Talk:Islam/External links

message: (as of 23:03, 23 July 2005)
*Grenavitar: Addition of a "general links" section, and which sites it should contain, ought to be discussed first.
*Anonymous editor: The links posted were not permanent, and other editors who wish to insert informative links which are not POV-based should feel free to do so. Many readers are not going to use the directories, so perhaps some such links should be here instead. 
*Grenavitar: What is factual and what is POV based is subjective and will thus create problems. The directory solution is a good one, but a balanced general links section might be in order as well. 
*Anonymous editor: What are the other regular editors' opinions on this? Should this article have general informative links? If so, which? 
*Zora There were once dozens of links, to different sects, to different teachers, and more were being added each day. Anyone who wanted more publicity for his/her preferred version of Islam was adding a link. Any efforts at selectivity provoked shouts of discrimination. Everyone agreed that sticking to the directories was the best idea, and we should stick to it. Links have been allowed to proliferate freely on the pages for the various sects/versions of Islam. 
===July 3===
*Anonymous: Factual external links about Islam should be added to the article. www.faithfreedom.org/links.htm is one such link and was added to the directories of critical viewpoints; why was it removed? The links there are more extensive than anything given in the other directories. Faithfreedom is clearly anti-Islam and its links are to various critics of Islam.  
*Mirv: The dmoz directories are more extensive, better-categorized, more multilingual, and already include faithfreedom.org, among other sites. Long ago, this article had a bloated link list, which would have been longer if not for periodic trimming. Zora removed most of the links, I added the directories, and all agreed that this was the sensible thing to do. There are link pages on other sites similar to the one on faithfreedom, e.g. http://bismikaallahuma.org/Archive/links.htm and http://islamfortoday.com/special.htm . None of them should be included either.
*Anonymous: The dmoz directory has 27 entries critical of Islam in general. The rest are essentially links to Islamic sites. The other sites in the "opposing views" subdirectories are broken down thus: Ahamadiyya(32), Deendar Anjuman (2), Islamism (22), Nation of Islam (19), Quranites (1), Shia (3), Submitters (3), Sufism (13), Sunni (3). These are all essentially pro-Islamic sites. There are also subdirectories for Christian Views (20), Ex-Muslim views(3), Hindu Views (3), and Jewish Views (1). Faithfreedom links to 74 sites. Perhaps four or five of these are also included in dmoz. Readers should have the best information available. The bickering on this page [ed: Talk:Islam is meant] clearly shows plenty of sectarian issues within Islam, and the contra-views of Islam are needed to understand the passion demonstrated.  Compare the link section of Hinduism; a few more links here will not hurt.
*Farhansher: A serious encyclopedia should not include links to uninformative hate sites like faithfreedom. It should stick to reasoned and informative pages. The external link section of Hinduism does not include anything comparable to faithfreedom. 
*Zora faithfreedom should not get any special treatment. Rather than link directly to sites about Islam in general (except for academic sites and sites about non-controversial specific topics), we link to directories, which have the space and the mission to be completely inclusive. Anyone who goes to the directories will find ALL the sites. 
*Dbachmann: faithfreedom appears to be a site about Islamism. At first glance, it contains very cheap and sarcastic Islam-bashing, and it has certainly no theological relevance. It may fit on Islamism but would probably be more appropriate on Islamophobia. Just like we don't link to pure proselytizing sites, we don't link to fearmonging sites. 
*Urchid The links on FaithFreedom belong on this page. 
*Nickbee: The issue is not whether you agree with Faithfreedom or not.  The point is that the link page at FFI has more relevant and varied links than at dmoz. dmoz is not more comprehensive and there are not too many links here; Hinduism has 4 or 5 times more. There are many people who agree with the POV expressed in the faithfreedom link, as is evident by the number of sites and their readership, so a link should be provided. Is this really "special treatment"? 
*Mirv: As Zora explains, it was long ago decided not to link to any sectarian sites from this page, but rather to use the non-sectarian directories. Selection among the thousands of pro- and anti-Islamic websites should not be subject to the whims and biases of editors: this would lead to endless fighting over which links to include and exclude. Passing the job of link selection off to dmoz and other directories allows us to include all sorts of sites without bias. 
*Dbachmann: Just because it's anti-Islamic doesn't make faithfreedom a quality site. We won't accept any cheesy islamist proselytization links either. 
*Urchid: faithfreedom provides a legitimate counter POV for this article and deserves to be presented. 
*Nickbee: This policy on external links is not uniformly applied; Hinduism, for example, has proselytizing links. I am not linking to Faithfreedom directly, but to a page that contains 74 links to contra-views on Islam.  These links are not available to readers. Are there link directories on other sites? Are those listed in dmoz? If not, then they should be included. Should a good encyclopedia not offer access to information that is available out there?  Why deny an external link to a page that obviously has significant readership? 
*Dbachmann: The consensus arrived at on this article, which has a long history of pov-pushers trying to add their precious websites, was to be restrictive about biased links. This doesn't necessarily hold for other articles, although as a rule, the farther out your site, the smaller the chance of inclusion. 
*Mustafaa: This is supposed to be an enyclopedia. Would Britannica, say, link to "faithfreedom.org"?  Links like these only reduce Wikipedia's credibility. As for the Hinduism article, perhaps its link section should be pruned
*Mirv: Reiterate Dbachmann's point that this is not a policy, but a longstanding consensus among the regular editors of this page. The link to faithfreedom may not be to its front page, but it is to a page with www.faithfreedom.org in the URL which is closely linked to the rest of the pages on the site. The directories link to many sites with contra-views (including faithfreedom), which themselves link to similar sites, and so on. The links are still available, they just require two more clicks to reach. Other sites have link directories; none of them should be included either. [Recap of previous arguments against including anything but the directories trimmed.] 
*Nickbee: There is no need to link to all the sites. The number of sites about Islam is finite, and the contra views are not many, and that is why the collection of contra views of Islam on the link page at FFI is valuable. Wikipedia is not Britannica; it is supposed to be better. Providing a link to a page that has useful information is required for Wikipedia to be successful. There is no policy that links can only be provided by dmoz. 
*Grenavitar: Wikipedia's success is not the issue.  Faithfreedom offers little relevance in religious debate. Comparing a typical encyclopedia article on Islam might be helpful.
*Nickbee: If success is not the issue then why not include a good contra-view to the topic in the external links?  
*Dbachmann: Why not? It is not a good link; in fact, it is godawful, full of absurd hate. Get it listed in any of the linked directories, and people can reach it from here in two clicks. 
*BrandonYusufToropov: Wikipedia's success is due to the perception that it is (generally) trustworthy. Why? Because there are guidelines, traditions, and structural safeguards here that stand in contrast to the bias that is so rampant elsewhere, and all too evident on partisan sites like ff. If one asks "How come the editors at (to use a conservative example) The Wall Street Journal don't run front-page op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge?" Because front-page op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge are the opposite of what the Wall Street Journal is. If it started running op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge, it wouldn't be the Wall Street Journal anymore. 
*Dbachmann: True, except the WSJ is not a good example; most of its articles would be torn to pieces on Wikipedia in a matter of minutes for being ridiculously biased and rife with strawmen. 
*BrandonYusufToropov: Agreed.
*Nickbee: Some editors may not consider the site "good", but others do.
===July 13===
*Nickbee: There is an article on Ali Sina, who runs FFI, but a good source that he provides is not linked here. Why?  He is an ex-Muslim who must have had a good reason for leaving Islam; why shouldn't his viewpoint be represented? 
*Grenavitar: An ex-Muslim does not necessarily make a better scholar on Islam than a secularist or Muslim.  Anyone who has researched the sources knows about Islam, completely independent of what religion the person is.  A typical Muslim might know more about ritual, but that does not mean they know more about theology.  
*Dbachmann: faithfreedom.org is linked from Ali Sina, where it belongs. 
*Nickbee: Removal of the link is censorship. 
*Grenavitar: Try reading a real paper encyclopedia.  See how that treats Islam, and what it says about it.  Hopefully that will tell you something about the use of FFI links.  If that fails, try adding a KKK external link over at African Americans.  That's a far more notable critique of black Americaness than Ali Sina's stuff is of Islam.  
*Dbachmann: This is going nowhere. Not listing the link here is no more censorship than the New York Times refusing to print someone's columns on its front page. 
===July 17===
*Anonymous: Link to any or all pro-Islam sites, fine, but link to anti-Islam sites as well. 
*Dbachmann: ffi.org is a site of an alleged apostate, so perhaps the link could be added to Apostasy in Islam, where at least it will be relevant (and there are only two links there so far, so pruning is not yet an issue). Insisting on putting it here demonstrates Wikipedia:Main article fixation. 
*Anonymous: The POV on Islam held by ex-Muslims and apostates should be expressed here, even if only in an external link. 
*Nickbee The views on Islam of Irshad Manji, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Dr. Yunus Sheik, Robert Spencer, SecularIslam.org, etc., need at least an external link.  
*Zora: Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq are simply not in the same league. Ibn Warraq doesn't engage in cheap hate speech and uses his books to present useful selections from academic viewpoints on Islam. His books are found in many of the reference lists in the Islamic articles. Of course, they are regularly purged by anon editors, presumably Muslim, who object to his presence, and just as often restored by me or another editor. You can't leap from "my favorite demagogue isn't featured" to "no criticism is allowed". 
*Nickbee: How about Robert Spencer, SecularIslam, Dr. Yunus Sheik, and others?  Why not link to a list of links provided by Robert Spencer?  A list of links to the POV of Ex-muslims is a useful addition to this article.  
*Zora: Ibn Warraq is an ex-Muslim. His first book was Why I Am Not A Muslim. He publishes under a pseudonym because he's afraid of assassination. Is that authentic enough? There are also separate articles on Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji. 
*Dbachmann: By all means, write an article on Christian converts from Islam, and we can link it from the see also. My prediction is that Muslim converts from Christianity will immediately follow, but then the dispute will at least finally take some sort of productive form. 
*Dbachmann: Consensus against the ffi link seems clear. Further addition of the link is in violation of policy. (ᛏ) 19:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[Talk:Islam]]

message: *Anonymous: Link to any or all pro-Islam sites, fine, but link to anti-Islam sites as well. 
*Dbachmann: ffi.org is a site of an alleged apostate, so perhaps the link could be added to Apostasy in Islam, where at least it will be relevant (and there are only two links there so far, so pruning is not yet an issue). Insisting on putting it here demonstrates Wikipedia:Main article fixation. 
*Anonymous: The POV on Islam held by ex-Muslims and apostates should be expressed here, even if only in an external link. 
*Nickbee The views on Islam of Irshad Manji, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Dr. Yunus Sheik, Robert Spencer, SecularIslam.org, etc., need at least an external link.  
*Zora: Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq are simply not in the same league. Ibn Warraq doesn't engage in cheap hate speech and uses his books to present useful selections from academic viewpoints on Islam. His books are found in many of the reference lists in the Islamic articles. Of course, they are regularly purged by anon editors, presumably Muslim, who object to his presence, and just as often restored by me or another editor. You can't leap from "my favorite demagogue isn't featured" to "no criticism is allowed". 
*Nickbee: How about Robert Spencer, SecularIslam, Dr. Yunus Sheik, and others?  Why not link to a list of links provided by Robert Spencer?  A list of links to the POV of Ex-muslims is a useful addition to this article.  
*Zora: Ibn Warraq is an ex-Muslim. His first book was Why I Am Not A Muslim. He publishes under a pseudonym because he's afraid of assassination. Is that authentic enough? There are also separate articles on Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji. 
*Dbachmann: By all means, write an article on Christian converts from Islam, and we can link it from the see also. My prediction is that Muslim converts from Christianity will immediately follow, but then the dispute will at least finally take some sort of productive form. 
*Dbachmann: Consensus against the ffi link seems clear. Further addition of the link is in violation of policy. (ᛏ) 19:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: July 17

message: *Zora All the pro-Islam websites are linked through the DMOZ directory. All the anti-Islam websites are linked though the DMOZ directory. There is no discrimination against faithfreedom, but neither is it getting any special treatment.
*Ericd: What about adding similar links in the articles of other religions, as I have done in Christianity? Ericd 22:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: July 20

message: So, as I see it, there are two basic lines of argument here:
#The first is that we should stick with something like the current list, which has been in place since last October: instead of including any sites with an agenda, whether pro or contra, treat all of them equally by linking to the two dmoz lists. The reasons: 
##There are thousands of sites with an agenda, pro or anti, apologetic or polemical.
##This page cannot link to all of them. Wikipedia is not a link repository, and even a selection no larger than that in the dmoz lists would be far too much for this article. Selectivity would be necessary. Such selectivity would be an editorial bias. Each and every site would spark an argument every time someone tried to add or remove it, so such arguments would be endless. 
##dmoz is set up as a link repository and is reasonably inclusive and neutral. 
##If we leave the selection of sites up to a third party which is A) reasonably neutral and B) better-equipped to handle it, then we obviate the endless arguments over which links to include and which to exclude. The reader is offered a selection of sites far larger than anything this article could reasonably contain, and all are an equal number of clicks away. 
##Therefore, we should link only the dmoz lists.
#The second is that we should include agenda-driven links like http://www.faithfreedom.org/links.htm and http://www.faithfreedom.org/library.htm, whether that agenda be pro- or anti-Islamic, and leave the selection up to editors. The reasons: 
##The information and perspectives on these pages should be available to the reader.
##These pages contain links and information that are not linked directly from the dmoz lists.
##Therefore, pages like this should be linked directly from this article. 
Each of these seems to have been argued thoroughly without reaching a consensus. Is it time for a poll? Would further discussion of these two arguments be helpful? Are the summaries fair? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recap, and is it time for a poll?