject with a single POV. This is wrong for the same reason POV-driven articles are always wrong. Shams2006 02:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not my original or stronger motivation, as you can see in my first post. For detail, see my last post below. --Matt57 05:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  that is precisely the impression i was getting. in the consideration of instances like that (i guess we can call it a freudian slip) and Matt's participation on the faithfreedom forums where he routinely reports his wiki-travails to notify all of his e-friends, or Arrow's advocation of forming a group to forward a specific POV on the wiki, then it becomes rather difficult to ignore the possibility that there is an entirely different motivation at hand here. ITAQALLAH 02:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Arrow740, i do not like many of your comments and edits, and i suppose the same is true regarding your view of my edits and comments, but if i have contributed to you feeling unwanted in the main project, i sincerely apologies - in my eyes, you are welcomed there and if anything in particular is making you feel unwanted, then tell me and i will personally look into it. As for this project. Yes, i could agree that it is needed. But, and a BIG but... uh... not that kind... anyway... comments like "has been created so editors critical and non-critical of Islam can join hands in" is giving this project a very bad start. You do not want to START it with making such distinctions. As Merzbow stated, "We all leave our various ideological allegiances at the door when we come to Wikipedia as editors"... or at least try to. I know i need to struggle with myself on occasions, but at least i get a bad conscious if i blatantly fail to do so. For example, it was me that created Controversies related to Islam and Muslims and its template, and it was me that splited out Criticism of Muhammad and Criticism of the Qur'an in contrast to the bigots that merged together all of Alex Jones sites and deleted all of them, together with all his movies, and i am not going to write what i think about those peoples... I HATE that kind of behavior, and if you even catch me being a bigot, give me the url of this diff to my talk page, and ill get the message. We are not here to promote Islam or disprove it, we are here to represent notable views of it, as long as we remember that, I'm fine with adding "anti-Islam" text and everybody should be ok with adding "pro-Islam" text.--Striver 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The idea maybe is innocent, but I think this is the wrong way to go about it. I feel this project may need to be deleted, given its potential to be misused. Shams2006 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahaan? Whats the CORRECT way then? CAn you give any suggestions? And if thats the way you want to go, thats fine. If these project pages get deleted, I will create the related sections on the Wiki Project Islam's MAIN PAGE so you'll be happier in that case I hope. In either way, there is nothing wrong with a taskforce formed to improve articles critical of Islam. And you are wrong by the way in assuming that this taskforce is formed for a POV. You do see Muslims editing articles critical of Islam, right? So there, you are proved wrong. Lets see what happens now. Like I say, there are millions of attempts to silence the criticms of Islam and this is one of them, yet again - this goes on in Wikipedia all the time. --Matt57 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you're conspiracy theorising. you don't seem to appreciate the principle of assuming good faith of other editors, especially with those who you think are Muslim. if you cannot stop treating fellow editors with suspicion for even a moment, then i don't know how well that bodes for your future participation on wikipedia. ITAQALLAH 06:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your allegations of conspiracy are irrelevant. As I said, my aim is to pursue a higher quality of articles relating to Criticism of Islam, which has many related sub-articles and this is what I will aim for, whether it is through this task force or the project's main page or anything else. I dont understand why any one would have a problem with this. My aim for example is to make sure that Aisha's age at marriage appears on Wikipedia's main page. Do you agree with this mission and if not, why not? This is an article relating to Islam after all. --Matt57 12:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the Wikiproject Islam mainspace. It's that simple. Shams2006 18:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? There's no rule being broken here by creating a new taskforce to focus on one type of articles (Criticism of Islam). I can take all of this stuff to the main page and create a big sub-section on the Project's main page though - its up to anyone else who opposes it. My preference is to keep the pages confined here so the effort can be focused. I dont think other members of the project would like to see the Project's main page cluttered - the taskforce will help to keep the clutter out of there. Tahts why we have taskforces on everything else as you can see on the project main page. Plus not much is going to go on these taskforces so I think that should relieve you a little. --Matt57 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a new Taskforce

message: Why is "Dhimmi" listed in Category:Criticism of Islam ? Islamist Terrorism? Why "persecution by Muslims"? These aren't "criticism" articles even if people edit them to take advantage of an opportunity to bash Muslims through ancient history. These articles SHOULD be about historic practices or occurances that are sober and objective, not biased by peoples own opinions and POV. Just because you see an opportunity to bash Islam doesnt mean all articles on Islam fall in this category. As I suspected, this group is going to be used to abuse Muslims through mockeries in articles relating closely or distantly to Islam. Shams2006 06:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree "Dhimmi" was an inappropriate listing, but next time leave out the unjustified accusations. - Merzbow 08:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You're open to change the listing of the article with a good reasoning. There is no more "abuse" in this group as there can be in any other group. Thats why everyone is encouraged to participate. Would you say these articles were better included in an "Islam and controversy" category ? I would say so.--Matt57 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abuse of this group, as predicted

message: Interested editors should see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, a proposal that :Category:Anti-Islam sentiment should be superceded by :Category:Critics of Islam and :Category:Islam-related controversies. — coelacan talk — 15:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pertinent CFD 

message: We need to expand the focus of this task force to include all such articles. This should be the "Controversial Islam Articles" task force. That would include criticism of Islam articles, obviously. Arrow740 00:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i disagree. "controversial" is ambiguous and subjective. "criticism" is more precise in the types of articles to be dealt with, such as Criticism of Islam. everything else, such as Jihad, Jizya and so on, belong rightly under the main WikiProject. ITAQALLAH 01:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Than maybe we should rename this task force "Controversial Islam related articles task force," and expand our focus. Comments?--Sefringle 07:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well i just answered that above. regardless, "controversial" topics ("articles" is the incorrect word to use), as well as the non-controversial ones, come under the jurisdiction of the main WP:ISLAM. ITAQALLAH 17:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sefringle, actually that was what I had thought in the beginning too when people tried to get this taskforce deleted. If the taskforce is renamed to "Islam and Controversy taskforce", you're right it would cover more articles and would look less "threatening" as well, so I vote for this rename, it is appropriate I think.--Matt57 18:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there's no reason why 'controversial' Islam articles should not be focused on by the main wikiproject. regardless, "controversial" is a subjective and ambiguous ambiguous judgement. the current name incorporates a well-defined series of articles. ITAQALLAH 20:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, Matt. Arrow740 07:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial Islam articles 

message: I suggest replacing the  templete with the  following templete:--Sefringle 05:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: templete

message: There have been books written criticizing dhimma. We should have an article about this criticism. Any thoughts? Arrow740 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but a new article on Dhimma could be justified if there was an existing Citicism section on that article. --Matt57 23:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Criticism of dhimma]] 

message: The taskforce has been renamed to Islam and Controversy after discussion. --Matt57 13:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you failed to adequately discuss this move or coherently argue your points in the face of editorial opposition. such action is thus unilateral and disruptive. ITAQALLAH 16:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, the move had been discussed 3 months ago and people agreed to the move. Infact, this move was first proposed by Arrow740 and supported by Sefringle, while no good reason was given to oppose the move then. Your attempt to propose a re-move is a disruption. --Matt57 20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "no good reason" is your own conclusion. 'people agreed to the move'- apparently, and the move was also disagreed upon. ITAQALLAH 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you are failing to give any reasons for the move/rename you are trying to do.--Matt57 22:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lack of consensus from this unilateral action necessitates we restore the previous page name. ITAQALLAH 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins sometimes take an action even when there has been no consensus. They take action depending on the best decision to take. Good reasons were given for the rename in January and now, none for keeping the name. --Matt57 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you're not an admin. see WP:CONSENSUS. you are also not the adjudicator on this page, so it doesn't matter what reasons you consider valid or invalid. ITAQALLAH 22:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ItaqAllah, please continue the discussion below where you proposed to move it back. --Matt57 22:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renamed 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
as explained earlier, there was no consensus for this hasty and unilateral move, with the moving editor, as shown above, unwilling to allow for community discussion to develop. ITAQALLAH 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: This is largely based on a message I left on Matt's page. Since I started working on the Islamic articles I have noticed some editors push forward the following standards that are not derived from Wiki policies. Notably:
1) The prohibition against quoting the Koran. The Koran is a primary source. Wiki policy clearly says that primary sources can be used for descriptive purposes. What is prohibited is making interpretations.
2) The prohibition of presenting views of those who are not "renowned scholars" or "PhDs" etc. There is no Wiki policy that states that these are necessities. Anyone who took the trouble of acquiring a degree in Islam would probably be sympathetic to it. This standard blocks out much valid criticism of Islam.
3) Shunting off criticisms of Islam to secondary articles like "Criticism of the Koran". If this standard was applied uniformly there would only be neutral or positive opinions in articles, whereas all criticism would end up in secondary articles. Readers of articles would not get balanced views. Criticisms that are referenced and from RS (defined according to Wiki, and not some extra-Wiki standard) are entitled to be added to articles. Criticism cannot be removed simply because some editors sympathetic to Islam wish to hide it from the public.
:Don't forget 4) Removing links to critical articles from other articles and templates. Mike Young (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) there is no prohibition on quoting a primary source. there is a prohibition on manipulating a primary source, as you have previously done, or on quoting it in an inappropriate manner or context. 2) see WP:RS. claiming that those who are qualified to speak authoritatively about Islam must be sympathetic to it is an unfounded, "extra-wiki" argument. 3) see WP:NPOV. again, you have lowered the standard of RS to polemicists on partisan websites, so this premise must first be corrected before we even think about discussing article content. ITAQALLAH 12:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "polemicists on partisan websites". Instead of name calling, it would be more convincing if you were to point out where Arlandson has made errors, for example provided wrong information. NN 18:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Observations on Islamic Articles

message: I think there should be a link to the list of controversies from the Main Islam template.  I beleive the interest shown in controversial subjects (which can be inferred by the edit count and size of discussions) means that many people will want to look at the articles on controversies. But they won't be able to find them from the template. Any comments? Mike Young (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be, and has already been discussed at Template talk:Islam. "Edit count" and "discussion size" (through which you're inferring "popularity") have no bearing on content decisions, unless this is discussed in some policy or guideline that I'm not aware of. ITAQALLAH 17:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No link from main Islam Template

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

message: Hi, Sorry if I'm in the wrong place. I'm looking for somewhere to ask if someone would mind looking over the Wahhabi article and talk page; maybe the Salafi article, too? There are maybe problems with the neutrality of the article; some of it needs better referencing and some needs copy editing.
[User, a new and vocal Salafi editor is rather upset at what he sees as bias and I've hopefully managed to steer him and another user away from mass deletion of content to discussion on the talk page, but there's not a lot of discussion from others. I've also tried to sort out one or two issues in the Wahhabi article, but Islam is not my field and it really requires an expert. Any help appreciated, thanks, Esowteric+Talk 21:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also related messages on users talk page and my own. Esowteric+Talk 21:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look over Wahhabi article? 

message: A discussion has begun here to decide if the article Nakoula Basseley Nakoula should be merged to Innocence of Muslims Please discuss this at the talkpage indicated to keep all discussion centrally located. An AFD was recently closed as "Keep" with the suggestion that the article could be proposed for merger. Please help collaborate on a consensus. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal for [[Nakoula Basseley Nakoula]] 

message: We have an edit war beginning that I wish to nip in the bud (one way, or the other). Guidelines suggest asking at the involved projects and I am very much about Wikipedia WikiProjects so....... I am asking if the film article Innocence of Muslims should include a full section detailing the protests or just a mention alone in context and with secondary sources be included?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Innocence of Muslims]] 

message: With reference to the discussions at the Al-Ahbash page, it becomes abundantly clear that the subject ofAl-Ahbash isextremely controversial, thus, that page desperately need the involvement of some
previously non-involved, impartial, neutral, just, fair and knowledgeable editors who can kindly help with a version ofAl-Ahbash (and other Al-Ahbash related pages) which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) objectively under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Your kind and precious help would begreatly appreciated. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Al-Ahbash]] 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the lead mention that the majority of victims were Hispanic, and should the lead mention that Pulse was hosting a Latin night?.  - MrX 13:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: This new user who went against the last stable version after a month of no new accusations and said it was unreliable or unsensible he gave no proof that the sources are unreliable he played the same trick ratna played previously and stop me from  editing by having the wikipedia page protected and even  after lengthy talks in the talk page with a admin c.fred and ratnahattin not even ratnahastin could prove these sources given in my version were unreliable so why has my edit been reverted and page protected so I can't revert it?
My version was stable for a month before this new user and vandal TolWol56 came he reverted to ratnahastins version which the second part ratna wrote wasnt even concerning her which had been addressed. Shouldnt his removal of my text be a consensus before its done?
Tolwol56 plays the same tactics as ratna and accuse me of another user exil who reverted his edits I am not exil but if he keeps playing this game I can accuse him to be ratna is he so eager to use his version and same accusation?
His new accusations is that the sources I used are from taha publications again ratna made this accusation but didnt explain which one.
Even if it did taha publication has been around for forty years I dont see how they are unreliable as a publishing site?
https://www.tahapublishers.com/about-us/
So can anyone deal with this here is the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umm_Qirfa here is my edit whicvh was reverted after a month long period of no new accusation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umm_Qirfa&oldid=1044995801
Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.96 (talk) 00:05, 23 Sep 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed on Umm Qirfa antti islamic properganda

message: An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?.  Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 09:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?]]