Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali/Archive 1

message: Note: this page is freshly translated, and still needs to be checked for small errors etc. Kim Bruning 22:48, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Politicology the same thing as "Political Science"? Feel free to change it if I am wrong.  Antandrus 22:57, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I changed political leeks to political observers. I am a native english speaker, and the only definition of Leek I (or Webster's, for that matter) know of is a vegetable.Jeffpw 15:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally you shouldnt be copyediting the talk page comments of another user, because that would be considered vandalism. I agree leek  is not correct usage here, but it is User:TDerz'responsibility to make the changes to a better meaning. Intangible 15:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's blatant anti-Welsh bigotry, that's what it is! :-)--Chris 19:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: : You mean this information? (waves wand) Check page history next time, thanks for the heads up! :-) Kim Bruning 13:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is all the information that was here yesterday? 

message: I' am missing a critical note on Hirsi Ali's claim that she is doing it all for the liberation of muslim women. Muslim women are rather offended by her actions than grateful, as she (1)declared herself a non-muslim; (2) is blaming islam as a whole for practises like female circumsision, suppression of women etc. and therefore rejects the way of emancipation within islam, whereas female circumcision is practiced only in some African countries by muslims, christians and animists alike, and a majority of muslim women argue that emancipation, liberation is possible based on koranic verses on women and sex-equality (for instance Amina Wadud, Riffat Hassan); and (3) she refuses to communicate with practicing muslims (whether male or female) about the issues she is raising. Therefore, her supporters are mainly right wing males and a couple of secular feminists.
She lately issued an article stating that even 'moderate' muslims are dangerous, because the simply didn't discover true islam, but will so soon. For Hirsi Ali there is only one islam, that of Osama Bin Laden.
Can anybody include this in the text in good English? Being Dutch, I consider my English not good enough. If necessary, I will look up references for the statements I made above.
--Abubakker 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: References to notable sources are a very good idea, and then attribute the views to the sources, rather than stating them as general truths. Babajobu 16:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This survey suggests that 1.6% of Dutch muslima's support Hirsi Ali, whereas 87.7% believe her efforts to be not or hardly useful. (The article deserves a better translation than mine.) Bart van der Pligt 16:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Same goes for muslim folks on other parts of the planet I think. (at least in my very small sample :-P) Kinda strange. Kim Bruning 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it strange?  These women are brought up to believe they're nothing more than chattel.  Someone coming along and telling them that it's better to live another way is not going to be welcome. GreatGatsby 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that most muslim women thing they are chattel, but I agree that it is fair to assume that most are unhappy with her "support"--Dr.Worm 08:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Speaking as a muslim woman, I can say that I know no woman who was ever brought up to believe she was "chattel" -- and I also know no woman who supports Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Trying to draw conclusions about the mindsets of women who oppose Ms. Ali based upon your own view of her as a reformer, rather than upon muslim women's stated points of contention with her, does nothing to further any discussion of the subject.  --208.101.137.72 21:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think we can add that assessment to the article.  All we can do is accurately represent her and let the audience decide.--Dr.Worm 21:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hirsi Ali a muslim feminist? 

message: Pecher, the external link you removed was not link spam, because it dealed directly with Ali's views. Please stop vandalizing. CuriousOliver 21:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop accusing other people of vandalism when there is none. Ayaan Hirsi Ali gets only a cursory mention on the page. On top of that, your presentation of the page as a "refutation" of Ali's article is just untrue; the page does not refer to that article in any single instance. Pecher Talk 09:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not listening. It is a direct answer to an op-ed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. You have no right to delete other people's work just because you do not understand it. It is vandalism. Why don't you be productive and edit somewhere else? CuriousOliver 00:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pecher is Vandalizing 

message: This is the shortest intro of a person in Wikipedia I have ever seen. Nothing.
Anybody who has not heard of Hirsi before, must go to the links to have any idea what she is famous for.
Perhaps a quote from her blog would be enough, like this one:
'I do not seek to offend religious sentiment, but I will not submit to tyranny. Demanding that people who do not accept Muhammad’s teachings should refrain from drawing him is not a request for respect but a demand for submission.' DanielDemaret 19:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the article was very short. I've changed it, translating parts of the dutch wikipedia. The piece on her political views is very short. Feel free to expand!C mon 17:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortest ever 

message: I had removed the category Muslim reformers, because it is clear from her criticism of Islam that she is no longer a Muslim. If somebody re-inserts it then please give reference for the statement that she is a Muslim. Andries 19:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can not even find such a category under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Browse
Is there such a category? If there were, and it was defined, one could conveivably interpret "muslim reformers" as anyone wanting to reform muslims. A clearer way to put it might be "Advocates of muslim reform". One could perhaps have put Salman Rushdie in the same category.  DanielDemaret 20:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is the category :Category:Muslim reformers that is a subcategory of Muslims. Andries 20:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Everybody who dislikes Islam wants to reform Islam. Are we going to add all people who publicly criticized Islam into this category? Andries 20:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the link. Strictly speaking, from what I have read in blogs and letters to editors of web articles, far from everyone who dislikes Islam wants to reform it.DanielDemaret 13:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the ambiguity of the category. I use it in the sense of someone who wants to reform Islam , regardless of their current religious status. Perhaps as has been suggested by DanielDemaret a term like "Advocates for Muslim reform" or such phrasing might be more to the point and less ambiguous.--CltFn 13:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think reformers who are muslim is how most people will read "Muslim Reformers".  Otherwise Slobodan Milošević should be included for his efforts to reform Bosniaks out of existance.--Dr.Worm 08:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have looked thru the list. If only muslims belong there, you should delete Taslima Nasrin from the list. You should, in fact check all the ladies of the list. I found few references to them being muslim. In fact, in the case of Taslima, she might not be a reformer at all: She might be one of the many who simply want to abolish it.DanielDemaret 14:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I am not even sure about Hirsi advocating reform. I have only read of conditional reform: That if muslims want to live in peace, they should reform. But in other readings, I can not gauge if she really thinks muslims want to live in peace. I did not advocate her being in the list, I was merely curious as to the definition of the category. DanielDemaret 14:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the category Muslim reformers re-inserted? 

message: Does anyone else think that there should be a new heding that breaks the political career section into two parts?  There seems to be a definite spot where a new heading would be appropriate, but what would the newly created section be called? TheKaplan 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She was originally Somalian, not Ethiopian. And yes, she is now Dutch. I can't find an English source right now, but here's a Dutch one, . jacoplane 11:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Organization 

message: In the article Ayaan is referred to as an atheist but she is categorized as a "Muslim Reformer", should she be recategorized as an Atheist or not? The Fading Light 1:20, 24 March 2006
:There was a previous inconclusive debate about Hirsi Ali's categorization as Moslim reformer see #Why is the category Muslim reformers re-inserted?. But in the preface of the book of the current edition of the Atheist Manifesto she writes that she is an atheist. So yes she's an atheist definitely.
:C mon 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheist or Muslim? 

message: The article now reads that Hirsi Ali does not have citizenship, but under dutch law you can't be elected into parliament unless you're a citizen. So can any one please provide a citation for this, otherwise I'll remove the sentence. C mon 20:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She cannot be a MP. That is correct. So she will announce tomorrow she'll step down (or so the rumours go). Intangible 20:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The Dutch government has announced that they will consider AHA's Dutch citizenship not granted, returning her to the status quo ante of before 1997. This means that she'll still be allowed to live in the Netherlands, but as a Somali refugee, not as a Dutch citizen. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 21:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually Hirsi Ali has another six weeks to prove otherwise, that she didnt fraudulently obtained Dutch citizenship. So she could have stayed on as MP for another 6 weeks. Intangible 21:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is a complicated situation, but it's not very helpful for the lead to say "Hirsi Ali has not received Dutch citizenship, and unless Hirsi Ali proves otherwise, she will lose Dutch citizenship within six weeks."  Can someone who know more about it than me fix that? HenryFlower 21:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between the minister stating that someone has not received Dutch citizenship, and the actually formal ending of the procedure in which someone is struck from Dutch citizenship. So right now there is just an observation from Minister Verdonk about Hirsi Ali's situation. Intangible 22:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC announced that she is planning to move to the United States.  If we wait a few days then this might be a moot point.--Dr.Worm 08:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She is still a Dutch citizen at this moment. Read the sources or watch reruns of the debate. —Michiel Sikma, 11:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship 

message: I was reverted for changing "Hirsi Ali has had to maintain a high level of security due to Islamist threats..." to "Hirsi Ali has had to maintain a high level of security due to Muslim threats". Why is it more correct to say "Islamist"? For obvious reasons we do not know the identity of the people that has made threats against her, but has anyone of the Muslims that has public opposed her, called themself "Islamists", and not just Muslims? Another thing is that the editor that reverted me, mentioned that is lot of Muslims that support her. Somehow I find that hard to believe. Could anyone mention a Muslim that has publicly supported her? -- Karl Meier 08:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridiculous! Off the top of my head let's point out that Hirsi Ali co-signed MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism with the Canadian Muslim author Irshad Manji who wrote the book, The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith. Karl, please stop editing that is tantamount to muslim-bashing. I'm reverting your edit now. Netscott 09:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That Irshad Manji co-signed the MANIFESTO is a good argument, eventhough I believe that a lot of Muslims wouldn't consider her a Muslim at all. The fact that she call herself a Muslim is what matters in this case. Still, though, if we can't find a anyone that oppose her, that call him/herself "Islamist", I find it strange that we identify the Muslims that has made threats against her as such. -- Karl Meier 11:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only understand your protests in the view that you might have doubts about such terminology due to concerns over original research and if that is the case (and your edits are not examples of bad faith)  then that is understandable but I'm sure that it is possible to supply the necessary citations and demonstrate previous research that uses such terminology much as I've demonstrated your false logic of using the general term muslim. Netscott 12:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the problem is not just original research, but also that it is not neutral to throw the label "Islamist" at Muslims that has never called themself "Islamists", or even accepted to be called that. Another thing is that I don't get your point about the general term 'Muslim'. Just because some other Muslims like Irshad Manji disagree with their postition towards Ayaan Hirsi Ali, doesn't make them "not Muslim" and I don't see that it in any way should be wrong to call them that. -- Karl Meier 13:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: * Karl, it is very wrong to blanket refer to Muslim threats. Muslims the world over are as varied as ethnicities. Your initial logic in this regard is a bit like saying that George W. Bush has to maintain a high level of security due to caucasian threats. Rather ridiculous no?  (A better line would be: George W. Bush has to maintain a high level of security due to White supremacist threats.) Also your logic about what people refer to themselves relative to what others refer to them does not appear to demonstrate a reasonable grasp about how names and associations work. Do you think Hitler ever referred to himself as a genocidal killer? In terms of this discussion all that matters when writing Wikipedia articles is that verifiable and notable souces are cited using given terminology. Netscott 14:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree. There is no CareBear-paragraph on this site which claims that all articles must only refer to people by what they refer to themselves as, and be tolerant of various crazed views. If that was the case, the Muhammad cartoons would surely be gone by now. Wikipedia is an informative site, not a mediator between conflicting cultures or whatever it is you envision. Joffeloff 20:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim or Islamist? 

message: I removed a citation of www.vvd.nl from the References section because (A) it was manually and incorrectly numbered; (B) inclusion in this section with a number implies a specific citation in the article, and I found no such citation; and (C) it is already included as the first line in External links as Ayaan Hirsi Ali's official website. (It should be tagged with the language it uses, which I assume is Dutch — not Norwegian as I erroneously stated in my edit summary. D'oh!) If one wants to put it back into References, it should either be a general (not numbered) reference citation, like:
 * 
Two notes:
# This looks like a dynamic news page, so if it is to be used as a reference, permalinks to specific information are recommended. These should included article/item titles and publication dates (see  for how to add these).
# The actual website title should be used instead of "Ayaan Hirsi Ali's official website". I've provided what I think is the English translation of the Dutch description (courtesy of Alexa.com and freetranslation.com).
~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, which is it? Oh, ayaanhirsiali.nl is just a forward to www.vvd.nl, which is the website for the political party she is/was a member of. Don't link to redirects or forwards please! Kim Bruning 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am quite certain vvd.nl is not Ayaan Hirsi Alis personal website, for some strange reason. :-P Kim Bruning 11:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing www.vvd.ml 

message: I removed the following sentences from the circumcision section on the grounds that this is an article about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, not female circumcision so a discussion about the non-Islamic nature of the practice does not belong here. The cite does not refer to Ayaan or Holland but is quite general. The reader can go to the linked female circumcision article if they are interested.
:Female circumcision is not part of the Islamic religion. Islamic scholars note that Islamic law prohibits  clitorodectomy (partial or complete) or infibulation, or any genital mutilation which impairs the woman's ability to enjoy sexual relations.
Ashmoo 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision 'rebuttal' 

message: The night of May 16 some of the most interesting pieces of political debate were displayed Dutch Parliament. The players were minister Rita Verdonk versus the rest.
Rita Verdonk, Dutch minister of Integration (and 'vreemdelingenzaken'=foreigners ...) and VVD party colleague of Hirsi Ali did not stay as consequent in a parlamentarial debate - which took 8-9 hours in three rounds today -  as her nickname Iron Rita might suggest. Rita Verdonk turned around 180 degrees and is now willing to investigate which exceptional arguments might exists in order not to simply 'have to state' - without taking an appealable decision of her own - that Ayaan Hirsi Ali 'would have never actually rightfully received Dutch citizenship' as she wasn't fully correct  about her name (please notice that her identity was not questioned) and date of birth. This sounded as lipservice to many of the parlamentarians who lined up to ask questions and question her credibility and the meticulousness of the investigation which was finalized within 48 hours.
Some hours after the start of the debate, Verdonk astonished many by stating that Hirsi Ali still had Dutch citizenship until the end of 6 weeks. 
It was pointed out that this opposed diametrically earlier impressions given by Verdonk.
If true, than there was no need for Hirsi Ali to resign from her position in Dutch Parliament. The main objection and criticism of Verdonk's way of dealing with the procedure was carelessnes and negligence.
The motion - supported by a very broad majority of the parliament - presented to minister Verdonk gave her explicitely the 'legal space' to investigate, which she denied to have for many hours of the debate. 
The second round of the debate showed an incredible stamina of minister Verdonk to stay rigid and having no other choice than than that what the law imposed to her. 
Her answers to the many questions appeared evading and repetituous to political leeks, but didn't convice the faction leaders of (all) other party leaders either, including her own VVD.
A third round of parlamentarial debate was required by coalition CDA faction leader Verhagen which started 2 o'clock midnight.
Verdonk's agreement to look into the matters again with the given 'legal space' of the parliament appeared to be driven by the wish to survive politically as she is a candidate for leadership in the next elections. She declared to reporters that she does not feel politically dammaged. 
While she might be elected by her own party as leader for the coming election as half of the votes are already given (the contender is M. Rutte) and cannot be changed,
it is likely that the image of her party VVD is indeed dammaged.
Verdonk's attempt to profile herself as strong 'macha' (female macho) who puts the rules over all other considerations might be counterproductive. Voters might not like persons who let prevail personal ambitions over the back and political lives of others (Hirsi Ali). A returning question was therefore whether Verdonk took the very fast steps to present the over-the-weekend investigation in public to the parliament for her own political ambitions. It was also pointed out (Femke Halsema) that the Parliament didn't want and needed to be informed that early or at all at this time (if it was only a constatation and not a decision) as Hirsi Ali lost her MP in consequence.
The issue started last week when Rita Verdonk issued an investigation about Hirsi Ali using an incorrect name and birth date during the immigration procedure a decade before.
Minister Verdonk claimed only to have acquired knowledge about that fact after TV emission 'Zembla'. A large part of Dutch population was aware of that fact by Ayaan Hirsi Ali's own statements in her book and another TV discussion round several years before. Femke Halsema pointed out that Hirsi Ali's parlamentarial e-mail address is ...magan@..., whereupon party colleague Verdonk claimed (functionally?) angry and emotional never to have had e-mail contact with her. A minister does not only comprise the person fulfilling the ministership but also her staff and civil servants at the ministry. The ignorance appeared very incredible. (addition: Was there an investigation (by Halsema or other parties?) What was the outcome of this investigation?
Was it limited to minister Verdonk's own e-mail account? Did it include other e-mail accounts of her ministry? Tommie 12:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parlamentarial Debate 

message: If other sources are available the I think we should rather not use De Telegraaf. Andries 20:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you provided absolutely no reasons, we can only assume that you don't like De Telegraaf for some reason and would like it to not be used as source since it may have a different point of view than yours. If you believe that De Telegraaf is too sensationalist to be seen as credible source, then you should state so in your request! —Michiel Sikma, 11:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike De Telegraaf because of its sloppy, sometimes subjective journalism and sensationalism and that is a good reason not to use it in Wikipedia as a source. It is not the right-wing stance that I have a problem with: I find the NRC Handelsblad right winged too, but I like the newspaper and find its journalism is good. Andries 12:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right-winged? The great thing about the NRC Handelsblad is the fact that it doesn't take that much of a stance. It leaves a lot of room for personal opinion and interpretation of the reader. That's why I like to read it. But I guess it doesn't matter too much in the end. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 21:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we please avoid [[De Telegraaf]] as a source? 

message: Does there still have to be a mention of Ayaan Hirsi Ali as being a Dutch politician as she is no longer Dutch, or a politician at all?
:Well has-beens count too so she could be in some politician category. But not Dutch since she never has been Dutch. --84.30.97.206 16:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, she is still Dutch at the moment. Didn't you read any of the sources that are listed in the article, or watch the debate on Dutch television if you live in the Netherlands? —Michiel Sikma, 11:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Trotzkij was still Russian, even after Stalin had him expatriated, wouldn't you agree? -- Stiip 23:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch politician 

message: Isn't she a lesbian? -- 24.214.43.55 20:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You're thinking of Irshad Manji, I bet.--Chris 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lesbian? 

message: "Female circumcision is a part of certain cultures in some Islamic countries, including Kenya and Somalia, where she lived ..."
Does this mean to say that female circumcision is practiced by certain Islamic cultures within Kenya, but not by non-Islamic cultures in the same country?  Because it appears to read that Kenya is an "Islamic country," which is hardly accurate.  --208.101.137.72 21:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is that we can't get too much into the background of Female Circumcision.  I think that the article at least makes reference to the fact that most muslim cultures do not practice FGM.  Maybe community is a better word than culture.  A community is group of people living in a particular local area where culture means something a little broader.--Dr.Worm 21:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I added a citation, although this is only a minor point in the article.--Dr.Worm 22:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for rewording ... I wasn't looking for a demographic history of either Kenya or the practice on a whole; just a rephrasing which referenced itself a little more clearly.  --208.101.137.72 05:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kenya? 

message: I find the current picture on the Main Page to be much less flatterring than the one originally up there, the first picture at the top of the article. The one on the Main Page portrays her as less serious and looks like a headshot one might see for an actor or actress from the 1980's. The one on the article makes her look professional and actually like a parliament member. Stephen 22:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well she isnt a MP anymore, so the current picture -of this article- is counterfactual. I agree the picture on the main page isnt everything. Rather see one from the Time Magazine awards ceremony. There are actually even less flattering pictures of Hirsi Ali around, from the early 90s. Intangible 22:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture just lets us see what she looks like.  I say leave it in, because the one thing she is going to be most famous for is being MP.--Dr.Worm 22:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Picture on Main Page 

message: Shes a great deciever. I don't care whether anyone will belive me, but Ayaan has never in her life stepped foot in Somalia. The places she has resided are Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Kenya and Europe. She comes from a well-to-do family that are untraditional and never forced her to marry, as she claims they did. 
I'm pretty close to her family.
:Obviously, so close that you can't even afford to mention your nickname or IP here. -- Stiip 23:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathological Lier 

message: I deleted the letter that said Hirsi Ali was still welcome at the AEL. It did not give any additional information. S710 20:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter deletion 

message: Netscott revert my edits to the migration section. I nuanced a blatantly POV, insulting and not to the point section, which called Hirsi Ali Hirsi Magan, and which did not take into account the recent Opzij interview. I'm re-inserting it. -- C mon 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you at least replace it with some decent English? Also avoid the weasel words that it was filled with? Netscott 21:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, when discussing people entering and leaving a country we're talking about immigration. Human migration primarily deals with mass movements of people thoughout history. Netscott 21:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was filled with "weasel words" because in the case of the phone call it is Hirsi Ali's case versus Verdonk's, I wasn't present at the phone call, so I can't say what Verdonk has said, were you? But I've removed them. Next time please discuss reverting some ones changes at the talk page! -- C mon 21:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compared with what you replaced the relatively small amount of text you entered looked poor without even having to research it. With vernacular errors and weasel words it made more sense to just replace it. Netscott 21:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just tried to edit what you've re-entered but on the face of it , the text seems rather dubious and not well supported/cited. Netscott 22:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration section 

message: I've put the current event tag on, because the debate on the nationalization process of Hirsi Ali has caused a cabinet crisis in Holland, with the possibility of the second Balkenende cabinet resigning. Intangible 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an English language article about it . The parliamentary debate continues, but it looks pretty clear the second Balkenende cabinet will resign. What a great story. Intangible 15:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And another one . Intangible 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, but the reason for this crisis is the fact that Hirsi Ali was pressurized by the Dutch government to sign a letter that made Verdonk look good. So these consequences should be added to this article. But I'll wait until the debate has finished. Intangible 16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't forget that Prime Minister Balkenende made a gaff by saying himself it was a "political deal" basically in the debate of June 29, 2006. Intangible 00:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it seems possible that Balkenende wanted Ayaan Hirsi to retain her citizenship, but also had to avoid making Verdonk look bad. She couldn't be seen to be deviating from her "rules are rules" approach to asylum applications now that the asylum seeker was a parliamentarian and political celebrity. This was pretty much an impossible task. It shouldn't be surprising that the cabinet resigned and not just Verdonk. Peking Duck 07:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch cabinet crisis 

message: I am trying to give at least one quote for each section subsets of "Political views". This might be obvious to some, if so I want to make it clear that I am not doing this arbitrarily. (please) Help if you could. --Oskart 20:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes for "Political views" 

message: Please, someone, tell me why this photograph has been removed??:
< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali&oldid=61453868 >;
< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali&limit=500&action=history >.
Thank You.
Hopiakuta 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the above section of talk. (→Netscott) 03:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, 

message: This article falsly claim that she was ex-muslim. There are lot of evidence out there that she wasn't a Muslim at the first place. Her father left Islam when he was living in the West. She was given a choice to pick any religion. Her brother picked Christianity, but she didn't any religion herself. She pretended to be a Muslim to get visa to Western countries since she is claiming that she is fleeing from a force marriage, and the West think Muslim treat women badly and she knew that and it would easy for to convince the Embassy if she was Muslim rather Christian or something. That's why she changed last name from Morgan to Ali and claimed that she is from Somalia but didn't mention Kenya in which she lived her most of her life for the embassy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarikur (talk • contribs).
:Look this article is currently rated A-class. In order to retain the quality in this article, new additions (especially if they might be controversial) need sources right away. You have not presented any sources, while various Wikipedia guidelines, like WP:NPOV and WP:BIO, call for this. Intangible 20:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop adding the apostate controversy to the article! Wikipedia operates with a Neutral Point of View, adding a "Muslim perspective" does not make the article more neutral. If you have problems with the neutrality of the article, please post them here or make referenced, neutral contributions to the article. C mon 06:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the bias reporting, be fair what Muslims think by adding Apostate controversy 

message: I am reinserting the reference to the hadith. There is no interpretation required for these verses. If you had looked at some of the wikipedia articles on this you would already know what I am talking about, but because you haven't I will link them. Here (one of the many references in Bukhari's hadith) and here (a reference in the Sahih Muslim).
:First, please assume good faith! Do not call each action of an editor vandalism. I structured and wrote most of this article, I am not a vandal!
:Second I will accept your edit for now, (although I've rearranged it to prevent linking away from wikipedia in the text according to AWB), but expect that some one will find your interpretation offensive to islam. Independent of whether it's spelt out in English translation of the Hadith, you can still interpret the passage differently. I would advise you to read Aisha's age at marriage at wikipedia.
:On a final note that the Aisha's age at marriage should be discussed there and not on the Hirsi Ali article. Happy editing! C mon 09:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if someone could possibly find something offensive to Islam, EVEN QUOTES FROM THEIR OWN HOLY BOOKS, WITH NO HINT OF PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, it must be removed. I see. It all makes sense now. You removed the piece of information that you apparently didn't know, which is that the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are the most highly esteemed hadith collections in Sunni Islam. I can live with that as most wikipedia articles not directly related to Islam suppress the names of the hadith, but I think your political correctness has run amok. And if someone removes something for no good reason, I consider that vandalism. Arrow740 10:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So we have different views, which we will never reconcile, but can you live with the way the text is currently arranged? C mon 11:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Arrow740 21:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  C Mon's vandalism 

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: The introduction is not neutral. In the discussion about her citizenship only her letter to the New york Times is mentioned, not the objections of others to its contents. Her mea - culpa declaration is called a  "dictate", not the arguments of minister Verdonk. The introduction is concluded by the sentence "Her prospective arrival in September 2006 was welcomed by U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick." Reads like an advertisement and is clearly intended to draw attention from something the speaker doesn't want emphasized, namely that she left parliament prematurely.S710 13:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: "When she was six, her father escaped from prison and her family subsequently fled the country as political refugees. Initially they moved to Saudi Arabia, but after three years the Saudis expelled them, again due to her father's political activities. They then moved to Ethiopia, which, as the center of opposition to Siad Barre, welcomed them. But it was also somewhat dangerous for the family, so they immigrated to the much more stable and safe Kenya, where they obtained political asylum." 
I removed the above story as it was unreferenced since long, and seems to be just fancy POV with lot of weasel words
"Throughout their teenage years, she and her sister turned to reading as a pastime, as every weekend and evening they were locked inside by their mother.[citation needed] It was in these books that Ayaan would be exposed to Western culture and values for the first time, including the Nancy Drew series, which portrayed a fictional female character who solved mysteries and operated freely as an equal to her male counterparts. According to Hirsi Ali, these stories would play a pivotal role in her redefining what it meant to be a Westerner.[citation needed]"
Seems like a hollywood script where she plays the heroine and could make it to the main page of the website of some Xenophobic scandinavian political party websites. I removed it because it is unreferenced since months. Zencv (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youth 

message: We're having some disruptive edits again, this time by Zencv. For example, he or she added She has received several awards for her work from right wing political parties and organizations in Europe, while these awards are for example from Time & Reader's digest. Hardly "right wing political parties and organizations in Europe". Judging from spelling errors and strategy, I suspect it's a sockpuppet of a user that was banned some time ago. Comments? Tomixdf (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, this definitely looks like it could be a WP:SOCK of Leaveout. I'll ask an admin to help. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive edits again 

message: Lot of POV and OR are presented as facts, all based on a single source which was interestingly from Hirsi itself. I added the "she claims" word before those sentences which are from those sources, because it cannot be verified using independent sources. I also added  tag for the story of aunt's advice because, the source provided was a Dutch weblog and this is English Wiki Zencv (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early career 

message: It certainly can be.  But just as certainly, it need not be so.
"Controversial" has a definition, and this woman—of whom I am a huge fan, by the way—meets it all the way and then some.  The controversy surrounding her beliefs and personal history tore apart the Dutch government, the controversy over her movie and her collaborator's subsequent murder polarized Muslims.  She is as controversial as they come.
Now I know that some regard the word "controversial" as inherently pujorative.  And some people have used it that way.  But its true meaning is objective, and in the context here, is perfectly apropos. Unschool (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes, and I would also argue that not only is the use of the word appropriate, it is preferred, per WP:LEAD.  A reader who reads this entire article will eventually pick up on the fact that she is indeed, the center of much controversy.  But WP:LEAD tells us that the reader should know this from the beginning—even from the first sentence, if possible.  We need to make sure that the reader immediately picks up on what makes this subject notable, including controversy, from the start. Unschool (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let the reader draw their own conclusion from reading the article. That word doesn't need to be in the lead sentence. Kelly hi! 18:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a critical element of who she is.  You fail to address my points re WP:LEAD.  And it is not POV, because WP:NPOV is intended to keep us from taking sides or indicating favor—it is neither criticizing her nor praising her to indicate that she is controversial, because she is.  She acknowledges it, her allies acknowledge it, her enemies acknowledge it.  Frankly, (and forgive me, I'm not trying to be uncivil here) it comes across as a bit ignorant to assert that it is POV to call someone controversial who is recognized as controversial by all persons concerned. Unschool (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think subjective qualifiers like this are almost never necessary, especially in the lede. There must be some other way of addressing her controversial-ness in the lede without using a word that's so subjective and generally pejorative.--Cúchullain t/c 17:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I disagree that the use of this term is in any way inappropriate, I do concede that superior writing might get across the point without invoking such a term that we both concur is taken—rightly or wrongly—as having a pejorative connotation.  I'll give it some thought. Unschool (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the word "controversial" POV? 

message: There is a single dubious - discuss tag in the article, in the section on Social and political views > Muhammad, and the tag should be dealt with and removed. At the moment the tag marks a run-on from a quote, and it is not clear whether the unquoted statement can be attributed to Hirst Ali or not. If Hirsi Ali actually ever gave reasons for her statement on perversion, those reasons should be quoted, or paraphrased and explicitly attributed to her. Anything else is speculation as to her reasons for her statement, which I think has to be classified as original research, and therefore removed from the article. On the other hand, if someone else of repute has attributed those reasons to her statement (even if she didn't), that could be referred to.  Another possibility is that she did use those reasons for her statement but the facts of what she said (for example the ages) are not consistent with the views of most religious scholars, in which case this inconsistency/controversy should be stated (and the reasons attributed to her explicitly, as I already said). If she didn't say this at all (the presently unquoted text), and the statement about Muhammad (for example the ages) are not consistent with the views of most religious scholars, the rest of the sentence after her quote should be removed immediately since it would be non-factual and POV. 86.9.201.247 (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the article in question, and she does not say exactly that, but it is close. http://www.trouw.nl/achtergrond/Dossiers/article1431856.ece Article is in Dutch, the translated text goes as follows: "And worse still: he fell in love with Aisha, the nine-year-old daughter of his best friend. Her father said: 'Please wait until she reaches puberty,' but Mohammed didn't want to wait that long. He gets a message from Allah that Aisha has to be prepared for him. That is apparently the teachings of Mohammed: It is permissible to be with the child of your best friend. Mohammed is measured by our Western standards as a perverse man." Buhgoil (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Dubious'' tag should be removed 

message: The last paragraph in the section on Social and political views > Circumcision is sloppy and needs to be written. It has problems with tense, grammar, and use of slang. Since the article is semi-locked I can't make any changes to the article myself, so could someone else fix it? 86.9.201.247 (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''kid's'' is slang 

message: The article lists "100 Most Influential Persons of the World" as an "award".[
http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/2005/time100/leaders/100ali.html] But that list only notes notable persons, not great ones, and as such it also lists Al-Qaeda's Zarqawi. The TIME's list can hardly be considered an award.Bless sins (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TIME award 

message: Change #1: Section: Biography - Youth
(The implied reference nation is still Somalia.  One might think the the article states that Nairobi is the capital of Somalia)
 Please change "They settled in the capital, Nairobi" to "They settled in the capital of Kenya, Nairobi"
The context of the sentence is still Somalia, so it is insufficient to state only that they settled in the capitol when the city specified is Nairobi (because the capitol of the nation in context is Mogadishu). The context change must be stated explicitly.
:Changed it to "They settled in Nairobi, Kenya," as I think it sounds better, and the fact that it is the capitol adds nothing relevant. —Jomasecu (t•c) 04:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital City Clarification 

message: * 18:16, 31 January 2008 AzaToth changed protection level for "Ayaan Hirsi Ali" ‎ (target of a blocked sockpuppeteer [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
As over 18 months have passed, and the article was removed from the BLP watchlist by BLPWatchBot back in September, I'm reviewing whether semiprotection is still necessary.  As well as welcoming the opinions of regular editors, I've contacted the protecting admin, AzaToth. --TS 10:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was just removed from the watchlist, I would agree we can lift the protection, though if the sock decides to return, we'll need to protect it again (unless we can get flagged revs up and running first :)) →AzaToth 10:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we unprotect I'll be watching vigilantly and will revert any problematic edits, and ask a sysop to restore protection if necessary. --TS 12:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: unprotected. →AzaToth 12:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection review 

message: In order to clean up the external links with this article, I suggest to remove all links except these three:
*Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the battle against the radical Islam, personal weblog
*The AHA Foundation, organization fighting the abuses of women's rights in the name of fundamentalist Islam
*Ayaan Hirsi Ali, profile at the American Enterprise Institute
Rubenescio (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed all other external links and removed the clean up template. Rubenescio (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I applaud the removal of excessive external links, the use of the  leaves a bit of space to balance out if you want to restore one or two. 86.41.80.244 (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Under "Public Statements" one can read:
"In 2003 Hirsi Ali worked together with fellow VVD MP Geert Wilders for several months. They questioned the government about immigration policy. In reaction to the UNDP Arab Human Development Report Hirsi Ali asked the following question of Minister of Foreign Affairs Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and the Minister without Portfolio for Development Cooperation Agnes van Ardenne. Together with parliamentarian Geert Wilders she asked the government to pay attention to the consequences for Dutch policy concerning the limitation of immigration from the Arab world to Europe, and in particular The Netherlands."
Obviously something's been lost here between edits by different people. We never get to hear what questions or criticisms Hirsi Ali and Wilders put, nor if it's the same hearing as the one referred to with the two ministers, Scheffer and van Ardenne. Is all of this section about one event, when they urged the cabinet to pay attention to the immigration of muslims (as at the end of the quoted pasage)? Could be, but there's no certainty and anyway all of this should be sourced. Strausszek (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question/s by Hirsi Ali and Wilders - which questions? 

message: Substituted at 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment